What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
295 Comments
- angryredplanet, on 11/10/2008, -6/+40The actual average global surface temperature "trend" shows a marked positive gradient. That means that, on average, the planet's surface is warming.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Make of it what you will. - greenfyre, on 11/10/2008, -6/+34Perhaps reading the article would have clarified things for you.
- helloothere, on 11/11/2008, -0/+25*gets
- thechr0nic, on 11/10/2008, -33/+57So lets assume for the sake of argument that anthropogenic global warming does exist and behaves in exactly the way you tell us it does. What can we do to stop it?
Are you suggesting that every civilized nation on earth give up everything that emits carbon, or emitted carbon in the manufacturing process? Maybe we should all live like monks or perhaps like the Amish. How many of those luxuries in life are you willing to live without? Even then, how do you convince the plants and animals and volcanoes to quit emitting GINORMOUS amounts of CO2?
Are you willing to bankrupt the economies of every nation on earth to lower the atmospheric CO2? maybe as much as 2% or lets even say 50%
We as human beings, will not be on this earth forever, we are destined to become extinct, just like the dinosaurs before us. And when we become extinct, some other organism or animal that thrives in whatever climate happens to kill us, will flourish. Life on this earth has changed for billions of years and has been forced to roll with the punches and either adapt or become extinct.
For the record, there is global warming as well as global cooling.. no one debates this, because it is observable fact. The only thing being debated here, is the validity of anthropogenic climate change and furthermore to what extent we (humans) are a contributing factor and even further more how much we can control those factors to influence the climate.
I am not sure what these 'Deniers' are, but by the insinuation it sounds much like a derogatory insult. Much the same way people act towards someone who questions the existence of god. What I feel I am is a natural skeptic, I will question anything and everything and see if it stands up to the tests thrown at it. I try not to accept something on blind faith, that's what religion does. People like you, want people like me to simply accept what you say is true, based on your good word or maybe some anecdotal evidence. You might have even seen an Al Gore flick that tells us all that the sky is falling.
I would love to see some better long trend data, I would like to see more empirical evidence. Im sure you will be willing to spout off a thousand links to websites I have never heard of that agree with your opinions 100%. But for now, I will remain a healthy skeptic who happens to feel that even if we did drive ourselves to bankruptcy trying to reduce our carbon footprint that it will still not have a major impact on the climate. We as a human race, are quickly approaching the limit of what the natural resources of this earth can provide, we will be extinct soon enough and the earth will be here billions of years after we are gone.
go ahead and digg me down, I really don't care.. I am simply trying to be as honest as possible. - greenfyre, on 11/10/2008, -15/+35"trying to be as honest as possible"
Where is the honesty in claiming to be doing an 'accounting' and yet only talking only about the cost of one course of action and not the other?
Cancer treatment is painful and expensive, therefore no one should ever get any ... is that the logic here?
I won't link you to sites "that agree." This is a matter of fact, not opinion. To continue the analogy, whether one should get cancer treatment or not is an pinion, whether you have cancer or not is a matter of fact.
I offer science ... http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
The skeptic looks at the facts and continues to doubt based on some rational basis. Look at it and see if you can find anything wrong with the science. If you can, fine - share it.
If you can't, then accept it.
To pretend that one can have rational discussion when one or more parties are unwilling to even examine the facts is not honest, nor is it skepticism. - davidjunit, on 11/11/2008, -3/+16Just a buncha global cooling deniers in here!
- ousthouse, on 11/11/2008, -10/+23Terrorism is to republicans as global warming is to democrats.
- greenfyre, on 11/10/2008, -5/+17FTA "But let’s not fall into the same trap that the Deniers do. ... The fact is that 2008 could be a record cold year globally instead of the 9th warmest (to date) in 129 years and it still would not matter.
I will repeat it as often as necessary, for climate it is the long term trend that matters. Decades, not years ... " - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+14The funny thing about global warming, I think, is that if say, tomorrow, all of the world's scientists came out and said "Look, we're past the point of no return here, there's nothing we can do to limit carbon emissions at this point, global warming is inevitable so there's no sense worrying about clean energy and reducing emissions and whatnot," you would suddenly find that no one disagrees with the basic principle of global warming. In my experience, it's not the science people object to, it's the fact that they're being asked to do something about it. What I've never really understood though, is why not say you just don't want to do anything about it? Why do you have to twist and distort the science? Why can't you just say "It infringes on my rights, and therefore it doesn't matter whether its real or not"?
I ask because frankly, the one thing that really bothers me is people distorting the science to support their worldviews, rather than owning up to them. What kind of person lies to defend his freedom? - CheeseburgerBro, on 11/11/2008, -2/+12You make a reasonable case for your point of view, and you shouldn't be dugg down.
