What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- brexians, on 11/11/2008, -47/+159and a brave new money pit.....
- embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -29/+1i am both of these things. digg me down if you want to get smote.
- cygnus2112, on 11/12/2008, -2/+14embryodb,
You're a new pit? - bodisatvah, on 11/12/2008, -15/+3So now the free market isn't smart enough?
- embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -15/+4ever play magic cards? remember back in the day that one really good black card? what was it called?
oh golly they remade it
http://www.wizards.com/magic/autocard.asp?name=Lor ...- slvrbullet87, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4dugg because i am shuffling my elf deck right now
- Lythium, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5Wow... spam is getting pretty creative these days. Too bad the concept of "on-topic" is still beyond the bots.
- embryodb, on 11/14/2008, -1/+1"You're a new pit?"
it is on topic you ***** go die
- embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -18/+2ps dont say i didnt ***** warn you ***** imbeciles jesus god damn titty ***** christ just trying to get something through your thick neanderthal skulls is like trying to climb mt zion
or mt olympus for that matter
point being, ***** you people have a *****, *****, ***** day.
your turn.- oninbonin, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5Your meds?
- embryodb, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1takin em. what are you trying to say? are you trying to insult me? seriously? why would you do that? what motivates you to be a total ***** douchebag prick ***** cockgoblin whoremonkey cumdumbster pillowbiting *****?
- DagonNL, on 11/12/2008, -14/+8Actually, I am bothered about that nonsense I have been hearing about the Bubonic Plague. Our leaders desire to do all sorts of nonsense about this new threat. It's a money pit. I for one would like to see some evidence this Black Plague stuff is not some contrived threat our leaders are using to tax us or push through all kinds of laws. I think that Bubonic Plague stuff is a bandwagon, and in a few years it will be forgotten as yet another fad.
- anonymous middle ager who just wanted to go on live in an open sewer just as he has always done and doesnt want to get bothered.- darladoon, on 11/12/2008, -4/+1so, let's see, our leaders want to tax us in order to push through all kinds of laws? that makes no sense.
- embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -6/+2thats what the double helix is for.
- wendelgee2, on 11/12/2008, -3/+7And a brave new economic engine.
- embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -8/+1so what youre saying is that i win?
or is it win win
Why should I wanna hurt my brother just for vanities?
Why should I wanna hurt my sister for the least of things?
When I know I and I lives and reign and rule over everything
Nothing nor no-one gonna stop us now from doing the right thing - embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -10/+1100th post!!! w007 1337zors omg roflofloflofloflofl
interior crocodile alligator
i drive a chevrolet movie theater - goffy59, on 11/12/2008, -3/+1I GOT ONE!! Internetism.
- embryodb, on 11/12/2008, -6/+1you have just triggered the most insanely epic ddos attack ever to hit the internet. good job *****. ill dig you up anyway. see, for you itll be funny when it happens. for everyone else theyll wonder if im just a super virus employing neurolynguistic programming to enthrall them into servitude by altering their consciousness via pedagogy to alter not only their mythology but their ideology maybe im a prodigy maybe im the hotter g the one youd pay twenty for one but instead you get three and spark it to battle against the darkness oh ***** i wonder where that new episode of south park is
- Tomholius, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2Is it a coincidence that on the same page with someone trying to downplay environmentalism there is a large Chevron/Texaco ad?
- embryodb, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1there is no such thing as coincidence
- eschompthis, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Funny thing is that this religion actually has scientific evidence to prove it
- captainsky, on 11/11/2008, -78/+140I think it's a bit strong to call "environmentalism" a religion, it's more of an ideal and a way to live, but I don't feel like there's any faith or connection to the soul involved. It's all down to earth, really.
- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -21/+75Blind faith is put into the fact that the "apocolypse" is coming if we don't trust our "savior" *government* and keep supplying them with money and give up more of our own personal freedoms. The great prophet is of course Al Gore, but he has his many celebrity disciples as well. There's no way to PROVE that anything that they're saying is true, but there is no way to disprove it as well, so we better just believe in it! Of course, just like any religion, its us, the common man, who has to change their ways and live by these rules. We have to give up OUR cars and SUV's, while they drive around in limos, fly in private jets and live in mansions. Yeah, that kinda sounds like religion to me.
- bodisatvah, on 11/12/2008, -25/+12Except it isn't blind faith. There is much more evidence suggesting the apocalyptic scenarios with climate change than anything in any main stream religion.
- macweirdo42, on 11/12/2008, -5/+27But that isn't necessary for environmentalism. You don't have to think the world is coming to an end, you don't have to think the government needs to save us, you don't need blind faith. I simply say, hey, maybe polluting isn't a good idea.
- sodade, on 11/12/2008, -14/+16I'll agree that this sounds like a pretty close analogy at first glance, but the big difference is that religion depends on blind faith whereas environmentalism is based on scientific observation. You don't think a scientist that found some evidence that we aren't ***** would have their study trumpeted far and wide?
- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -7/+12No, polluting is not a good idea, a lot of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish faith's ideas are great too, but when you get the fire and brimstone, "You're going to hell if you don't give us money and follow what we say.", that's when the religion becomes perverted. Like the "global carbon tax" that's being proposed or the other measures that will be taken to ensure that everyone gets in line with this science that's not 100% fact.
MMGW science depends MOSTLY on faith, has it been 100% proven that man is controlling the climate? Is it 100% that the earth will be destroyed if we don't start driving hybrid cars? - macweirdo42, on 11/12/2008, -9/+11@gofalcons
MMGW is not faith - we've eliminated the possibility of solar fluctuations causing it, leaving pretty much the only possibility being greenhouse gases and deforestation. If there is another explanation (and I'm not saying that isn't possible) then it is likely an explanation that we currently don't know about.
Gloom and doom? Fixing it? Those are built more on faith - we can't know how global warming will affect the global climate, exactly, and we don't, at this time, know of a viable solution. But the science of global warming itself is separate from the science of preventing it.
At any rate, you still don't have a case in labeling all people who support environmentalism fanatics. Frankly, I think it's the opposition that often overstates the environmentalist position - claiming that environmentalists believe the world is going to end when they don't, claiming that they blindly follow global warming and don't actually research it, claiming that they've already made up their minds about it all. - bodisatvah, on 11/12/2008, -11/+11Seriously, what the ***** is wrong with you people. Do you think scientists are arbitrarily saying the things they are? Do you have some sort of superior information to them? You are a bunch of smug ignoramuses.
- ubuwalker31, on 11/12/2008, -8/+13"Environmentalism" is not a religion.
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.
So, lets try to prove that environmentalism could be a religion. Do environmentalists make supernatural claims? No, not really. They don't claim that there is a supernatural being who is causing extinctions, for example.
Environmentalists do make scientific claims about global warming though, for example. Do they turn this into a moral claim? Yes, sometimes. Is taking a moral position on scientific evidence religious? Not necessarily. You can believe that it is immoral to allow a 2 year old child to ride in a car without a safety seat without being 'religious'.
Of course, many people believe that science is a religion because it goes against their own religious tenets. Science is only a series of tested observations, essentially, while religion can not be proven or disproved. So therefore, science is NOT a religion.
However, science informs modern laws. And this can be seen as infringing on religions traditional role of shaping the law. Asking people to change light bulbs and to conserve water could be seen [wrongly] as a type of religious ritual, since they are extremely personal activities....and failure to follow the rule could result in a penalty under the law.
So, religious people see environmentalism as a challenge to their authority and by attacking environmentalism by name calling it a "religion" plays into peoples prejudices.
That is not to say that there are not some Environmentalists who treat their cause like a religion. For example, the Sea Shepards act outside of international and natural law to pursue a radical terrorist/pirate agenda by attacking ships to prevent whale hunting. They are beyond scientific discussion, as they target science vessels and aren't amenable to scientific debate. Therefore, it would be correct to say that radical scientifically uninformed environmentalism is religious in nature. - gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -7/+9I don't think I'm being smug, I think to assume that man can control the climate is a little narcissistic. The Earth has gone through all types of changes throughout history, Ice ages, warm periods, so to say that all of a sudden, after a few years of industrialization *compared to the many that the earth was around before* that we are some how going to destroy it is ignorant.
