What is Digg?53 Comments
- Dralha, on 11/26/2008, -3/+17Your deep religious faith in global warming denialism makes big oil and king coal proud.
- PeachesTheCow, on 11/26/2008, -3/+13comedy... Spaza, care to explain yourself, or is this just another Ad hominem attack? Not much of a thinker are you?
- doublefelix, on 11/26/2008, -3/+12You lost your credibility right about where you started to see comments where there are none.
- okyourturn, on 11/26/2008, -3/+11care to share your hard data?
- tdsinfo, on 11/26/2008, -2/+10Did you say ad hominem attack? Hmmm.....
- greenfyre, on 11/26/2008, -0/+8Another excellent article on glaciers:
Thirsty Yet? Alpine Glaciers in Full Retreat
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/11/18/thirst ...
See esp the change in thickness since the 1960s
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/johnnyroo ... - Gemfinder, on 11/26/2008, -2/+9The Ganga (Ganges) River is fed by a glacier. Do you know how many people live along the Ganga?
There's a temple by the Ghats in Varanasi that's been engulfed by the river; I get the feeling that more temples in Varanasi are gonna be submerged... - tbom, on 11/26/2008, -0/+7nice links in the article itself--although I don't think the guy writing it fully understands climate variation with altitude with the way he's writing about the "snows of Everest" disappearing. There's a big elevation difference between the Himalayan plateau (4000-6000m), and mountain peaks such as Everest (8848m).
- Leems, on 11/26/2008, -2/+9Wow wow wow, just imagine if you were told that you would have to move hundreds of miles away and relocate because a world more rich than your own has been careless? You would be ***** pissed!
This could lead to devastating results and we will be all to blame! - nick111, on 11/26/2008, -1/+8This is you :
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont ...
All your lies and disinformation answered here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics : How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic - greenfyre, on 11/26/2008, -1/+7So show how the facts are wrong rather than innuedndo by using words like "opinion" when they state facts and cite sources.
- greenfyre, on 11/26/2008, -0/+5Then again you could also look at the science so you know what you are talking about ... that "could" happen:
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... - greenfyre, on 11/26/2008, -0/+5And you would explain the catastrophic loss in ice ... how?
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/drinking ... - greenfyre, on 11/26/2008, -0/+4And you would explain the catastrophic decrease in glaciers
Thirsty Yet? Alpine Glaciers in Full Retreat
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/11/18/thirst ...
... how? - vikingcoder, on 11/26/2008, -0/+4Finalreminder,
If you can provide nothing but bluster when presented with the science, then you are the one pushing an ideology. - nbouma, on 11/26/2008, -3/+7from treehugger.com???
.... possibly a biased opinion. - Trent1492, on 11/26/2008, -0/+4@mmx2000,
So do you have an argument other than one of personal incredulity? - greenfyre, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4Which 2? one of the ones I cite? how is a "could" relevant to the one I cite?
- andergriff, on 11/26/2008, -0/+3Well, I guess by pushing your date out so far, no one can argue, huh? If you're wrong, who's going to remember you even made the prediction?
- greenfyre, on 11/26/2008, -2/+5I don't understand why some digger thinks the millions of scientists in the world haven't realized all of this and it is all part of the science ... kind of arrogant, no?
How about you look at the science and then make relevant comments instead of just running off at the mouth?
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... - hapax, on 11/26/2008, -0/+2The link reads WORMING not WARMING. That's the joke, sheesh.
- Trent1492, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2How about the fact that they give no stated probability of the event occurring?"
That is false. From the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Notes:
"Table 3. Quantitatively calibrated levels of confidence.
Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very High confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance "
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:KAfBke7pKxkJ: ...
Google is your friend. - slapthemonkey, on 11/26/2008, -0/+2That will be doomsday
- milohoss, on 11/26/2008, -1/+3What's your IQ Me008? I'd estimate around 75....
- shinpoe, on 11/26/2008, -2/+4looks like I'll be able to climb Mt. Everest in my life time
- Trent1492, on 11/26/2008, -0/+2Do you have an actual rationally based objections to these findings?
- lostlyrics, on 11/28/2008, -0/+2att kindcastor
your disrespect seems not
to be worthwhile mourning ...
long-term more of your kind certainly
increase the tendency of could to "will". - gizram84, on 05/30/2009, -0/+2@Leems
that there are so many self loathing idiots that are all just willing and ready to believe that global warming is not only real, but all our fault. - humanstruggle, on 11/26/2008, -0/+2This is the argument that will bring China to the table on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions. .... eventually. They are not going to change anytime soon... but if they will ....this is the argument.
- Trent1492, on 11/29/2008, -0/+2
"How about the fact that they give no stated probability of the event occurring?"
That is false. From the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Notes:
"Table 3. Quantitatively calibrated levels of confidence.
Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very High confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance "
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:KAfBke7pKxkJ: ...
Google is your friend. - kindpastor, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2How about the fact that they give no stated probability of the event occurring? The IPCC reported that the likelihood of the Glaciers melting completely was "very high" (undefined) IF the warming trend continued to at the current rate. So the probability of doom for the glaciers is based entirely on the probability their 2008 rate of decline continuing, which is...?