Part of the problem of addressing sceptism such as yours is that, honestly, it is a bit difficult to do without sounding like a complete dick. You may have talked to other people about this subject, and come away with the impression that they are total dicks, and this may colour your evaluation of their arguments.
So part of the question, I think you'll agree, is this: why are advocates for the global warming model as it is currently understood such dicks so often?
To understand, it may be helpful to employ to metaphor.
Let us imagine that a great controversy has erupted in a small village over the contents of a supposedly salacious book entitled "The Many Thrusts of Dildo Valentine", and people are becoming decidedly uncivil about the whole thing -- pitch forks, torches, throwing cats, and so on.
One camp claims that the book doesn't contain any real naughtiness at all beyond the provocative title. The actual point of the work is that Dildo Valentine ultimately rejects temptation and commits himself to a life of giving free haircuts to orphans.
The other camp claims that it's about ***** dildos, and that vaginas are a secret, and if we don't act now the children will become uppity and pregnant and start smoking reefer.
The key difference between the camps is this: the former is literate, while the latter are not.
The first group can resolve their personal opinions on the matter by taking the book in hand and reading it for themselves. The second group requires an intermediary -- a sort of translator to read the book on their behalf, and then tell them what happens inside of it.
The first group can legitimately contain sceptics, as anyone who doubts the facts as presented or the conclusions drawn may simply read the words for themselves.
The second group cannot legitimately contain sceptics, but rather pseudo-sceptics in the form of a Doubting Thomas. Such a person doubts because others believe, and he might be disgusted by his appraisal of the degree of blind faith involved; he resolves not to believe as an act of intellectual rebellion, but cannot function as a true sceptic because he does not have the power to discover the answers directly -- only via proxies, since he is illiterate.
Information obtained via proxies should also be trusted with the greatest reluctance -- you have no assurance of fidelity or bias.
Some people try to go the literates directly, and the literates are only too happy to try to explain, but some of them have a hard time not being dicks about it because, while they patiently field very retarded questions, they want to scream, "WHY DON'T YOU JUST ***** LEARN TO READ?"
I think you can appreciate their position: it's frustrating to struggle to *persuade* someone of something they could easily understand all by themselves, *if only they could read.*
The moral of this story is that scientific illiteracy is the norm in the West. And that's bad, mm'kay?
It's bad because you've got lots of royally pissed people, arguing via proxies with agendas, debating issues as retarded as whether or not Dildo Valentine is a manwhore without the ability to just read the ***** book and find out. The scientifically literate people face-palm themselves, and try to figure out how you can explain it to people without shouting, "WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEARN SOME ***** SCIENCE?"
This is the 21st century. Science is important.
The thing is, civilization's impact on sudden climate change isn't a controversial subject. You mentioned facts -- that's a fact. It's not controversial except to people who can't read. There are controversial details, controversial models, controversial hypotheses, controversial trend projections, sure, but the basic idea isn't exactly fraught with dischord, unless you're the type of person who wants to take on a dismantling of some very basic chemistry and physics.
(Have you got a better Second Law of Thermodynamics up your sleeve? If you're a climate change sceptic, you'd better.)
It's controversial in the same way Einstein's Relativity is controversial -- we know it ain't perfect, but the math does us some sweet favours. There's always some folks out there trying to rewrite it or replace it, and that's important fringe science. But it's a good theory: it's 99% golden, and that's good enough for most applications (nuclear weapons, Hubble Telescope, etc.).
The National Science Foundations of every Western nation agree about climate change. It's 99% golden. And...so...basically: sometimes it's hard not to laugh at people's retarded arguments attempting to refute that.
You try to be polite. You try to change the subject. You don't want to make anybody feel dumb.
But pseudo-sceptism is ignorant. Plain and simple. The only fix is education -- crack open the IPCC report and start at the beginning. Read the referenced studies directly or, if unavailable, at least read their abstracts and some articles critiquing it. Every time you get to something that exceeds your knowledge, educate yourself in science until you have capable of continuing. Go the library. Use Google. It takes time, but it isn't hard.
Science is open source, after all. See for yourself.
P.S. Sorry for being such a dick. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -5/+14This is how your average denier operates. The truth comes second to maintaining their worldview. The same holds for creationists. Frankly, I could never understand that point of view. I'd rather search out the truth and be shown wrong than to sacrifice the truth in order to claim that I'm right.
- Trent1492, on 11/10/2008, -4/+13LOL
- KMye, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8Out of curiosity, how does the October 08 anomaly compare to the October 01-07anomalies?
- monoa, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7The never-ending conveyor belt of stupidity continues.
The weather at your house != climate change - aquafire, on 11/11/2008, -4/+11The problem is that we're looking at a few decades of data and extrapolating from that that the earth is warming and it's our fault. I see news articles and scientific papers coming out all the time that either seem to disagree with this, or find alternative reasons for it. Let's not cook the chicken before it's hatched.... or whatever the saying is.
