What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
92 Comments
- realeskimopimp, on 07/08/2009, -6/+21Oil still controls the world.
- salinemist, on 07/08/2009, -5/+1845% of the world's GDP and only 25% of it's "greenhouse gas" emissions makes us look pretty ***** clean.
- dave9999, on 07/08/2009, -5/+17Our percentage will go down.
- AmyVernon, on 07/08/2009, -1/+12I'm so shoc- oh, wait, nevermind.
- DirtyVicar, on 07/08/2009, -4/+15Well with the global economy in the toilet there's no incentive to do things that are costly but good in the long run.
- gdo01, on 07/08/2009, -0/+10Why does everyone look so uncharacteristically happy?
Taro Aso is beaming, Sarkozy looks like he is recalling a good joke, Berlusconi looks supremely satisfied, and Medvedev looks like he is in a laughing fit. - inactive, on 07/08/2009, -4/+13Why am i not surprised!
- jsffive, on 07/08/2009, -5/+14.038%.
That's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Two fifths of a tenth of a percent. And some would want us to believe that it's apparently destroying the ecosystem.
But no, I'm just speaking rhetoric from the oil companies, because they stand to lose money from reduced CO2 emissions. But for some reason, no one ever talks about the money that stands to be gained by carbon taxing.
Taxing an element on the periodic table. Think about that for a moment, and please reconsider exactly how far you are willing to let our governments go. - scoottie, on 07/08/2009, -7/+16Good no cap and tax
- qiaohua, on 07/08/2009, -3/+12Though I'm sure they expelled a good amount of hot air.
- LukeEsntlPdx, on 07/08/2009, -7/+14It's my understanding that a lot of the countries are still debating the economic worth of trying to stop global warming when there's a lot of evidence showing that it may not be a man-made change.
I don't think drastic investment in "trapping gases" is the right move until the situation about what's actually causing global warming is more understood. - addiggt, on 07/08/2009, -1/+7No surprise there.
- AwakeAmerican, on 07/08/2009, -3/+9Good
- Purin, on 07/08/2009, -11/+17Good.
Global warming is not a threat to the world. - EricSchC1, on 07/08/2009, -3/+8@Talphin I don't know why you're being buried. I think what you're saying is a hard truth for people to take, when people are only looking at money and finance. Wealth has no value to anyone, if our existence is an unbearable environmental nightmare.
@arbiter13 I'm sure some species will adapt, but at what cost to the way of life those species are already accustomed to? You think a cleaning up a nation after a recession is bad, you should see what happens when a species is more-or-less forced to adapt or die off due to an unforgiving ecological infrastructure. Change and development of that scale is neither easy nor painless. - PM08, on 07/08/2009, -10/+15Great work G8, it's great to see that not every country is falling for this science fiction.
- ismhmr, on 07/08/2009, -6/+11World Government by means of phony Climate Change. I hope this gets shot down over and over. The Carbon Taxes are screaming " This is a Scam." Just like Obama, and the Iraq War.
- SpykerSpeed, on 07/08/2009, -15/+20Any time nations fail to agree on something is a good time. Diversity of governance FTW.
- fleischner, on 07/08/2009, -13/+18Thank for the good news. Makes my day.
- atomheartmother, on 07/08/2009, -4/+9It is very good news that the G8 has not been able to reach consensus, as the IPCC forecasts in the are not the outcome of validated scientific procedures. In effect, they are the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing- many of whom have a vested interest in promoting their theories. In fact, peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate.
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat ... - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -4/+8By that reasoning, @z0rk, any regulation should be prohibited. After all, it's much cheaper for factories to release their toxic by-products directly into the environment.
Industries fought against pollution regulation for years. However, other industries have sprung up and are in fact flourishing, because those regulations led to technological advancement which they then took advantage of. In other words-
Your failed business model is NOT my concern. Adapt or die. - bobofzo, on 07/08/2009, -2/+6Wow that was suprising
- atomheartmother, on 07/08/2009, -3/+7greenfyre or his computer must have expired.
- edrodgers731, on 07/08/2009, -2/+6Hey, wasn't global climate change happening before man was around? Maybe you should be more specific.