It's funny how people automatically assume that someone who speaks against global warming is on "Big Oil's" payroll, however, a lot of these scientists are riding a gravy train, getting grants to study the "Global Warming and it's Effect on Dogs Licking Their Balls" have more reason to exaggerate than anything. I suppose this "global carbon tax" that's being proposed wouldn't have anything to do with the exaggerations either. But I'm getting of subject here, all I'm saying is that it takes just as much faith to believe that the apocolypse will be caused by SUVs as it does to believe that it will be caused by the gays. - bjswanner, on 11/12/2008, -6/+5I think the point is...who are "scientists"? Have you ever met one? Can you even name one of the "scientists" who seem to have this all figured out? Much like traditional religion, which began in a far off corner of the word by a few people which spread over time by word of mouth and the eventual publication of literature, the idea that global climate change will ultimately be harmful and was caused by humans began as an idea among a few scientists who noticed anomolies in data and made a postulation. Very little definitive evidence has emerged since then relative to the amount of "preaching" that has been done by the "disciples" of the environmental movement. It's no fun to believe that we're all fine and that we really don't need to change anything, but it's terribly exciting to think that we may all have to band together to fight this global foe.
- bodisatvah, on 11/12/2008, -5/+5Historically there has been a strong correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and shifts in the climate. We have been introducing a significant amount into the atmosphere. And although correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, the consequences of such are potentially too grave to continue the way we do things considering there are plenty of alternatives which do not affect this model in the same way.
So to pursue this, you provide incentive for people and corporations to move toward this. And this is done by introducing free market methods into your pollution output with cap and trade. If it doesn't work, the parts of the market are stimulated to fulfill this need.
When computers became essential for corporations to remain competitive, they invested in it or were overtaken by their competitors. The companies that did invest in it reaped the benefits of the new investment.
The product of the investment in green technology by companies seeking to minimize their carbon output is efficiency. You minimize the required energy to perform a desired task, decreasing the cost of it. Your electric bill is cheaper because the power you get is coming from a renewable resource which has the cost of only maintaining the generating facility (which you have to pay for with non-renewable energy sources anyway) once the principle of the generating facility has been repayed. - molotovcat, on 11/12/2008, -4/+8 Those who are defending environmentalism are attacking deniers from the same standpoint. Sure, most scientists agree that CO2 aids global warming, but it's also proven that humans add very little CO2 to the atmosphere when compared to other sources. Even if we magically were able to get ALL countries, including the biggest creators of CO2 like China, to stop producing all CO2 (I.E. asking everyone on earth to completely change their lifestyle), we will have done little to stop the climate changes.
At best, the environmentalist movement is a great way for companies to cash in on hype. At worst, we will throw billions or trillions of dollars at a problem that we can barely slow, let alone stop. - molotovcat, on 11/12/2008, -3/+5Oh, and for those that are looking for the science behind my words...
Water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. The total contribution by man in relation to effect on the greenhouse effect is .28%
That's right, our total contribution to the greenhouse effect is .28%. Even if we were to drastically cut back on CO2 production, let's be generous and say 30%, we will have only reduced greenhouse gas emission by 0.08%.
Why can't we pragmatically deal with the situation? Instead, we have environmentalist doomsayers calling for us to drastically change our lifestyles to make a half of a tenth of a percent of difference. What gives? - bodisatvah, on 11/12/2008, -6/+1@mototovcat
You are making a HUGE assumption that such a percent difference doesn't affect the balance due to accellerating returns, which is what most theories include. Such a small reduction in our output may have greater impacts than you expect. You are speaking from ignorance and I wish you wouldn't pretend you have superior knowledge of this. - molotovcat, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4Bodisatvah,
I don't discount such theories, but I do doubt our ability to substantially impact global warming.
You can give your two cents, yet if I give mine, I am pretending I have superior knowledge? Hmmm.
All that's left is for someone to jump in and invoke Godwin's law since I am criticizing environmentalists. - bodisatvah, on 11/12/2008, -4/+2You're criticizing theories based on observation with your intuition with no evidence. Your claim is utterly baseless. That is why you seem smug.
- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4Bodisatvah, you know there are Christians who believe that they have scientists who can prove that Jesus was real and that the apocolypse is coming soon too. Just because you heard it from a scientist doesn't make it true. There was a time when Global cooling would kill the earth. Remember, that was on the cover of time magazine 30 years ago. Science is constantly changing, so for you people to think that you automatically have the right answer now and that everyone needs to get in line or shut up, is smug, if you ask me.
- cthomp13, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1@bjswanner
Dr. James Hansen is a scientist who seems to have a good handle on the potential effects of anthropogenic carbon emissions. What he does a good job of pointing out (the media seems to miss this point, go figure) is that there are always more questions than there are answers when addressing these problems. That does not, however, mean that the issue should be ignored. - feignNU, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2man, listening to you people try to explain what religion is really cracks me up.
"No, religion is just a set of arbitrary beliefs that people decide to accept one day! It's just silly blind faith! Science is totally different! It is based on FACT!"
You say ***** like this and wonder why there's practically a holy war between science and religious people. The worst part is that your understanding of the method, workings, and philosophy of science isn't much better than your understanding of religion.
Wake up. None of you "knows". Anything. At all. - WARonTREES, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2i don't know why all these so called "environmentalist" want to stop "global warming" and think they need to get a handle on "green house gases."
what grows in a green house? plants.
ice caps melt an we have more water, plants need water.
if they really cared about the pretty plants they would want the people to all die off and let the plants take over the world.
these plant people are just covert spies the trees have sent to weaken our defense against them. - bjswanner, on 12/04/2008, -0/+0@cthomp13
Thank you for your response. You are correct and I must appologize for speaking out of anger/frustration. FeignNU's comment above is a prime example of a mentality that will never get us anywhere, that is, that we don't really know anything and that and there is nothing we can do. The fact is, there is a lot we don't know but there are some things we do know and some measures we can take. I guess what upsets me is the bandwagon effect that has emerged in the last few years surrounding the environmental movement. I recently graduated with a degree in Geography and Environemtnal Science from UCLA, and let me tell you, there is no more "green" environmentally "progressive" group than that department. It's just frustrating that what should be a hub for research and academic advancement has turned into such a media feeding ground. Professors who publish articles in Sciance and Nature promoting their standpoint on policy issues? These are the people who can actually effect change from a hard science standpoint. Yeesh, now you've got me rambling.
- Naieve, on 11/12/2008, -21/+46Go listen to Al Gore for 5 minutes.
There is a reason for the manbearpig jokes...- thcobbs, on 11/12/2008, -4/+24THE GORACLE HAS SPOKEN!
- macweirdo42, on 11/12/2008, -13/+10I wasn't aware that Al Gore was somehow a representation of all environmentalists. It'd be like me saying "Republicans are all psychopaths, just go listen to Ann Coulter for 5 minutes."
- wenomspitta, on 11/12/2008, -3/+12I wasn't awer that the Pope was somehow a representation of all Christians
- macweirdo42, on 11/12/2008, -4/+7lol, considering the Pope does not represent all Christians, you kinda made my point for me. My point is - I don't buy into the gloom and doom hype, and I've never really listened to what Al Gore has to say. I just think we benefit from a healthy environment.
- wenomspitta, on 11/12/2008, -4/+2which is exactly why you should buy carbon credits
- eviltandem, on 11/12/2008, -1/+7@wenomspitta
You realise Al Gore owns the company he buys carbon credits from? There is no regulations or rules on how any money spent on carbon credits is to be used, and no large scale program capable of sucking CO2 out of the air and sequestering it somewhere.
So how does buying credits do anything but give people money for something that I usually do for free?
Giving Al Gore money does not magically remove CO2 from the atmosphere... - gandhii, on 11/13/2008, -1/+3macweirdo.. you're almost getting it. But not quite. If some christians are not represented by the pope and they are still christians, yet the pope is still considered a christian leader or prophet, then perhaps it is not required for Al Gore to represent every single environmentalist for him to still be reasonably called an environmentalist leader or prophet.
I feel like such a dumb ass having to explain this... btw.. the square block won't fit into the round hole. - rtmag, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1The Pope does not represent all Christians. He is the leader of the Roman Catholic religion, which has many fundamental differences from the Christian faith.
- Pwelborn1, on 11/12/2008, -29/+9To: captainsky
You are lying to yourself. The evidence is everywhere. Open your eyes.- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -3/+12Wow, what a deep, insightful response Pwelborn1, I mean, jeeze, you definitely changed my mind!