And I think it's great for us to be good stewards of our planet. Yes, avoid polluting it or doing harm that we can avoid. But are advocates for global warming trying to scare the world into doing what they perceive is the right thing to do? If that's the intent, it's not going to work, even if they have good intentions. It's best to be honest and admit that what we believe is happening isn't proven beyond every doubt. There is freedom in admitting that we don't have all the answers. - anonymous1986, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7You conviniently forget to leave out this statement in the paragraph:
"However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future".
With all that experience in manipulating information you should consider working for the Palin 2012 campaign. - EarlOfLade, on 11/11/2008, -1/+7But... but... but... but my house is the only thing that counts, the rest is filled with barbarians and *gasp* foreigners...
- chompsky, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6what's strange is that the apostrophe is used correctly in the article title
- anonymous1986, on 11/11/2008, -6/+12It's sad that there are so many global warming deniers in the united states, it's especially funny seeing them spouting nonsense that they have read in some obscure blog posts that they treat as fact... At least in europe it's a well established fact. Here's a snippet of a physorg article on global warming:
- 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, i assume all of you'll have a thorough understanding of climate science.
http://www.physorg.com/news140803026.html - JigoroKano, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6Global warming is a problem that cannot be solved within the framework of certain ideologies.
To admit the existence of such a thing is to admit that the ideology itself is flawed.
Once you move past the point of no return, their confirmation bias releases its hold on their thinking. - Swivelstick, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6Local weather does not equate to climate, where I am the grass and many perennials are already dead that normally doesn't happen till Feb/March as this is normally our strongest growing period (Spring) but still that is local and couldn't be used in isolation to prove or disprove anything it has to be looked at globally and that tells us things are warming up in most places.
- thedinomeister, on 11/11/2008, -2/+7It's very easy to look at this blog post and say, "yeah, this is true because this satellite image totally proves the point that CO2 is warming the earth."
False. In fact I think he proved something totally different. He proved that the warming occured mostly in mid-latitude regions. contradictory of anthropogenic global warming theory.
Increased CO2 content would have no effect in these areas because of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. On the other hand, areas like the Arctic and Antarctic where water vapor is very very low makes these places extra sensitive to CO2 which is why you would see the most warming occuring at the poles -- not seen in the satellite imagery of atmos. anomalies.
What the satellite data indicates is an overall global increase in temperatures -- spread throughout the globe. This would likely be due to our current high amplitude pattern, pacific decadal oscillation, north atlantic oscillation, southern pscillation, antarctic oscillation, jetstream patterns, sea surface temperature anomalies, and the overall record amount of total solar irradience. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5Couldn't they just admit that the ideology is more important than global warming? Say, "Look, as a libertarian (for example) I recognize the problem of global warming, but I fear giving up libertarian principles is even more dangerous."
- monoa, on 11/11/2008, -2/+7Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. Provide evidence that they have all been lying in unison and fabricating data for decades or that they are all wrong. Just a scrap of evidence?
If you can provide neither and still reject their findings, you are simply one of the many delusional idiots who reject scientific reality because it doesn't fit your political / religious ideology or it doesn't fit with your overwhelming sense of entitlement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5And what is the address of your Cave? Use a search engine for "Global Cooling" just to test your claim.
2) And what point is it that I prove? Pls cite the article. - chrismgtis, on 11/11/2008, -6/+1199.9% of people that voice any opinion or link any articles on global warming are cooling are in fact complete idiots that have no clue and would listen to Santa Claus tell them how to build a nuclear warhead.
- anonymous1986, on 11/11/2008, -0/+5Also the irony of you preaching me about grammar when you use "your" instead of "you're". I guess i shouldn't comment further, any more of this and you'll be red in the face with embarrassment if you're not already.
- icegoddess13, on 11/11/2008, -3/+8You really didn't read the article, did you, ozel01?
- greenfyre, on 11/10/2008, -17/+22More debunking of Cooling Myth and climate Deniers
Michael Duffy is at it again http://digg.com/environment/Michael_Duffy_is_at_it ... - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4You're right, expel the intelligent elites! They are reactionary and work against the proletariat! Long live the Communist Party of China!
***** moron.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The most research you've done into this is read a few headlines and decide to become indoctrinated off a few sentences. There's ignorance and then there's willful ignorance; one is excusable, one is plain idiotic. - monoa, on 11/11/2008, -1/+6> ...there is no real empirical evidence suggesting AGW is true.
