What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
99 Comments
- LFAB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I wouldn't ever admit to that.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I am a skeptic and saw Al Gore's movie a few days ago. I would now like to see a real scientist explain away the data presented that shows an astronomical rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, looking at the ice core records going back 650,000 years in Antarctica.
I, too, believed the cyclical climate angle, but the CO2 data is staggering. - awoodhouse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15And the US government denies global warming. We're screwed.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12RTFA and you'd know.
- Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Maybe there is something cyclic happening. Or maybe were the cause. Or maybe it's a combo? DOES IT MATTER? The world's friggin' glaciers are melting. Fast. This has very serious implications for our species -- and the planet we inhabit.
- Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ever seen the movie "Water World?" :)
- JJanetC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8They have been cyclical however, that is not an excuse to continue to pollute. We do not need push the carbon dioxide levels any faster than nature has intended. (Unless for some odd reason you *want* an ice age. That's a matter of personal preference.) I notice that in your statement you fail to present any form of logical argument against the findings of the article. I would welcome an intellectual discussion about the ramifications of different studies but to simply mud-sling the other side does not make a discussion. Feel free to post factual points from a scientific study to refute what has been said.
- Doofy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11They're shrinking almost as fast as the ice caps on Mars.
Seems the Martians didn't pass Kyoto either. - NuttyAvatar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10There are only 2 choices. Either believe in global warming or not. If the majority believes, then fix it. If not just forget it and go as long as we can. There is something terribly wrong in the way these things are communicated by the researchers to the world. Its not having much impact on the public(except you and me) and most importantly the policy makers. I have a feeling it will be this way until its too late.
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7LFAB:
"The Gores and all the employees of Generation lead a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, reducing their energy consumption when possible and purchasing so-called offsets available on newly emerging carbon markets. Gore says he and Tipper regularly calculate their home and business energy use - including the carbon cost of his prodigious global travel. Then he purchases offsets equal to the amount of carbon emissions they generate. Last year, for example, Gore and Tipper atoned for their estimated 1 million miles in global air travel by giving money to an Indian solar electric company and a Bulgarian hydroelectric project."
- Wired magazine, "The Resurrection of Al Gore", by Karen Breslau
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore_pr.html
Additionally both "Inconvenient Truth" and "Syriana" were made with a carbon neutral footprint.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/blog/?p=15 - astroid0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Thats a wonderful talking point you have spewed there. Allow me to address it.
Yes, temperature changes are a natural, cyclical thing that happens naturally over time. And yes, it is likely that our planet would change enough to become uninhabitable on its own at some point anyway.....
that does NOT mean it makes sense to pretend like we can not directly affect this change. We are agitating things, which is obviously a bad move. If our planet is heating up anyway, why would we want to compound the problem via carbon output? Just cause the planet is getting hotter on it's own doesn't mean we should turn the dial up to super-MAX. - LFAB, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'm all for Al Gore putting his Gulfstream V in the hangar and walking around the world to peddle his wares. Lead by example, I always say.
- Fenster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Wow, things are going downhill fast.......in the last couple hours on digg, we had stories of strange weather, cashless societies, and the rice famine story.....isn't that three of the seven seals........
- awoodhouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Firstly I'm not American. Secondly I don't drive an SUV. Thirdly, don't you think the US government's view is just a little short-term? The world doesn't belong to the US you know and the policies of the US government over the next few years could screw the entire planet.
- GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You can add China and India to your statement.
- etresoft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9If you had RTFA, you would know. The melting glaciers are exposing plants frozen 5000 years ago. Had those plants ever been exposed before, they would have already decayed.
Not that I'm complaining. I'm kinda bored with the planet. Global warming might be just what we need to shake things up a bit. It's going to be whole new world - literally! - JJanetC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Please tell me where you got this data. I would like to see for myself what scientist or scientific report said that the CO2 levels before the last ice age were higher than the CO2 levels today.
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I don't know who to believe. :/
- JJanetC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6To answer your question and an earlier question. Glaciers naturally melt very slowly. (Example, it took 10,000 years for the glaciers to melt from the greatest point.) I have brought evidence with me to support this posted article. Read at your leisure. You can read it in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Recent_glacial_and_interglacial_phases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation
If you need scientists instead of the Internet community, there is a lecture at the University of Wisconsin:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/
If you don't believe college professors, how about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/horicon/hisglacers.html
The data clearly shows that glaciers *without* human interference move quite slowly. The article data shows that glaciers during this time of human intervention are moving quickly. The only variable in the situation is... human intervention (aka. pollution.). - endyminion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4CO2 is good for plants.
Honestly, though. I really don't feel like getting into the debate on global warming... Regardless of whether or not our actions are causing the environment to warm on a global level, I think we already have enough evidence to support a crackdown on polution.