- slvrbullet87, on 11/12/2008, -1/+5That sure sound like what a Priest/Rabbi would say... there is evidence of gods work all around you if you just look for it
- captainsky, on 11/12/2008, -3/+3Sorry, Pwelborn1, that didn't convince me either.
On the point of proof, there's enough evidence and research to support the fact that "most of the warming in the past half century results from manmade greenhouse gases" - it's not a belief or something you have to have faith in. It's an observation based on years of research through science.
Maybe some people are using environmentalism to create cults and religious groups, but that doesn't mean environmentalism is fundamentally a religion. - inside610, on 11/12/2008, -2/+3Oh wow! You are right!
O great Ra, forgive me for my previous disbelief! I am not worthy to look directly at the Sun God. His might is blinding!
- wenomspitta, on 11/12/2008, -10/+11I think it's a bit strong to call "Christianity" a religion, it's more of an ideal and a way to live, but I don't feel like there's any faith or connection to the soul involved.
Honestly, I DO NOT!- JonForTheWin, on 11/12/2008, -1/+2How many Christians that behave anything like the christ do you meet?
- gandhii, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1It appears that there are many who do not understand the meaning of "religion".
LOOK IT UP.
- rv361162, on 11/12/2008, -8/+3***** wenonspitta
- Yazilliclick, on 11/12/2008, -3/+15Environmentalism is a religion.
Making environment responsible decisions isn't.
Environmentalism is a movement and he's right. Those preaching it are blind to any dissent and most of the claims made to back it up are not backed up by science (or at most by very lite science that is misrepresented).- goldylocks7621, on 11/12/2008, -1/+5I am all for protecting the environment, but I'm sick and tired of all the politically correct environmentalism which is obviously part of an agenda by the elites. When I see the signs that something is being pushed from above, I know it's probably not good for us.
- njiska, on 11/12/2008, -3/+11You don't need to have a soul to have a religion and Environmentalism is damn well based on faith. It's a blind movement that hears words assumes them to be right and paints anyone who disagrees with the same brush as a Holocaust denier. It's really quite insane when you look at it.
And if you question any of that, just look at the comments for this post.
However that's by no means saying we shouldn't make smart environmental decision, but those decisions should come from discovery, not from the environmental movement.- macweirdo42, on 11/12/2008, -3/+2Wouldn't making smart environmental decisions based on science make you an environmentalist? I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that that's all environmentalism is. I wasn't aware it involved blind faith in global warming or anything like that.
- eviltandem, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3@macweirdo42
ok. Explain to me how buying carbon credits removes CO2 from the air that I already put there.
Not how you think it should work, but how it actually works. For each company doing it.
If you think much of anything coming from Green Peace, etc, is based on anything but hyperbole, I got a bridge you might be interested in. - macweirdo42, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2But what does Green Peace or buying carbon credits have to do with what I was talking about? Why are you bringing those up when I didn't even mention them? See, my whole point was, I didn't realize you had to be an extremist who buys into this crap to be an environmentalist, but you come and ask me to take responsibility for the extremist nonsense.
- gandhii, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1macweirdo: now you are aware. Get over it.
Nobody is asking you to "take responsibility for the extremist nonsense". - eviltandem, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2@macweirdo42
You are saying environmentalism is based on science, and it's not. The people touting it, and the things being pushed, have nothing to do with science. They are not even science based. It's a religion in the sense that they are using guilt to try to extort money from people, just like any other cult/religion.
Christianity wants you to feel guilty about sex and all these things you need, so you stay with them. Environmentalists make you feel bad about the food and resources you must use to live, so you stay with them.
Making sane choices about your actions while also considering environmental costs is smart. But the environment is just another factor. Any time you start ignoring other factors and giving "environmental" costs all the weight, you cross the line into "environmentalist" religious dogma.
- buckbova1, on 11/12/2008, -6/+7Sorry, it is not a religion, rather it's a cult.
- wenomspitta, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3ouch!
that stung! - buckbova1, on 11/12/2008, -4/+1@wenomspitta
Go cry into a recycled kleenex cockboy.
- wenomspitta, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3ouch!
- Isidore, on 11/12/2008, -2/+6If concern for the environment was a substitute (for) religion, then how do you explain this:
Pope Benedict, the leader of the world's largest religion, is an environmentalist.
This is what he said to the UN General Assembly on 18 April 2008
"Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the ENVIRONMENT, of resources and of the CLIMATE, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/spe ...
Vatican City will become the world's first carbon neutral state http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9868
The climate scientists at NASA believe that humans are now changing this planet's climate
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
See their evidence - no reference to religion or atheism there.- MaikuSan, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Just hitching his wagon to a better pony
- TalentedMoron, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1Next thing you know, people killing each other because of insulting the holy spirit of earth. Human being is an expert on inventing religion
- bullhead2007, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah I find it a bit ironic that religious people try to make everything they hate/disagree with some other religion when atheists are involved.
- rdjenk6, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Environmentalism is not actually a religion, folks, let's make that clear. He's just saying that the movement has significant and striking parallels to how Judao-Christian religions act and operate.
- rtmag, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1It's more than a way of life for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a student and have a part time job at a grocery store. Every now and then, someone who is obviously a total environmentalist (you can tell by their "SAVE THE EARTH!" clothes and the fact that they're talking incessantly about saving one little piece of plastic from going to a landfill) will get totally *enraged* that their groceries were put in a plastic bag. They'll take up all their stuff (usually they wind up dropping half of it before they even get to the door) wad up the *single* plastic bag, and throw it at the cashier, saying something like "I HATE @!@#$@ PLASTIC!"
I'm just saying, maybe some people have taken so-called "green living" a bit too far. - notanidiot, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1this old man is an idiot and a retard. I hope he dies real real soon and burns in hell. Utter garbage.
- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -21/+75Blind faith is put into the fact that the "apocolypse" is coming if we don't trust our "savior" *government* and keep supplying them with money and give up more of our own personal freedoms. The great prophet is of course Al Gore, but he has his many celebrity disciples as well. There's no way to PROVE that anything that they're saying is true, but there is no way to disprove it as well, so we better just believe in it! Of course, just like any religion, its us, the common man, who has to change their ways and live by these rules. We have to give up OUR cars and SUV's, while they drive around in limos, fly in private jets and live in mansions. Yeah, that kinda sounds like religion to me.
- drmobutu, on 11/11/2008, -94/+351Religions are based on faith.
The study of the environment is based on science.
Michael Crichton is dead.- yuutokun, on 11/12/2008, -37/+10I farted.
- digitronix, on 11/12/2008, -72/+103Actually, when people that it is 100% certain that humans are responsible for global warming, that is a statement of faith. Scientists have not found a strong correlation of global climate with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact, a majority of scientists do not believe global warming is caused by man.
- digitronix, on 11/12/2008, -31/+25Correction: There has been a correlation between CO2 and climate change, but CO2 levels FOLLOW global warming, not vice versa.
- greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -23/+53Correction, that is a load of ridiculous bilge
Human Caused http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
Scientific Consensus http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... - greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -13/+30@digitronix:
Myth: "CO2 doesn't lead, it lags. That proves CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=CO ...
Mind prisons and prisms: CO2 lag and Global Warming http://digg.com/environment/Mind_prisons_and_prism ... - AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -17/+28Too bad nobody ever made that argument.
You'd have a point then.
To claim greenhouse gases emitted by humans don't contribute to the greenhouse effect takes faith. And by faith, I mean stupidity.
It's like saying that adding wood to a fire doesn't help the fire. - Jareth86, on 11/12/2008, -10/+37Nothing in science is 100%. You are using "Faith" as a homonym, just like creationists do. By your definition, everything is a faith. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but for all I know it could explode. This however, does not make me a ***** sun worshiper.
*And actually, the majority of scientist believe it IS man made. - gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -24/+13No, there is A LOT of faith involved, it's not 100 percent fact that the world is going to end if we don't start driving hybrid cars. All this "green" ***** is mostly a marketing technique and the theory of man-made global warming will eventually lead to a "global tax" that everyone has to pay to our savior *government* so they can save the world. If you actually think that humans are controlling the climate, then....well I actually can't even think of anything to say, it's amazing how many people actually buy into this crap. *and before you say anything, there are plenty of scientists and geologists who disagree with the theory of mmgw.*
- anonymous1986, on 11/12/2008, -12/+29That's a flat out lie, I seriously don't know where you got the idea that "a majority of scientists do not believe global warming is caused by man"........ Probably from oil company propaganda and fox news.......