You're mistaking your monumental ignorance for what climate scientists and informed lay people know. They are not the same thing. - greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -1/+6Here's the science, show us how it is wrong. We are all eager to learn the truth:
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... - turbodan1, on 11/11/2008, -4/+9Excuse me, I'm a little confused. A few years ago, the 'climate crisis' was called global warming. Later, because they realized the Earth wasn't really that warm in the lengthy history of the planet and the causation was not too apparent between CO2 and temperature rise, the new official title became climate change; because recent cooling in 2007 and cooling between 1945 and 1975, the name needed to suggest extreme temperatures. So now, that 2008 is warm (although it never says that it's really warm, but it's the highest 'temperature rise' in recent history), global warming is the term again?
- greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -2/+6"If there is anyone out there with data that does not support this theory, the belief that we are causing it, it is very hard for them to say it."
If you know anything about science then you know that is absolute nonsense
Denier Conspiracy Theories: More Paranoid Than Thou
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-c ...
"I am one of those darn skeptics that likes to question things."
Questioning means questioning, not just reflexive rejection of facts you find unpalatable. Further the whole questioning of my motives, without any evidence that I have been misleading in anyway, is a Red Herring to distract from the facts.
The science is open source and freely available - start questioning it! Be specific, not just vague abstractions that mean nothing. - frieddonuts, on 11/11/2008, -4/+8Hey doctechnical,
So warming is a good thing. I think you'll change your mind when West Nile, malaria, and other mosquito-borne diseases continue to spread to higher elevations. Heat waves will increase in their intensity and frequency as well, leading to mass deaths of the elderly and very young. Our ocean ecosystem will be devastated by the loss of coral reefs, decreased oxygen concentration in warmer water, and the acidification of the oceans by increased carbon absorption. Droughts in the Southwest will become much more serious as the Colorado River continues to lose flow, year by year.
Yeah, a warmer world seems like a great place, huh? - greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -2/+6Scientists have called it climate change for decades.
Hint IPCC, not IPGW ... think about it. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4That's right, and the ice caps are really getting bigger, right?
Oops, we've got satellites now. The pictures don't lie. Also, we've got this weird new invention called a phone. Maybe I can call someone in, say, Greenland and ask them if global warming is real. They're likely not to answer, though, as their town broke off the ice shelf and floated away. - anonymous1986, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4So a pissed off mccain supporter? I guessed right then. Resting all your hopes on Palin 2012? Let me give you some advice: Don't count on it...
- MakanGuru, on 11/11/2008, -5/+9time to call the Mythbuster's?
- Dauntless1, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4Provide it, or don't. Those who are actually interested in learning what that science is will research your evidence, and those who don't probably wouldn't care anyway. What's to lose?
- Dauntless1, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4An american with an average income of over 125k, to judge based on the economy.
- Dauntless1, on 11/11/2008, -3/+7Wow. A baseless attack with no argument or evidence. Hooray!!
- greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -2/+6At no point do I have any problem with skeptics. The article is specifically about Deniers, and is very careful to differentiate between Deniers and skeptics.
- Dauntless1, on 11/11/2008, -1/+5Yeah. But that's what happens when people get so self centered they can't admit someone else has a valid point, just because they don't like him. Even a broken clock is right, twice a day. But someone with a closed mind will only get the right answer accidentally.
- greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -1/+5But of course all of the climate models do consider it, so it's a total mystery why you would post this.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837 ...
Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/f ...
The 16 Climate Models http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/16 ...
"Models 'key to climate forecasts'" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6320515. ... - frieddonuts, on 11/11/2008, -0/+4If you search for tree ring data from the fossilized petrified forests, you get data on climate going as far back as 200,000 years. You also can go even farther back using glacial cores from places like the Greenland ice sheet, showing that our carbon concentration is at a higher level than it has been since the Carboniferous era.
Here is an example I found with some quick googling showing a famous NOAA study correlating tree-ring data on temperature for the last 1000 years to carbon dioxide concentrations from ice sheet samples covering the last 1000 years. As you can tell, the two curves are correlated.
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0020/ ... - ousthouse, on 11/11/2008, -12/+16People like this guy are EXACTLY like the people he's trying to discredit. The earth is billions of years old and they're all CERTAIN of their beliefs based on 30 years of data.
- Mujokan, on 11/11/2008, -2/+5The most interesting thing for me is the temperature anomalies graph.
Our hospitable climate relies on a bunch of interacting self-regulating processes across the atmosphere, land and oceans, keeping us in a non-equilibrium state. As we pump more energy into the system, we should see these start to wobble. The end result could be cooling, depending on what attractor we end up in. But either way, it won't be good. In any case, we should expect more anomalies in both directions, trending towards warming initially at least. - greenfyre, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3Why didn't you try following the links to see where they led?
- GreyFlcn, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3Heh, 1988?
How about we put that into perspective.
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png -
Show 51 - 100 of 312 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
