What is Digg?248 Comments
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -8/+82I'm formally resigning from any global warming threads. It's getting obvious that neither side has it's ducks in a row. I'll keep doing the green thing because it is good for the environment but I'm adopting a wait and see attitude with the climate data.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -13/+65In the interest of full disclosure, this correction applies only to average temperatures within the United States.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -19/+70Too bad this couldn't have been corrected less than 9 years after the hysteria over 1998's temperatures. It might have made people stop and think a little more instead of subscribing to fear.
- RedHerringHack, on 10/10/2007, -11/+47America, last time I checked, was still part of the globe. Global Warming is based on good science based on flawed data. How accurate do you think that the german temperature readings were in 1944? The global temperature database is very dirty, with temps taken with uncalibrated thermometers at random times of the day. I wouldn't rely on the data to make any kind of forward prediction. It is impossible to predict the weather, the global weather system is too chaotic and 100 years of direct observation under controlled conditions is the minimum to extrapolate a trend.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -6/+37Wrong. It's proof that global warming has the ability to time travel.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -6/+34I also apologize for the tenor of this article; I would have rather submitted something more objective and balanced, but a day later, still no major newspaper or TV channel has touched the story.
- zephc, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33Sweet, we can stop recycling and driving energy efficient cars now!
Going to clear cut the a forest, brb! - destinyland, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24If you graph NASA's new data, it still shows that 7 of the last 10 years have been the hottest ever recorded. Click here to see for yourself.
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real/
This graph is accompanied by a point-by-point rebutal of every point against global warming... - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
Real Climate's take on the story - kweee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+22This gives further credit to my theory of Global Everything Is Fine.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Here is the link to NASA's acknowledgment
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ - KMye, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Nasa acknowledged the error, though. This is a time where ad hominem just doesn't work...
- execute85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Yeah, I kind of figured this article was about US temps since the data is from like the US Historical Climatology Network and not like the "Everywhere including US Historical Climatology Network".
But thanks for the full disclosure. - neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12"keep in mind this website is an extremely conservative outfit. take a look at their main page, half the stories are anti-global warming"
By that reasoning, Digg is an extremely liberal outfit. Look at all the "pro-global warming," anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush, etc. articles (and the majority of the comments as well).
Now that both sites are "extreme" we can rule out the validity/truth of both (is that kind of like saying "I only tell lies"?) - gniess, on 10/10/2007, -23/+33"Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count, not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that."
So this is for the U.S. alone, not the rest of the world. It's also a pretty biased source based on that language. Not that I'm arguing with the data. It's just poorly presented. - postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18good for you. you might also find that many "evil conservatives" really do like thinks like clean air and clean water. we just don't want to hand the world over to a bunch of communist thugs.
- rhylan, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21So many people are going to take this as absolute proof global warming doesn't exist
- badken, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Sorry, I have a hard time taking any article seriously that uses the inflammatory and fabricated word "Gorebots".
It isn't global warming "apologists" who have the significant financial incentive to proselytize their position. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10The truth is we still to this very day do not have the capability to make accurate enough measurements of all the variables in enough detail to model anything with any useful accuracy.
The most glaring fact is no one even knows what all the variables are and probably never will.
The claim of 100 years of usable data is non-sense and even if we did have 100 years of PERFECT DATA, it is an inadequate sample even in simple statistics.
In any case the climate is a chaotic system that can't be solved with ANY numeric approach as it is far too complex by many orders of magnitude.
In fact it is in a class of problems that cannot be solved by any method or with any amount of effort. - bolerobell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Umm, the data that the article linked to does not bear out the conclusions that the blog recites.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16NASA has posted the corrected figures.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383 - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9It means that "Manbearpig" has been lame for way too long to keep saying it. And I still consider some Soviet Russia jokes funny.
- Phyltre, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I'll handle the b forest, thanks for splitting things up.
- anaesthetica, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I don't think Diggers understand sarcasm.
- Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11You think there is no money to be made form global warming fear mongering? Are you REALLY that stupid? Al Gore goes on a world wide manhunt against global warming, and just happens to own a carbon offset company? How much money was paid to scientists who came up with data in favor of global warming last year, versus for scientists who came upwith data debunking it?
Come on.... just follow the money.
Same thing happened about this time last century. widespread fear mongering, went on well into the 30's in America, look into the history of eugenics from about 1900 up to WWII.
There was money in supporting the fear, the force coming to destroy the world.... - samdu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Ad hominem NEVER "works." It's the last resort of someone losing an argument flat.
- Zarmao, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Sure, global warming is just a big dumb hoax by the crazy tree-huggers! So, why is the Northwest Passage starting to open up for the first time in recorded history? Why is the siberian tundra melting over areas as big as the entire united states? Why is there essentially no snow on mount kilamanjaro for the first time since Kenya was explored? Why is virtually every glacier in the himalayan mountains receding at 10 times the rate of 30 years ago? Why are sheep now grazing on areas of the Chilean Andes that have previously been snow covered for 200 years? Why are large icebergs chunking off of antarctica at double the rate of just a few years ago.