Physorg:
- The 46,000-member American Physical Society argues the need for action is urgent because the energy crisis is the worst in U.S. history. It also says that the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change - such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels - "well understood and beyond dispute."
From the report: "Science has also achieved an overwhelming consensus that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely of human origin, tracing back to the Industrial Revolution and accelerating in recent years, as carbon dioxide and methane - the products of fossil fuel use - have entered the atmosphere in increasing quantities. Modeling the climate has proven to be a complex scientific task. But although the models are far from perfect, many of their predictions are so alarming that conservative, risk-averse policymaking requires that they be considered with extraordinary gravity."
Go ahead disagree with the findings of the american physical society.
http://www.physorg.com/news140803026.html - TommyTikal, on 11/12/2008, -9/+14Everyone else already cut to the chase and schooled you intellectually. So I feel like this is mine for the taking:
You're a complete dumb ass. - fluxion, on 11/12/2008, -3/+14actually, when you're NOT 100% certain that we AREN'T causing irreversible climate change yet opt to do NOTHING rather than erring on the side of caution, insisting that everything will be fine when really you have no clue, you're making a leap of faith that im afraid most rational people aren't gonna follow.
- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -15/+8Dude, you might as well give it up, it's like trying to convince any other religious person that they're being duped. They'll all try to pull out some ***** science that takes more faith than science and tell you why you're going to be responsible for the apocolypse. Whether it's "the gays" or the "moral decline of society" or the fact that you drive and SUV and you magically can control the climate of the earth, they'll stonewall you. I have no problem with you people and your religion, just don't push it on me. Don't try to take my money and don't try to force me to follow it, whether you're a christian, muslim or evironmentalist.
- ldailey06, on 11/12/2008, -6/+17Ok if you want to get technical, were not 100% certain that humans are causing global warming. Just like we're not certain that the easter bunny doesn't exist and I am not certain that I don't have magical powers and just need to learn to use them.
It is, however, -very likely- that humans are causing global warming. I suggest you read the following from the Internation Panel on Climate Change, a very easy read with a lot of information.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a ... - gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -10/+4We're also not sure that there aren't lizard people who have infiltrated our government at the highest levels and are controlling our minds with their crystals that they brought from the center of the earth. David Icke seems to be sure that it's true and he uses his "logic" and "science" to promote this idea, so what should we do about this?
- ldailey06, on 11/12/2008, -3/+10@gofalcons
That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of logic and science - gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -10/+4You mean like saying that humans can control the climate?
- AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -9/+3Idailey
Your argument was a burden of proof fallacy.
gofalcons argument was a correct Reductio ad absurdum.
"Ok if you want to get technical, were not 100% certain that humans are causing global warming."
Actually, we're 100% certain that humans are NOT causing global warming.
However, we're 100% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from humans contribute to the greenhouse effect which leads to global warming.
Humans can't be the cause of global warming because it happened before humans even existed. - MrSlumberjack, on 11/12/2008, -2/+6@ gofalcons,
If humans can change atmospheric chemistry, humans change change climate. Take your head out of your ass.
@Achalemoipas,
Just because climate has changed in the absence of humans does not mean that there can not be a new force on the system. This is a nonsense statement for you to make. The study of paleoclimatology is how we came to the conclusions of effects of increasing CO2 in the atm. - AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -5/+2Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't necessarily = increase of temperatures, even though there's a correlation.
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't necessarily = humans are the only cause of added CO2.
All warming phases were accompanied by an increase of CO2.
Saying we caused it without even having a measure of the human impact on the climate is beyond nonsensical.
There is no measure of the human impact on climate. In fact, we don't even really know how much CO2 we produce.
So, the only thing you can say that is true about the human impact on climate change is that we contribute to it, by we don't know how much, because we produce greenhouse gases.
Anything other than that is entirely debatable and purely speculation. - AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -5/+2Lol, I guess it is the new religion.
Dugg down and no rebuttal. I guess you'll have to stick with "believing". - MrSlumberjack, on 11/12/2008, -2/+5Hold your horses there, Achalemoipas. Not everyone sits on digg 24/7, and not everyone that diggs you down has to provide an argument.
Yes, increases in CO2 do mean an increase in temperature. It's a GHG and there's no arguing with that. There is not one point in any paleoclimatic proxy of ice cores, tree rings, coral cores, sediment cores, etc, that doesn't show an increase in temperature with an increase CO2 concentration. It is well known in paleoclimatology that the carbon cycle DOES have an influence on climate, and there is no questioning that.
We are positive that humans are the only cause of the increase. Volcanic activity has decreased recently, so we may even be contributing more than we thought. Uptake of carbon by oceanic productivity has not changed. We have all points of the carbon cycle being monitored by thousands of scientists around the world.
We don't know exactly how much CO2 we emit, but we can estimate. Knowing the general amount gives us a good idea that it's enough to increase atmospheric concentrations.
We have a lot more information on lockdown than you think we do. Stop using these mindless unthinking phrases that all the deniers have stuck in their heads, and do some ***** research for yourself. - AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -4/+3Provide a measure of the human impact on the climate vs natural emissions leading to an impact on the climate.
Until then, it's all speculation.
You shouldn't assume people with differing opinions don't know what they are talking about. You might be surprised to find out they know more than you do.
I'm not a denier, I'm just a mathematician. You can't convince me with blind affirmations and poor logic, sorry.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, so your entire argumentation is failed. - AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -4/+2Oh and an increase in CO2 != global warming.
A reduction of all other pollutants, greenhouse gases can compensate. - MrSlumberjack, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3Well if I actually said that CO2 is not the only GHG, then I would be wrong. But i don't believe that I said something that even hinted towards that. Even if I were to say that, how is that relevant to my 'entire argument failing'? We're talking about CO2 here. Not methane, water vapor, ozone, CFCs or N2O. CO2.
The human impact on the climate IS the fact that CO2 concentration is increasing in the atmosphere, due to human activity. I could go on forever about climatic feedback effects that results from increases in CO2, but you can do that research for yourself.
...and I'm sorry to hear that you think the scientific method is 'poor logic'. - twomeyw23334, on 11/13/2008, -4/+3We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming. The warming it causes according to our scientific knowledge is minuscule.
"I could go on forever about climatic feedback effects that results from increases in CO2" I'm sure you could. The alarmist "worlds going to end" global warming propaganda is entirely based on bogus positive feedback systems that exist nowhere other then computer simulations. If earth really had any of these single sided feedback mechanisms it's temperature would have wildly oscillated throughout history.
The idea that the tiny amount of warming caused by our CO2 increase would send the world out of balance to skyrocketing temperatures is simply ridiculous and a good reason why many of the simulations with 4-6x positive feedback loops are horrible at actually representing the planet. There is an incredible of amount of speculation that goes into determining climate sensitivity and much of it is guessing at worse case scenarios. For some reason, warming alarmists are totally against looking at cosmic ray flux data (it must be your devil) but when in taken into consideration
"Empirical Climate sensitivities obtained on different time scales are significantly more consistent with each other"
and, not surprisingly, the climate sensitivity is much smaller than alarmists want us to believe.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity - AchaIemoipas, on 11/13/2008, -3/+2
"...and I'm sorry to hear that you think the scientific method is 'poor logic'."
I find it insulting as a scientist that you claim that you use the scientific method.
"Yes, increases in CO2 do mean an increase in temperature."
That's how.
"The human impact on the climate IS the fact that CO2 concentration is increasing in the atmosphere, due to human activity. "
You've said this already. Now demonstrate it with a measure. - digitronix, on 11/13/2008, -3/+3Most scientists dispute man-made global warming (source):
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_wa ...
Penn and Teller tell us that Global Warming is *****! (Actually, they don't say that, they only say Al Gore is *****.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhin1TkitUQ - AchaIemoipas, on 11/13/2008, -3/+2They're always relevant, aren't they?
Well, I'm tired.
I'll leave you with your ignorant convictions and continue on my "i'll believe it when you prove it route." - anonymous1986, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2@AchaIemoipas, your source is infowars which itself describes itself as:
"The web page of syndicated radio host Alex Jones. Conspiracy-tinted site containing strong opposition to socialism, communism, and the New World Order".