- proliance, on 11/26/2008, -4/+5Chicken Little called. He said to stop stealing his line.
- WiretapStudios, on 11/26/2008, -1/+2* boat across Lake Everest
- kindpastor, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2"Could": An axillary verb used to describe the undefined probability of numerous bad things happening as a result of global warming.
Example:
"Dude, global warming could flood the world trade center!"
"What do you mean "could'"?
"I mean there's a chance it will happen."
"like, what, a 50% chance?"
"uhh..."
"25%?"
"I don't know exactly, but why take the risk, right?"
"Doesn't risk analysis involve the measurement of both costs and probabilities?"
"Neo-con, corporation loving, science-hating global warming denier!" - EricSchC1, on 11/26/2008, -0/+1"In the last twelve months, China has had its coldest winter in 100 years."
Ozone depletion causes all sorts of odd weather changes in addition to global warming.
"It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history."
Yeah, that's actually not supposed to happen, given its a ***** dessert.
"North America had the most snow cover in the last fifty years."
Um, not in California, Oregon, Washington or Nevada. Quite the opposite actually. There's been near record-breaking heat in most of the Southern U.S.
"There are record levels of Antarctic sea ice."
Land Ice=good, Sea Ice=bad
"There has been record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, and Chile."
Ozone depletion causes all sorts of odd weather changes in addition to global warming, or "See Above."
"Johannesburg, South Africa, had its first significant snowfall in 26 years."
This Article seems to somewhat back up my claim there's a relation to global warming/climate change to that actual event. Or, "See Above."
Me008 only likes steaming ***** from "DUH TURRISTS R GUNNA GITCHA" crowd. - mmx2000, on 11/26/2008, -2/+3I'm not debunking global warming or climate change. I think "abrupt" climate change or "catastrophic" climate change is *****. I think that saying one of the largest glaciers in the world is going to disappear in 30 years is *****.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't take action, but get the ***** scare tactics out of my face. the War on Climate Change is the new War on Terror. - hapax, on 11/26/2008, -3/+4Global Worming, hehehe.
- inactive, on 11/26/2008, -4/+5and the arctic wont have any ice by summer 2008!
- sexLethal, on 11/26/2008, -3/+4easier to climb Everest, i'm for it
- junkneo, on 11/26/2008, -2/+2Good, we will finally know the real height of Everest peak.
Oh oh, all those climbers wasted their time, they should have waited for global warming. - mmx2000, on 11/26/2008, -3/+3Everest "could" disappear in 33 years? Yeah, okay. Anything "could" happen, but I don't hold my breath because all the air molecules in the room "could" suddenly migrate into a 1x1 cm cube in the corner.
- jshooter1377, on 11/26/2008, -2/+2I guess thats one upside to this whole global warming ordeal. It'll be easier to climb Mount Everest!
- chirpygimp, on 11/26/2008, -1/+1we're all going to hell in a hand-cart!!
- kindpastor, on 11/27/2008, -2/+2I will never respect environmentalists until they objectively define their "coulds". Neither article on glacier melt does this.
- MacParrot, on 11/26/2008, -3/+3OK, while we should as good custodians figure out ways to pollute less, if we already have caused enough damage since the dawn of the industrial age to make glaciers disappear in less than 30 years, recycling isn't going to make any difference. Trying to say that ALL forms of energy production that pollutes must be stopped NOW isn't realistic either (and again will make little difference to glaciers already doomed) unless you want to live in the dark for the 15-20 years it will take to replace the current grid.
Most of these types of articles try to force a sense of urgency that won't make any difference based on what's already happened. - Finalreminder, on 11/26/2008, -7/+6I don’t understand why environ-mentals believe a climate should stay constant. All planets with an atmosphere undergo climate change. Sometimes it's slow and steady and sometimes it's rapid.
What makes me laugh at that site is they say, matter of factly, that mankind is causing climate change and as proof they post a link to Al Gore. If that doesn't send up a flag I don’t know what will!
1: There is absolutely no independent peer reviewed proof that man is or has caused climate change.
The IPCC says on their own website "The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change"
Before you even start they're openly telling you "We believe man did it and we're going to make sure the Science is threaded into that belief to support it"
Ergo, the IPCC cannot be trusted as an independent source.
2: Climate change is a fact of life. It's been with the planet for well over 3 billion years. What the environmentals don’t tell you is that a climate variance of a few degrees even over a few years happened many times over Earths history, way before man was on this planet.
3: Just because it seems most people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is true. until recently most people used to believe in witches, dragons and a flat-planet.
If you believe we're too advanced to fall for such things then consider that millions still believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, bones were planted there by a Devil and billions believe there's some guy who lives in the sky.
If they believe that with complete lack of proof then what will they believe if the Government and IPCC tell them too? - Leems, on 11/26/2008, -3/+2whats the joke?
- inactive, on 11/26/2008, -4/+2It's in the post above...just like I said.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 