You have to be a total flaming idiot retard to deny that the world is warming up. Sure, we might not know exactly what is causing it. But there is no doubt that humanity is involved. The people who deny global warming are generally the same business uber alles fascists who fought against every environmental law every passed in this country. They would be happy if half the public lived in a foul haze of deadly smog if it meant more profits for the business class. But oddly enough the vast majority of americans actually prefer to breath clean air. And the public is starting to catch on to the hazards of global warming despite billions of dollars of propaganda churned out by the right wing. - profertel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Dr Hansen at GISS is probably one of Bush's least favorite government employees.
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14These corrected data points change nothing. The hottest (or coldest) days on record aren't really of any significance, it is the average global temperature over time that matters, and it's going up. Any one hottest day out of a year or a century can have many causes as far as global climate patterns are concerned, that's why no scientists are pointing out hot days today and saying "see, global warming!".
Do any of you really think that if this winter we recorded the coldest day in US history it would close the debate on global warming and scientists would claim the coming ice age? Obviously not, and it's the same case with these adjusted peak temperature readings. Even if global warming literally did not exist, increasing clean energy, recycling and conservation efforts is a win-win situation for everyone except the oil companies in the long run. That said, these findings still do nothing to change the fact that there is a general consensus among scientists worldwide that the average global temperature is rising, this changes nothing, and I think it is hilarious how many people are clinging to this as "proof" that global warming is not a problem. - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
You can see for yourself at the NASA site. - Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -15/+21There's way too much misreporting (possibly on both sides) of the global warming debate. Thus, I wish people would just shut up and stop being so gullible to believe in the (absurdly) "undeniable" evidence of human-caused global warming. There are many holes in the "facts" of these environmentalist nutjobs' statistics (read: real facts disprove their originally-called facts).
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -13/+18There's a free google video that sort of, but not fully explains the media blackout: the great global warming swindel. But tell me, who in hear can't see when people are looking to make a killing, moneywise? Doesn't it make sense for the rich and powerful to scare you up to think that there's a climate crisis so that you're willing to pay a "carbon tax" to "offset global warming"? It does make sense, they've scammed us before with the income tax and the death tax and the inheritance tax, and we fall for it every time.
For anyone interested in just finding the real story behind the bull and smokescreen, i want you to go and discover it yourself without my help so as to allow you to see the truth yourself. So, for yourself, go google, yahoo, or whatever else these hints:
Abiotic Oil, Underground coal fires in China burn for millions of years, Ukrainian/russian deep oil theory, bronze era average temperature, carbon tax, scientists sue to have name removed from global warming list, thames river freezes in 1700's, sun increases to double radiance, pluto and mars ice caps melting.
it took me a couple months of non stop researching, but the pay off to know the real truth is always worth it. Good luck my fellow nerds...excuse me, digg users.... - Brutusfly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Whew! I guess we can tell all the glaciers to come back now!
- postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5come on! you can't digg down a south park comment. that is just wrong.
screw you guys, i'm going home! - hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Dugg both your comments up for frankness and rationality. (Even though I suspect we might not agree on global warming.)
- Pixelpaws, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's not fair to dismiss something merely as being right-wing (or left-wing). If the data is flawed, it's flawed, regardless of who points it out.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The tubes are too clogged to transport your sarcasm to most diggers.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6ah well, I guess it doesn't matter if you stand in front of the gun when it is fired or after it has been fired. After all It is just one bullet.
- proliance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Caponumen is correct when he says there currently is no correct model to measure the urban island effect. Who is to say data from New York city in 1950 wasn't corrupted because of the large amount of concrete and asphalt were'n't properly entered into the equations?
The urban island effect is completely different from global warming and the two shouldn't be confused. - gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Yeah, better to stick to Orwellian thugs.
- gordeaoux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7MY GOD, you're right! Those extra .02 DO mean global warming is a "swindle!!!!'"
oh, except for the 5-year Mean.
And that it's only US data. - neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I know it's a faux pa to mention a competing site but at least the people on Slashdot had a balanced commentary about this story, unlike the very one-sided discussion here. I'm not arguing against global warming, I'm just pointing out that most people who even try to raise questions about global warming are dugg down, put in Madame la Guillotine, and beheaded without a trial.
- Scorpy2643, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5i challenge you to go to your local colleg and take just one geology course. Ask your professor how many times, before men even existed on the planet, did it heat and cool. pay close attention to the answer.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Found some more technical explanations, from McIntyre himself
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1854
http://www.climateaudit.org/ Main page
And here's his wikipedia entry just to save some time for those who will want to go ad hominem instead of addressing the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre - KMye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
- robwilkens, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10This was mentioned in yesterday's "Rush in a hurry" newsletter from the rushlimbaugh.com website.
- snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dug down for logical fallacy - "appeal to authority"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7The truth is we still to this very day do not have the capability to make accurate enough measurements of all the variables in enough detail to model anything with any useful accuracy.
The most glaring fact is no one even knows what all the variables are and probably never will.
The claim of 100 years of usable data is non-sense and even if we did have 100 years of PERFECT DATA, it is an inadequate sample even in simple statistics.
In any case the climate is a chaotic system that can't be solved with ANY numeric approach as it is far too complex by many orders of magnitude.
In fact it is in a class of problems that cannot be solved by any method or with any amount of effort. - Nanobe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Here's the data the blog post is looking at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
Notice it's U.S. only.
Here's another graph from the same page, for global temperature: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
Yeah, it's called "global warming", not "U.S. warming" - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8I accept your resignation, sir.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 236 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