Just look at the rising levels of Asthma and other Resperatory related diseases due to polution. That's enough reason for me. We're talking quality of life here. People with a higher quality of life are less of a drag on the government's resources and are also more beneficial to the overall economy as productivity goes up. - astroid0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6When did recently aired, widely discussed, episodes of a television show that has been immensely popular for about a decade become obscure? I missed that.
- Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Man... I may never understand why so many people disliked Waterworld... I think it's just a lack of respect for the postapocalyptic genre. :-) I enjoyed the movie.
Oh... and I'll vote for floating cities just for the cool factor! - astroid0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'll take 'experts' knowledge is it is backed by facts and sound resoning.
It beats the heck out of listening to people (no names, of course) spewing talking points they heard on the radio with little to no thought or research done on their own. - gizzymo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As a none American, from Ireland in fact, I am surprised at the often (but not always) american attitude that global warming is a made up situation. I used to respect the USA as a world leader. I used to think of america as a centre for innovation, a country which produced people that rose two new challenges. However over this last year, I seen an America that seems scared to face a challenge. Global warming and any resulting required changes to our energy usage habbits scares every 1st world country out there, so why is america, (for the most part) apparently cowering in the corner. I dont respect your country any more, though I do respect those in America flying in the face of this arrogance. I know none of you care if I respect the America or not, I just ask that those saying that global warming is B.S. be realistic and at least acknowledge that its a possibility that warrents extensive expeirments and research from a country that in the past has shown it has the people and the resources to rise to this challenge.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Ice cores.
In Antartica and Greenland snow usually doesn't melt because it never gets above freezing so they can drill into it and get ice cores that are over 100,000 years old. - Enkid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I agree that the government shouldn't help oil companies, most definitly, all I am saying is that you can't blame the companies for giving the people what they want. Do you trually beleive that car companies care whether they sell SUV's or just as expensive cars? No, the reason they market SUV's is because thats what people buy. Your statement is the equivalant to saying that the only way people can think is if a company tells them what to think.
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As selfish and reckless as dysonadams sounds, it's important to keep in mind that there are whole countries who feel the same way.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I read recently that if Greenland ice melts continue to accelerate at the rate they have been for the past decade, sea levels will rise 20 feet.
Bye bye coastal cities. - minoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@astroid0
Why is agitating or speeding up things so bad? I never see anyone ever pointing that out. - TheRonald, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You do realize that 45 million years ago there were NO glaciers?
- sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice job of cherry picking a statement from the article to "support" your argument. It takes a true believer to claim that an article that quite carefully dissects your favored argument is actually *supporting* said argument.
The article clearly states that the hoopla about a supposed coming ice age was not supported or disseminated by peer-reviewed scientific journals, but instead mass-market publications like Newsweek. Today's conclusions on global warming are coming from peer-reviewed scientific study and our understanding of these processes has advanced tremendously in the 30+ years since.
Further, the point you cite about the folly of extrapolating short-term results refers to a 30 year span (the 40's through the 70's), whereas current studies are focusing on 400 years (in the short term) to thousands of years (using ice cores, etc.) This kind of deliberate obfuscation is really tiresome.
Basically, you are saying that because a small amount of non-validated research from 30+ years ago was wrong, then we should use that as a basis for dismissing the vast amount of modern peer-reviewed research on climate change. Well done. - ekso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not only selfish and reckless what dysonadams said, it's beyond retardness. Just a change of a few degrees in the world weather IS HAVING catastrophic effects. And it's not only what happend to New Orleans last year, whole regions that could be used to grow certains food won't be able to. Say welcome to your warm weather, but say goodbye to the money on your pocket or the gas to fuel the car in your garage.
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Any idea on the rate and estimated maturity of that horrific scene?
Eagerly waiting a response,
Sleepless in San Diego,Ca - thedove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6i'm assuming that the promotion threshholds are lower for these new categories, otherwise digg will continue to have only tech stories on the homepage
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@NuttyAvatar
"There is something terribly wrong in the way these things are communicated by the researchers to the world. Its not having much impact on the public(except you and me) and most importantly the policy makers. I have a feeling it will be this way until its too late."
It's more like a conspiracy, IE, active media suppression. Only within the last 1-2 years has 'global warming' been making a comeback. This is because most major television networks prohibited the phrase from being used, even by weatherman. It's now become so demonstrable that even the best efforts to put our heads in the sand can't help it.
The other primary reason, regarding the media is the sophistical notion of "balance" where two "points of view" are given equal weight, like the flat earthers and the round earthers. This just becomes ridiculous in the present form of "talk" show where two people yell past each other and "debate" things that they usually know nothing about or play the refute the expert game.
So I guess my point is that it's less about getting the word out and more about repeating it over and over and over again, and just shutting up the people who refer to it as a "controversy," since it's not a controversy. Just like the Earth revolving around the Sun and not vice versa, wasn't a controversy in the 1800s despite that fact that the empirical evidence need to conclusively confirm the heliocentricity (the visible parallax) was not discovered until, I believe, after WW1. - qwickone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How long would it take for that to happen? That's a little disturbing...
- sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Please cite an actual study or data instead of just making claims of "numerous scientific studies."
So, you are saying the majority of the data pointing to human-caused (or exacerbated) climate change is coming from biologists and non-scientists, and little from climatologists? Nice try - again, got any data to back that up with?
Finally, just quit it with the "the same hysterical crowd was talking about an ice age in the 70's" B.S. That is solidly debunked here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94. Even if it wasn't, where is your evidence that this is the "same crowd"? - valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't forget Poland.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
- GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Now...before i am modded to oblivion i want to restate facts....
1. CO2 levels have been measured to be higher now then X amount of time ago
2. Cyclic temperature trends warm and cool the earth over long periods of time
3. CO2 is proven to be a gas capable of causing a Green House effect
Now with those 3 facts...i am missing one thing before i believe in Global warming.
Is the Green House effect repeatable... can we go into a laboratory. inject CO2 in a similar thermodynamic environment as our air and see a temperature increase.... My understanding is that the CO2 has to remain in a layer to cause a Green House effect. Our atmosphere is incredibly dynamic. does the CO2 re-bond as it lifts up into the atmosphere... does it hover into a nasty CO2 layer? How much is too much? is there a mathematical model that as CO2 increases temperature increases proportionately, exponentially, logarithmically.. Whats the mechanism?
We have a few facts that suggest Global Warming is occurring..but we don't understand it enough to fix it. Because lets face it running around driving hybrids and electric cars is not an acceptable solution. Nor is turning off power plants. A knee jerk reaction of OMG CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not warrant us over reacting and just Turning everything off. Because the adverse effects of mass production of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and etc. will just shift our pollution burden to another realm that would be catastrophically detrimental to the planet. Because if the research proves that human activity is the cause of global warming we are just screwed. It doesn't matter what we do, our activity is going to release some toxic chemical into the air that 9 times out of 10 is going to be a greenhouse gas in nature...even water vapor for all you fuel cell peoples. our only true solution is mass genocide. Reduce the Earths population
Maybe i am just a pessimist. But i think we can scream all we want but its going to get toasty anyways. - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@BufordT: what an original insight! I bet all those climate scientists never thought to address it in their calculations.
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How can I blame the consumers when auto makers and the government do things that restrict the hundreds of highly efficient and clean burning diesel vehicles that are available worldwide from being sold in the USA?
Diesel vehicles in the USA hold their resale value extremely well because there is such a small supply. Every friend I have wants a new diesel vehicle - but there are none by comparison... There are a coupld VW models, the Jeep Liberty CRD (until the last of the 2006 models are gone), the Mercades ($50k), and the Dodge Sprinter van. Aside from that the only other new diesels are trucks. And you can't get the diesel engines in the small trucks either, you have to buy the extremely large Heavy Duty versions.
By contrast the rest of the world has diesel vehicles that get 80mpg, diesel SUVs that get 30mpg, diesel trucks smaller than a fire truck, cars people WANT! Toyota has like 10 diesel engines across their lineup everywhere but the USA. VW carries about three diesel versions per car worldwide, and a bunch of cars they don't even sell in the USA. You can get a diesel Caravan/Voyager in the rest of the world.
So tell me again why, when dealerships in the USA sell their diesel cars as fast as they get them (just TRY to find a TDI Passat Wagon - they sell in mere hours of listing used, wait lists for months at dealers). Oh yeah, it must be because the consumers don't want more efficient diesel engines... - Enkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very interesting, if true. Does anyone else know of anyplaces that could maybe back this stuff up? (or deny it)(considering that its on a coal-friendly wv page.)
- rrobster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Jeez, I almost gagged on my Spotted Owl Sandwich.
- gers4302, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Global warming? or the end of an ice age? No one really knows.
- jcmead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@doodlebumm
"Bye-bye Florida!" I know that many things are no longer taught in school today, however with a rise of 20" only a small part of Florida will be gone. Where I live central area of the state is not as flat as most seem to think. Elevation is 138' above sea level, a 20' foot rise in sea level will be nothing. - sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@bigref: Speaking of buying into hunches & propaganda, where is the evidence that adopting sensible policies to address CO2 levels is going to destroy our economy? Sorry, but strong languange from the current administration and the punditocracy does not equal evidence.
- chrisbtig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The faq does not specify the number of diggs it takes to get promoted to the front page. It merely says "Once a story has received enough diggs, it is instantly promoted." How many is "enough"? Do certain categories have a lower threshold than others?
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, this is how Science that is inconvenient to you is treated? like a cult, a sketchy cult at that.
You need to stop pretending to be rational. - BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2JJanetC check out the link I posted below. It should be all of the evidence you need.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is