- Unreal411, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4global warming is the biggest hoax ever. period.
now bend over and say hello to carbon tax - avianeddy, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4sounds simplistic
but it's true - PeppermintPig, on 07/08/2009, -3/+6That's not the point. The point is to stop assuming that just because there's a problem that governments should be the ones dealing with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFM9eFVCRQ
They've done an amazing job so far, and the never-ending promises of future CHANGE continue to up the ante of hubris. - quarando, on 07/08/2009, -11/+14This is a very serious problem that our basic economic and political institutions are fundamentally incapable of dealing with. If you look at popular opinion around the world, there is broad consensus that people are willing to make real sacrifice to try to address this crisis. The real problem is that international corporate interests continually obstruct any progress whatsoever.
Notice what this says about the democratic nature of the industrial powers. There is broad public support for not destroying the planet, yet year after year we get further from a solution. This is because we don't live in a democracy. We live in a vast corporatocracy where my opinion or your opinions don't count for anything. Until we dismantle the underlying corporate-capitalism that dominates political and social life and marginalizes the global population there is little hope of long term sustainable solutions. We will continue to hurdle towards major ecological disaster and a collapse of civilization. - Detritus, on 07/08/2009, -9/+12Man, and we thought Europeans hated us before. I heard on Science Friday their sea levels are rising 3x more than projected. When that little factoid becomes common knowledge with this G8 Fail I'm going to have to start to pretend I'm Canadian on the Internet too.
O Canada, our home and native land! - GreatSunJester, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4What? If we try it now and throw lots of other people's money at it, it is BOUND to work!
- arbiter13, on 07/08/2009, -8/+11I hate to bring some sunshine on to your doomsday parade, but really? All life will end? Nothing will adapt?
- borez, on 07/08/2009, -7/+10The only way we'll ever deal with CO2 emissions is future population control, otherwise it's just pissing in the snow.
Oh and before anybody comes back at me with the inevitable " So you're gonna be first in line then are you?" comment, notice the word "future" as in a 1 couple, 1 child policy kind of thing. - edrodgers731, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3"the water vapor has always been there, its whats needed to keep our planet at its current temperature.
and more importantly if it gets warmer, concentrations of water vapor goes DOWN (warm air holds less water). so its self regulating."
This is the best argument I've seen that global warming is not a threat. Let me make sure I get what you are saying. So water vapour, the primary mover for the green house effect, is self regulating based on temperature? That would explain why co2 levels and temperature levels are not in sync. As co2 increases, thereby increasing temperature, water vapour would then decrease, canceling out the effect? I have seen such ignorance... You apparently do not know that water vapor and c02 have the same insulating effect. Why would you know that? The environmental crazies are keeping it a secret I guess. Water vapour is THE greenhouse gas. co2 is nothing compared to it.
Seriously, best argument against global warming I have seen yet.
"i have rarely seen such ignorance..."
Well, you obviously are listening to Al Gore, so there's one example of such ignorance. Where do you get that "whole nations" estimate? (I've seen it too, right next to the drowning polar bears) Seriously, if we went back to the Jurassic and the ice completely melted, nobody would drown.
About Africa.. Have you considered that while Africa gets hotter, precipitation patterns may shift, and Africa may become a thriving jungle?
You know, around a thousand years ago we had a little ice age. It killed off quite a bit of the civilized world. Maybe you have heard of it? The dark ages? Plague and famine? You really want to risk going back to that?
Change happens. Adapt. Almost all of this change is not caused by us, nor is there anything we can do to keep the Earth exactly the way it is now. What are we going to do in 1500 years when that giant hydrogen cloud in space finally pushes back our solar wind and sucks out all of our oxygen?
You know that recent volcanic eruption that was so brilliantly photographed from space? Why don't you people go sulk in the corner about it because that thing just pumped out more c02 than the industrial revolution? Because it's not caused by man it's okay? Well then, you will be pleased to know that we have found matching increases in temperature on 3 other planets (so far), which indicates that this whole recent temperature increase may just be solar activity. Wouldn't you be relieved if the Earth was warming naturally?
Yes, I'm going overboard. I just feel like it's the only way to counter the equally blown out of proportion "facts" that are now called "popular science".
Doesn't it bother you at all that Al Gore's movie has been proven to be an alarmist exaggeration? That there are numerous lies, half truths, and unwarranted fear mongering techniques? If these tactics are used there, and the man shares a Nobel peace prize for it, don't you think there might be a great deal more hype and exaggeration floating around in the main stream of popular culture?
Just open up a bit and listen to the geologists for a change. Most of them disagree with the hysteria. - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4So now you guys are saying that politicians should set scientific policy?