Pathetic really, using a website which itself admits to being Conspiracy-tinted. The american physical society which comprises of 46,000 physicists which says (paraphrasing): "Science has also achieved an overwhelming consensus that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely of human origin" and "the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change - such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels - "well understood and beyond dispute."" meanwhile is one of the most reputable sources. I assume you must have much more knowledge then the physicists at the APS though, for you to deny global warming. - anonymous1986, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2Sorry should be directed at digitronix. Furthermore alex jones is a right wing paleoconservative, it's obvious that he's a biased dogmatic fool who has no clue about science.
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/13/2008, -1/+2@ twomeyw23334,
"The alarmist "worlds going to end" global warming propaganda is entirely based on bogus positive feedback systems that exist nowhere other then computer simulations."
Are you trying to say that computers invented climatic feedback systems? That doesn't really make any sense. How would they be able to program a working model without knowing what they are programming? Any instance of climate feedbacks are derived from paleoclimatological studies, as in events that have occurred throughout Earth's history. As I mentioned earlier (this is also directed towards Achalemoipas), "There is not one point in any paleoclimatic proxy of ice cores, tree rings, coral cores, sediment cores, etc, that doesn't show an increase in temperature with an increase CO2 concentration." These are not invented mechanisms. There is solid evidence and data for them.
You also said: "If earth really had any of these single sided feedback mechanisms it's temperature would have wildly oscillated throughout history." Guess what. Temperature has oscillated wildly throughout Earth's history. That's why we study paleoclimatology, to make sense of these fluctuations and make connections between hard proxy data, constructing the feedback mechanisms which drive them. These feedback concepts haven't just recently been invented to contribute to the great hoax that you think global warming is. Most of them were around before the idea of global warming, or even before global cooling was around.
...and Achalemoipas, here's my measure: humans combust carbon based fuel, emitting CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, which is a variable in climate. The ONLY major forcing variable that is changing in the current climate.
- thegreenspanput, on 11/12/2008, -32/+15junk science
- CookieTrain, on 11/12/2008, -22/+6Saying that environmentalist engagement is based on science might have been true at one stage, but our good friend Al Gore and his hockey stick put an end to that.
In any case tho, who cares about the scientific base... Let it be a religion, or a set of ideals..
I'm sure it will bring about a lot more good than any religion or ideology ever did before it.
Fresh air rules :D - freeridstylee, on 11/12/2008, -14/+3Al Gore killed him
RIP MC - aijalon, on 11/12/2008, -17/+6I don't have faith in science.
- Naieve, on 11/12/2008, -16/+42The problem of course being that studies like Modtran show that CO2 effects on the environment plateau after a certain point at which they make little difference, and that anthropogenic CO2, that is human derived CO2, accounts for 2.5 percent of all CO2. Let me repeat that, you are saying 2.5 percent of the CO2 output is responsible for everything, without having done any significant research into the multitude of other factors.
There is a tree in my back yard that was felled in a storm a month or so back. Basically, if that 100 ft high tree was all the CO2 output and other factors involved in climate change, you are pointing at a toothpick sized splinter and saying it was this tiny little splinter that caused the tree to fall. When asked why, your response is that the tree obviously fell, and that since this is the only splinter I personally know anything about, it must be this one.
A lack of data does not imply causation. It implies a lack of data.
This religion IS ignoring the other factors, many of which are simply unknown due to our own ignorance and lack of data with which to measure. Things like decreased volcanic activity, which puts debris in the air and causes a cooling effect, solar activity which is a major factor that we simply know far too little about, and the vast changes in ecology which have nothing at all to do with human activity. FYI, species were coming and going long before humanity roamed.
To state that 2.5 percent of the CO2 output on this planet is responsible for all its woes considering the vast number of other variables is the height of unscientific thinking. There is simply far too little data to make such a far reaching accusation. There is no science in that thinking, only close minded human guilt.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for sustained living and the environment. Yet I also realize that it must be logical and have the ability to be spread past Western Society.
Leaping forward with highly expensive minimally effective plans of action is not going to solve anything. China will make up the slack for that stupidity inside of a year. We live in a free market economy, until we use science to make the changes appealing and cost efficient to the mass of society, it will solve nothing. Jobs will be shipped overseas to countries that don't follow our lead, the pollution will go with it. In fact, most of your gains will be thrown away thanks to the extra costs of shipping and the pollution that arises from it.
Take the current bio fuel craze. First, it is an investment that ties us into the oil model, which is an energy model I argue we should be trying to move away from. Right off the bat I consider it a vast waste of resources that could be better put into realistic change, instead it is used for extremely little gain. The largest gain that can be seen i guess is an attempt at cutting dependence on foreign oil. Then there is the fact that the bio fuel as it currently exists is a waste of time, as they moved ahead impatiently instead of waiting for a more mature technology like the use of algae. Instead the rain forest is being cut down at an alarming rate for this fallacy, and we are using finite water to grow fuel while the freshwater dries up. We could be using algae and the other bio fuel technologies that are coming forward which use far less fresh water and do not require depleting farm land. Bio fuel is simply the next folly of the environmentalist movement. Much like opposing Nuclear power was the last one.
Regardless whether you like it or not, large scale power production is a necessity. We could have turned away from the pollution and CO2 output of coal plants some 30 years ago. Instead, due to a fear of nuclear technology because it was pushed to fast, we have stuck to an older model when we could be containing almost all of the waste through use of breeder reactors and long term storage like Yucca mountain. Pollution you say?? What do you think has been happening on a far larger scale with coal???
I wonder how many of these environmentalists here in the USA even know what the Ogallala Aquifer is?
Is this a race to deplete the worlds fresh water?
Measured and well thought out courses of action are needed. Instead we get a schizophrenic jumble of ever altering highly wasteful plans that are not sustainable.- user14, on 11/12/2008, -10/+13*chuckles* You wrote too much...people who believe in global warming simply listen to sound bites and whatever Al Gore says...
global warming believers always point at the scientists who fall in line with popular opinion and forget that scientists need to fund research through grants and you have a better chance at getting funding if you agree with popular opinion. - Naieve, on 11/12/2008, -6/+9What's even funnier, is their digging down without the ability to scientifically refute anything I have said only proves that they are supporting a "religion" based on nothing more than faith and the amazing ability of humanity for guilt.
- jedijain, on 11/12/2008, -1/+9this is digg dude, long winded comments dont get too far
- Naieve, on 11/12/2008, -3/+4That is the entire problem with the Environmentalist movement at present. The truth takes too much time and research so they are just going to ignore it and go with whatever they want.
- supernovasky, on 11/12/2008, -1/+8"The problem of course being that studies like Modtran show that CO2 effects on the environment plateau after a certain point at which they make little difference"
I stopped reading after this.
The idea behind CO2 effects on the environment plateauing has been thoroughly debunked.
Sure, if CO2 made up 50-60% of the atmosphere, then we'd see diminishing returns on how much heat gets trapped by adding more CO2.
That modtran study you are indicating stated that Water Vapor + CO2 places us at the top of the plateau, where adding a lot more CO2 will add very little extra light that gets trapped, because the atmosphere is saturated.
But there is the problem. The atmosphere is NOT saturated at the place where heat exchange occurs between space and the earth: The upper atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases like CO2 and Methane are FAR more important than water vapor, because the upper atmosphere is absent of water vapor, and these greenhouse gases become FAR more important.
Remember, when a cumulonimbus cloud erupts into the air, the purpose of that cloud is to rid the earth of heat by radiating it into the upper atmosphere. If the upper atmosphere gains more CO2, then less heat can be removed from the earth.
As far as that paltry 2.5% thing you keep mentioning, proof that human beings account for only 2.5% of the CO2?
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) : human beings account for 17% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 prior to humans did rise and fall by more than 17%, but these rises and falls occured over a MUCH larger span of time. Nature takes time to catch up to these rises and falls in CO2, but when these changes occur slowly, nature has more than enough time to keep the system at equilibrium. Human additions to CO2 have come fast and therefore, nature does not have enough time to sink it, resulting in a net addition of CO2 every year. - Naieve, on 11/12/2008, -2/+4Yes, and what is the main heat exchanger in the atmosphere?
Water vapor perhaps??