- edrodgers731, on 07/08/2009, -5/+8Let's go further: Only 3% of the Co2 in the air is man made. Co2 represents only 3.6% of greenhouse gasses. We are talking about a small percentage of a small percentage of a tiny percentage that is our contribution to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If you really want to stop the Earth from cooling, (I'm sure it will start to warm again soon), you need to remove water vapor from the atmosphere, since that is the vast bulk of greenhouse gas.
I'm not saying there is no impact, I'm just saying that all the cars in the world are making a minuscule difference that probably can't be measured, coal plants are completely overshadowed by volcanic eruption, and carbon dioxide is just a scape goat in all of this.
People on the "green revolution" side don't like those numbers, so they ignore them. They prefer to focus on other statistics that aren't proven to be linked to man made "pollution".
Down with fuel cells! Water vapor is going to kill us all! - z0rk, on 07/08/2009, -7/+9Maybe because man made global warming is still a theory and agreeing to do something about something that is still a theory is a bad idea? Or maybe because each country has different needs and agreeing to do something against those needs is bad.
- Hyperian, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2noone actually wants to save the planet, they just want someone else to do it. HA
- borez, on 07/08/2009, -5/+7Well, it's gonna have to be accepted, or we'll eventually extinct ourselves.
- flip2trip, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2"No incentive? How about the fact that life will cease to exist (at least as we know it) on Earth if we don't do anything about it?"
I got news...all life will cease to exist whether we do anything about it or not. - borez, on 07/08/2009, -3/+5No, pissing in the snow as in a tiny change to a large area. I meant it exactly as I said.
- edrodgers731, on 07/09/2009, -1/+3How many metric tons of water vapour are in the atmosphere, genius? You probably don't care because it shifts your ***** argument the wrong way. Carbon dioxide is a tiny piece of the greenhouse gas mix. Man's contribution to that tiny piece is also tiny.
But you don't want to put it into any kind of perspective, because it takes away from the hysteria. You are going to feed me the stair step theory and ignore the matching warming on three other planets (so far measured).
The simple fact is that to reduce global temperatures by one degree in our lifetime will require such a drastic reduction in energy use that the current world economy as we know it will die. Millions will suffer and die because you want to preserve 25 feet of shoreline, and keep farming in Russia and Canada extremely difficult.
The greenest periods in Earth's history are periods of intense global warming. Plant and animal life flourishes when the air is warm, water evaporates into the air, and co2 is abundant.
We are now living in a very cold and barren world, historically speaking.
Just try to jump out of your groupthink for a second and admit that global warming can be a good thing just as easily as it can be a bad thing, depending on where you live.
Every couple of decades the panic shifts to some new global disaster fear. This one has been fun. What's next, I wonder? - inactive, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4"$150 billion a year in assistance by 2020 to help develop clean-energy technology for developing countries, reduce deforestation that contributes to rising temperatures and help vulnerable nations adapt to changes attributed to greenhouse gases."
Haha no wonder they are not agreeing on this. - mollydog12, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3we should go first and let the light of our example illuminate the world even if our energy production won't.
we have an opportunity to win a debating point here and all you can talk about is jobs and how this will destroy the economy. if we're just nice enough to everybody and do the right thing then they'll all agree and let us run the world again. - atomheartmother, on 07/08/2009, -4/+6What the hell is a "cool-looking number?' Facts are facts avian, and you sure didn't provide any.
- Unreal411, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3if only people put that on the mainstream news...
- Mark1981, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2I'm not necessarily sure whether I believe in global warming theory or not. However there are other considerations such as pollution, (air, water, soil) . In addition there is a need to protect plant life as they play an important role in producing oxygen and reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Then there is the importance of energy. It is important to have energy diversity so that each country is able to support itself and not be at the mercy of other countries (Russia–Ukraine gas disputes) , in addition to it being in our best interests to have energy efficiency both from a cost point of view to end consumers and for allowing portable devices to be powered for longer without recharging. - avianeddy, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4"the emerging powers" have a point, at least economically, because no one will agree to limit their production unless the big guys lead by example
- CleanTechies, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Only a marketing stunt?
http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/07/09/g8-leaders ... - OuijaCat, on 07/08/2009, -15/+16Economic suicide is never a popular proposal -
that's why China and India will have no part of "G-8". - Unreal411, on 07/09/2009, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1NlVjlqeB8
comment after -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is