And that 17 percent, that is for the United States landmass only. not the world. - supernovasky, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3You are right, its closer to 3.5% globally. However, the rise in CO2 produced by man is much faster than the fairly stable rises and falls of CO2 produced by nature. Natural CO2 sources typically only rise and fall by .1% each year. It took over a thousand years, sometimes 5-10,000 years, in every other previous case for CO2 to rise 100-150ppm. It's only taken CO2 75 years to do the same while we have been emitting CO2. This is, once again, because nature's carbon sinks can't keep up.
As far as water vapor, quite honestly, you need to quit pointing to that as the reason behind the acceleration of global warming. Water vapor is a buffer, it keeps the temperature of the planet fairly stable, but water vapor is absent in the upper atmosphere where the heat exchange between earth and space takes place, while CO2 and methane are not. The upper atmosphere is NOT saturated, meaning that any greenhouse gas that accumulates up there will have a much stronger effect than water vapor on global warming. - Naieve, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4I actually took a few minutes to look up your numbers.
The study you are following is a cumulative effect on atmospheric CO2 levels which at its core assumes a static number from nature.
As you yourself point out these numbers do change without human help, and considering they were already on the rise, your 17% is a highly questionable conclusion, as over the course of 150 years it assumes everything came from humans.
My 2.5% is the annual contribution of human CO2 to the atmosphere which is a much different measure from yours. Annual vs. Cumulative. I do agree entirely that my numbers would different when transferred into a cumulative measure. Yet unfortunately there are not enough data points to accurately make that measurement, unless of course you totally discount everything but humans and don't care that the numbers are off.
Anyways, like I sad above, your dismissal of modtran is also faulty because the upper atmosphere does not retain heat at anywhere near the level of the troposphere, which contains almost all the water vapor.
Needless to say there are plenty of other variables to add into the equation, I would love to see research on how much of the heat trapped in the mesosphere reaches past the ozone down to the troposphere and is trapped by it. It would be an interesting read because I seem to remember somewhere that temperatures in the upper atmosphere were actually dropping.
So many missing facts, so many unknown factors, and no one really putting them all together in an attempt to make a working model... Then again, I doubt any computer could handle the amount of calculations necessary to make a working model at present.
Well, back to work for me, I'm not a climatologist and have no wish to beat my head against a lack of numbers any longer. - supernovasky, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2You are correct that the heat content of the upper atmosphere is very small. However, it is through the upper atmosphere that the earth rids itself of heat. There is simply no other way, it is the boundary of the thermodynamic system known as earth. Water vapor does not exist at these heights.
- statstudent, on 11/12/2008, -1/+2MY GOD. NOT RESPONDING MEANS I'M GOING ON FAITH???
or we're sick of pointing the facts out. there's only so many times i'm patient enough to step-by-step refute skeptics. i hit that limit a long time ago.
meanwhile, thousands of people die annually from air pollution in the US, we are dependent on foreign carbon fuels from countries that don't like us, trade deficit is up, etc etc. i don't give a damn why people embrace renewable energy -- whether it is for environmental reasons or not -- let's just do it. - Naieve, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1"MY GOD. NOT RESPONDING MEANS I'M GOING ON FAITH???
or we're sick of pointing the facts out. there's only so many times i'm patient enough to step-by-step refute skeptics. i hit that limit a long time ago.
meanwhile, thousands of people die annually from air pollution in the US, we are dependent on foreign carbon fuels from countries that don't like us, trade deficit is up, etc etc. i don't give a damn why people embrace renewable energy -- whether it is for environmental reasons or not -- let's just do it."
First, you haven't. Your group has put out a few facts and said that correlation implies causation despite the fact there are literally thousands of other variables that you don't even care to research.
There is nothing scientific in ignoring all the contrary facts so that you don't have to discount them or factor them into a model to prove your case. It's called the Scientific Method, before you say science proves it, you might want to learn what that exactly entails.
A lack of facts is not proof of man made global warming. Mankind does indeed factor into climate change, yet the question is how much.
You are taking it on faith that it is all our fault despite our minuscule part in the scheme of things, without any real proof.
Just don't be an idiot about it. Do it right.
So far the Environmental movement has basically ***** it up by the numbers and made the problem worse than it has to be.
BTW, what does localized pollution and foreign oil have to do with man made global warming???
I would imagine you are a supporter of bio fuel?
How does it feel to know the hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone into hydrogen and electric transportation are instead cementing the use of fossil fuels for the next 50 years??? - Naieve, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1@super
I just realized you didn't understand what I am trying to say about modtran being relevant despite your assertions.
You see, that heat has to go through the troposphere which contains 99.9 percent of the worlds water vapor, which means that modtran is of course extremely relevant.
The effect of co2 will plateau, and whatever excess heat may or may not be captured by the tiny amounts of co2 in the mesosphere will merely dissipate. - supernovasky, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Naive, it doesnt work that way. The heat does have to travel through the troposphere, you are correct, but the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is fairly constant, because the half-life for a water molecule in the atmosphere is quite limited, perhaps only a few days before it falls as precipitation on average. This keeps the water vapor in the atmosphere at a relatively unchanging level. The half life of carbon dioxide is on the order of magnitude of many years.
Furthermore, CO2's presence in the upper atmosphere and water vapors absence is a VERY important forcing for warming of the earth. The water vapor is a buffer, not a greenhouse gas forcer. It holds a certain temperature and resists change in that temperature on average, that is a property of water. The upper atmosphere is where heat leaks out and heat leaks in. This is why carbon dioxide is so important, it exists at the place where heat transfer is the most crucial.
Furthermore, update your sources. Even at the surface, the infrared spectrum is not completely saturated. The 15 and 4.3 micron band, and the area around these bands, are completely unsaturated but blocked by increased CO2 concentration in the parts per million. These bands contribute to the radiative heat transfer out of the atmosphere.
Read these sources:
Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.
Plass, G.N. (1956). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/47/7/p ...
- user14, on 11/12/2008, -10/+13*chuckles* You wrote too much...people who believe in global warming simply listen to sound bites and whatever Al Gore says...
- sifuchar, on 11/12/2008, -8/+7Phrenology killed my faith in science.
- user14, on 11/12/2008, -2/+2lol...tha's funny
- gofalcons, on 11/12/2008, -8/+6Damn Naieve, that was an awesome response! I really wish I could digg that one 100,000 times.
- mapkinase, on 11/12/2008, -3/+3He is not talking about studies. He talks about movement
- sirloxelroy, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3Have you checked the Definition of Faith, specifically #1, #4, and #7?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
faith
/feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
Origin:
1200–50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit < L fidem, acc. of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide - aerospacemonkey, on 11/12/2008, -4/+6How exactly is it based on science if the "science" of climatology is poorly understood, at best. Not a single climate model made so far can account for Antarctica's DECREASING temperatures, which differ by as much as 10°C from the predicted models. Not one of these enviro-nuts has stopped and asked, "Why?". All we have is a bunch of observations, and the global warming theory, which doesn't fit those observations 100%.
Humanity understands very little about its role in the environment, yet so many people have faith that global warming will bring on the apocalypse. Climatology is still an immature branch of science and we need to realize that.- user14, on 11/12/2008, -2/+1Amen...err I mean Right On!
- iamghost, on 11/12/2008, -1/+1Makes sense. I barely trust my weather forecaster to give me 100% accurate information on storms, temperature, etc. I can't even imagine how much more complicated this problem is then that.
- feignNU, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1poorly understood science? does not compute! Don't you know that science means "true knowledge" aerospacemonkey?
- uberpsycho, on 11/12/2008, -1/+1There's a difference between studying ever changing conditions/trends in the environment and blindly except that living a life a pious restriction from cars, plastics, etc is going to help the planet.
If that form of environmentalism is not a religion I don't know what is. - ZenMojo, on 11/13/2008, -0/+4Finally. I'm really tired of the anti-environmentalist raze-the-earth pussies who think it's just too much work to turn the lights off when they leave the room.
- skellener, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1Amen! ;)
- hyunmin85, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1ya... i thought environmentalism falls more in the line of... logic...
- Blacksoth, on 11/13/2008, -2/+1Environmentalism may be based on science. But most that subscribe know nothing but the science behind it. They merely listen (and agree) with the new priest class (the enviromental scientists and activists like Al Gore).
The truth is, when they really don't critically think through the actual evidence (a lot of the time an impossible task since they have neither the education nor the information to accurately judge) they really just have to rely on .. faith. - idbar, on 11/13/2008, -1/+0"The study of the environment is based on science."
On what science? On the science that "believes" they can obtain accurate measurements from more than 20 years ago? Or the science that believes everything started in a big bang, but according to you, believes also in a perfect balance between humans and nature that is not holding?
If you believe that global warming is man made, then you believe that humans had to be in balance with the nature and protect it. I know it may be just surviving instinct, but doesn't that sound religious to you?- MrSlumberjack, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1"On what science? On the science that "believes" they can obtain accurate measurements from more than 20 years ago?"
Here's a little reading material to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cores
Shut your mouth and open your eyes.
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1"On what science? On the science that "believes" they can obtain accurate measurements from more than 20 years ago?"
- AmyVernon, on 11/11/2008, -25/+17Interesting... He has some valid points. The question is, what, exactly, is religion?
- ghostoftomjoad, on 11/12/2008, -2/+6I don't think it is religion but it is an interesting thought with some parallels. diet restrictions, cultural clothing, hard ideas of right and wrong, and, as he said, a mistrust of skepticism. If we are scientists and not religious nuts, then we should be ready at any time to change our minds based on empirical data.
- BoonTobias, on 11/12/2008, -6/+3means to control everyone like sheepsez
- WriterSD, on 11/12/2008, -2/+1Good question Amy. That could be an entirely new discussion - and a very interesting one!
- diggNewton, on 11/11/2008, -52/+240There's a disconnect here. Religion isn't backed up by any facts, it's faith based.
- ozel01, on 11/11/2008, -42/+22I can back Christianity up with a ton of facts. Problem is, secular society prefers to ignore the facts and generate "truths" from falsified information. Here is a prime example:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/How_gay_rights_i ...
How the homosexual community launched their war against morality and are winning the PR campaign on admitted falsehoods. The same things apply to the environmentalist movement. Pay scientists enough to generate "findings" that support the cause. In the same breath, use all means available to destroy the opposition science. That was the tactic of the homosexual community and the same holds for the environmentalist community. It has moved beyond sccience into the realm of religion.- sgtbutterscotch, on 11/12/2008, -3/+28"Pay scientists enough to generate "findings" that support the cause."
There are probably a few of those scientists out there, but I doubt the majority could be payed off. And no, you cannot back up any religion with "a ton of facts." I'm a religious man, but I can understand that religion does not need to be backed by a ton of facts for it to be legit. You don't need to go on the defensive against "secular society" with your list of facts, because you cannot win. - greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -5/+19No duobt. I am sure they are based on reearch every bit as solid as this:
Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Gay_Scientists_Is ... - DestroyFascism, on 11/12/2008, -2/+8Bullocks you can!
- ozel01, on 11/12/2008, -23/+8Here is one for you. The hinge of Christianity is the crucifiction of Christ and his Resurrection. The Crucifiction and Resurrection are documented by Jewish and Roman scholars, the very people who tried, condemned and crucified him. What gain did the ENEMIES of Christ have in providing support to the very embodiment they condemned? The Biblical account of the crucifiction and resurrection are proven through the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived at the time of Christ, as well as the Roman record. That is one proof, shall I present more?
- JigoroKano, on 11/12/2008, -8/+16Documentation of the crucifixion alone would be the most important historical record of Jesus, far surpassing all other historical records which are all at best decades after Jesus' death and strictly of Christians and not Christ.
I'm pretty sure I would have heard of that. I'm pretty sure some reference to that would be in the encyclopedias. - digitronix, on 11/12/2008, -10/+10Arguing for the complete mythology of Jesus is a losing battle. Historians are nearly unanimous about the historicity of Jesus, and the nonexistance theories have been completely refuted, and aren't even regarded as scholarly questions anymore.
- ProfessorSYM, on 11/12/2008, -3/+18Pointing to documentation that the crucifixion happened does not in any way prove that Jesus rose from the dead, had miraculous powers or that there is a God.
But it does illustrate an earlier point that someone made: religion doesn't have to be backed up by facts, because it is not a science. It is a belief system, a worldview.
And if you are so intent on trying to make your case to rationalists, to prove scientifically that there is a God or that Jesus had miraculous powers that will save your soul, I think that you really need to address your own doubts first, because your own uncertainty is apparent to everyone that you try to convince with your "facts". - AchaIemoipas, on 11/12/2008, -5/+18Guys, you're aguing against a guy who thinks a mythology book about a guy that was born from a virgin woman and performed miracles is based on fact.
This is lose-lose. We can only become dumber by engaging in such a stupid conversation. - griz, on 11/12/2008, -2/+10Proving that Jesus actually lived and proving a basis for Christianity are 2 completely different things Ozel.
- Jareth86, on 11/12/2008, -4/+12Just like the blacks waged a "war against morality" when they fought to marry white people? No matter what the generation or issue, you people are all the same. SCARED BIGOTS.
- brstilson, on 11/12/2008, -1/+11Well yeah it's easy to think your position is backed up by facts when you simply dismiss anything that contradicts it as "false." That doesn't make them false though. You've already concluded that Christianity is true before you saw the evidence, thus you are dismissing all evidence against it because you've already determined your conclusion, and nothing will change your mind.
"The Crucifiction and Resurrection are documented by Jewish and Roman scholars, the very people who tried, condemned and crucified him."
Actually, no, that isn't true. There are simply no written records of Jesus Christ from the time he supposedly lived, not even the new Testament, which was started decades after he supposedly died. You'd think a guy running around the countryside raising the dead would have been mentioned quite a bit, but of course there were actually a ton of guys running around the countryside doing the same things Jesus was supposedly doing. Name these Jewish and Roman scholars and cite their works, but your statement as of now is empty. - familynight, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5@Digitronix: While the historical Jesus movement is better funded and dominant, views among historians are in no way unanimous on the subject. Check out Burton Mack's The Christian Myth (shorter) or The Myth of Innocence. (They're a bit academic) The idea is not so much that Jesus did not exist. Jesus' existence is irrelevant to an academic study of the New Testament. The interesting question is why did Christianity succeed and why did certain versions of Jesus persist while others withered. You see all of the archeological findings and vague secondary references don't get around the fact that the books on Jesus were far more important than the person. Anyway, just seriously read one of Mack's books without rejecting it out of hand. His works are not as antagonistic to Christianity as they might seem.
Also, there are vast historiographical problems with the historical Jesus movement. Almost all of the research is backed up by a single source. The findings may show that someone lived who fulfilled part of the description, but that's a long way from proving that everything in the New Testament happened. I mean much of it is physically impossible as described, and there is no evidence to back up those claims. It's a pointless effort because even when we know someone existed like John the Baptist, we don't know and can't know if this John the Baptist matches up with the biblical John the Baptist. For one, most descriptions of John the Baptist and all of Jesus were written years after their reported deaths. The books of the New Testament were written at different times with some shared and some different source materials. The authors of these books (and later the editors who decided which books would be included) created the myth of Christianity which persists today. The study of these authors and the social climate that fostered and shaped them is the important subject.
Everything else is just trying to give Christianity a factual basis, a concept I find at odds with the heart of religion. In my opinion, faith is the most important aspect of Christianity. Faith is difficult to believe in, unlike factual histories. I like Christianity as described by Kierkegaard (particularly in Fear and Trembling). Blind acceptance of things is foolish and easy. Faith is believing in both reason and that which contradicts reason, a far more difficult task.
@ozel You need to back up those claims with some authoritative citations. To my knowledge, there are no such descriptions with the specificity that you indicate. There is one (I think just one) Roman source describing John the Baptist and maybe one incredibly vague reference to the death of a Jewish religious leader but there were others who could fit that description from the time. - antwan17, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3@ozel, you stated that "The Biblical account of the crucifixion and resurrection are proven through the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived at the time of Christ, as well as the Roman record. That is one proof, shall I present more?"
Well unfortunately you haven't presented one yet.
Josephus did not live as you state in the so called "time of Christ". He was born sometime in the mid 30's C.E. He wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, which is the work I assume you are attempting to reference in the year 93 C.E. In this work he supposedly references Jesus twice. Once he mentions that James, a leading member of the early church had a brother named Jesus. He mentions this in passing and does not reference Jesus as being of any additional importance.
The other time Josephus mentions Jesus is in whats become known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Here he writes "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Now there are numerous problems with this part of the text, first and foremost is that it doesn't actually show up in any form until the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea in his work Demonstratio Evangelica which was finished roughly around 311 C.E. This is a problem because Eusebius was an ardent follower of an earlier Christian apologist and writer, Origen who wrote roughly around 240 C.E.
This presents a problem for the Testimonium Flavianum because Origen, who was aware, of and Quoted form Josephus' The Antiquities of the Jews at no point mentions the Testimonium Flavianum.
There are numerous other issues with the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum ranging from stylistic issues and translation issues as well as the fact that there is a competing translation from the Russian Orthodox church ranging from roughly the same time frame as Eusebius' quoting of the passage that does not have the Testimonium in it at all.
So all in all, the idea the you've presented a proof here today is highly debatable. - JigoroKano, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5The Josephus references were determined to be forgeries in the 17th century... by Christians mind you.
Only the dumbest and most desperate Christian apologists hang onto the Josephus references.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 11/12/2008, -3/+28"Pay scientists enough to generate "findings" that support the cause."
- IkeWarrior, on 11/11/2008, -20/+11And this distinguishes it from the myth of AGW how ‽ ‽ ‽
- greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -9/+11First show me what is wrong with the climate science
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ...
to justify calling it a myth.
- greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -9/+11First show me what is wrong with the climate science
- digitronix, on 11/12/2008, -21/+27Belief is accepting something as true despite uncertainty. It is very uncertain that human action is causing global warming. Therefore, environmentalism is based on belief and is a religion.
- greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -13/+17Except you are wrong about the science
"Humans Causing Climate Change " http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ... - Pwelborn1, on 11/12/2008, -16/+12greenfyre
Why do you "need" that to be true? It's not true, it's speculation. Stop trying to pass off theory as fact. - Turambar, on 11/12/2008, -7/+15Pwelborn1: Please stop misinterpreting the word "Theory"
- ProfessorSYM, on 11/12/2008, -3/+9Environmentalism doesn't claim to address issues of human morality other than "Should we take care of our environment?"; a religion deals more specifically with morality as a whole, and attempts to answer metaphysical questions that cannot be proven by the sciences.
As for the question of whether we should take care of this planet or not, if you are a Christian, and believe that God created the earth for us to live on, then the answer should be a resounding YES.
If you are a stingy CEO who doesn't want to tap into multi-million dollar bonus packages to pay for cleaner technologies for your company, the answer is no and the medium for attempting to influence the masses would be to put right wing talk radio hosts on your payroll to help create anger toward people who don't want to unnecessarily pollute and destroy this planet. - ldailey06, on 11/12/2008, -1/+9Take a high school level science class and you'll learn that we aren't "certain" of anything. We aren't certain that humans are causing global warming, just like we aren't certain that the tooth fairy doesn't exist and I am not certain that I don't have unrealized magical powers.
It is, however, very likely that humans are causing global warming. Thus, we should take action. - tschau, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4so evolution is a religion also, because there is no 100% certainty of it? Your definition is incorrect.
- ozel01, on 11/12/2008, -2/+3Yes, the firestorm of criticism. Shall we say the USA doesn't really exist because Britain refused to acknowledge our independence? Shall we say we are all under some mass hysteria because we really don't exist but are instead still subject to the British crown? After all, the only thing we have proving our independence is our own documentation.
- padraic2112, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1@ Idailey06
> We aren't certain that humans are causing global warming, just
> like we aren't certain that the tooth fairy doesn't exist and I am
> not certain that I don't have unrealized magical powers.
FULL POINT. - sigmaman2, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3Belief is accepting something as true despite uncertainty. It is very uncertain that you will know an electron's position and velocity simultaneously. Therefore, Particle Physics is based on belief and is a religion.
Yeah...that doesn't make much sense either. - directedition, on 11/12/2008, -1/+1@ldailey06
What basis gives us reason to believe humans caused global warming? There is serious cause to suggest that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
To be clear, I believe in conservation just in principle, but I also don't believe that we necessarily cause global warming.
I don't believe there is a scientific consensus that we caused global warming. I believe there is a consensus that saying that will yield and grant money and disagreeing with that will get you ostracized. - ldailey06, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1I would love to see where you're hearing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
If you deliberately believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, expect to be ostracized.
- greenfyre, on 11/12/2008, -13/+17Except you are wrong about the science
- LongShlong, on 11/12/2008, -7/+13There's a lot of 'fact-skewing' that goes on among environmentalists.
- cdstewart, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1There's a lot of 'fact-skewing' that goes on among [insert name of group here].
That statement is also generally true. You'll find idiots in any crowd. - LongShlong, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1But in recent history, environmentalism is loaded with more heretics than most others. PS. Thanks for identifying yourself.
- cdstewart, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1There's a lot of 'fact-skewing' that goes on among [insert name of group here].
- jrackow, on 11/12/2008, -1/+1Well, define what you're referring to. If you're referring to archeology then you'd be dead wrong. Can't think of much other science that you'd be referring to in proving or disproving religion, unless something claimed the earth to be flat or something related to that. Science-wise, take the bible for example, we know that we can read many parts and get a sense that they had a deep understanding of the environment. It's easy to say: "Religion isn't backed up by any facts".... and then get dugg. It's digg. It's just that your comment doesn't have merit. You have a lot of people that agree with you, but they're wrong, too. A big boat of wrongness, or something.
- NewGTGuy, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3Read the Iron Mountain report.
Here is a good video on it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-674562734 ...
A bit old, but informative.- 15charmaxwtf, on 11/12/2008, -1/+1Thanks! I saw that mentioned in a book a couple of days ago.
- theodokomodo, on 11/12/2008, -2/+6that's exactly what he's arguing though -- that environmentalism largely discredits opposing scientific viewpoints and avoids open discussion about what's actually happening to our environment on the global scale... he's saying that they are in a sense blindly committed to one set of 'facts' that actually have some legitimate counterarguments.... they're rejecting skepticism in favor of faith in something
- padraic2112, on 11/12/2008, -2/+2That is indeed what he's saying.
That's also totally wrong, and it's not what's happening.
And really, a professor of any science ought to know that speaking out in an area that you don't actually study is a ***** thing for any upstanding scientist to do. He's not a climatologist. You don't see global climate scientists trying to butt their collective research noses into mining science and suggesting that the best way to extract fine grade metals from an ore sample is to sing "Cum By Ya" around the lump outside by a campfire, and then complaining that mining geologists won't teach the controversy.
- padraic2112, on 11/12/2008, -2/+2That is indeed what he's saying.
- goldylocks7621, on 11/12/2008, -3/+7What planet do you live on. Everybody has met environmentalists, they are known for believing in things that they cannot prove and don't know anything about. They act pretty much like christians in that they don't think rationally about it. That's pretty close to a religion if you ask me.
- padraic2112, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4If you're talking about whacko-nutbag Gaia-worshippers, yeah... you're right.
Climate scientists and environmental scientists aren't any closer related to those people than animal husbandry scientists are members of PETA.
- padraic2112, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4If you're talking about whacko-nutbag Gaia-worshippers, yeah... you're right.
- NeoCortex, on 11/12/2008, -1/+2I have faith in Joe Pesci.
- elektronjunge, on 11/12/2008, -2/+2Clearly you have never studied any philosophy or history. Science is an accepted set of believes that can be proven by other accepted believes. Its really no different from any other religion.
- ZenMojo, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Protip: Call anything anything else and 9 out of 10 people won't bother to wonder if you're just pulling it out of your ass.
- feignNU, on 11/13/2008, -1/+1*some* religion is faith based. You should probably not try to pidgeonhole all human religion like that when you clearly don't really know ***** about it. All it does is add fuel to the already raging fire of misunderstanding between religious people and scientifically-minded people.
- ozel01, on 11/11/2008, -42/+22I can back Christianity up with a ton of facts. Problem is, secular society prefers to ignore the facts and generate "truths" from falsified information. Here is a prime example:
- highlymodified, on 11/11/2008, -52/+86I'm sure it's true that environmentalism rises as Christianity declines:
Once you stop caring about the evils of buttsex, you start caring about the planet and your place in it.
Still, buried as inaccurate.
I see where the guy is going, but environmentalism is based on science, and it's simply not true that there's some fixed dogma on how to go about it.
Look at the ongoing debate on nuclear power among environmentalists if you think that somehow all dissenters are crushed.