What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
151 Comments
- americangoy, on 07/03/2008, -10/+31I agree.
Calling it global warming is somewhat misleading.
I personally use the term "global climate change". - Chalks777, on 07/03/2008, -17/+32I'm going to start calling it "weather".
- Diggrock, on 07/04/2008, -4/+16Thats exactly it, those proposing that climate change is a serious situation are labeled as fear mongers, or they tell you its a natural cycle for the earth to get warmer and produce more carbon dioxide. Well look at this graph, and tell me if you think its just coincidence that the massive spike in CO2 aligning with the industrial revolution is just a coincidence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ ... - meteostudent, on 07/04/2008, -3/+15Well stated, I've notice the same exact thing. Diggers love to deride anything associated with creationism, but they suddenly get skeptical when it comes to global climate change, which is in my opinion a much more important topic. Evolution and climate change are both well-documented in the scientific literature, so if you accept one you better be willing to accept the other.
- ptanonimo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12Junkscience is a political website, not a scientific one.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/04/2008, -11/+22Digg is fine until an item about climate change comes up then everyone just loses it.
You all love the science articles about evolution, you seem cool with scientists telling you you're an ape. Yet when scientists turn their attention to growing body of evidence that the human race has upset the natural climate of the Earth, it's like everyone turns into a creationist. The same idea of looking at evidence and forming hypotheses and developing models suddenly isn't good enough anymore. - hauntedchippy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+11You cretin, you cannot cite an openly biased NON-SCIENTIFIC website and call that evidence. Show me peer reviewed data.
Here is a database filled with hundreds of peer-reviewed evidence based papers
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm
Seriously, what you tried to pass off as science there was despicable, you're as bad as the creationists. - apox24, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10Ah junkscience.com - famous for defending tobacco firms and denying any and all environmental problems, you do believe in lung cancer right? it's just a front for various lobbyist groups, your source sucks.
Read some proper articles, try the NASA GISS website, or a reputable journal, not some vested interest website that is an insult to anyone's intelligence (even those who disagree with the consensus on climate change). - phrenzy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10I could site just as many ***** rebuttals to evolution too. I'm not a geneticist, but I pretty much understand that the consensus of reputable scientists is that evolution is a fact.
- apox24, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10think123 - Yes the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. 2 points for you to consider, CO2 is just one of many greenhouse gasses, methane for example has a much, much greater effect (23 times greater) - CO2 equivalent is often used as it is the most abundant and people seem to have latched onto CO2 instead of using a generic term. The second is that the rate at which we increase our output of GHGs is not just increasing linearly, the rising economies of the world are growing and are increasing outputs exponentially.
The sun - of course the sun is the primary driver of climate change in the past. The rate of change of temperature in recent history however does not match up with the suns output. You honestly don't think that the scientists working on this have not considered these most basic facts???? - britt48, on 07/03/2008, -8/+18I agree with the term-much better description. Thanks for the info.
- greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9What scientists? "Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_ ...
His 'scientists' are industry lobbyists. http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37379 92% of "neutral" , http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ ... and http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war ...
How did all this come about? see http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/05/manufacturi ... - CptBuck, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9Acid rain isn't a hoax, go test the pH of rain water yourself. Hell, do some comparison tests between rainwater found near, say, a nickel mine, and in, say, one of the marshall islands.
- BigManOnCampus, on 07/03/2008, -22/+30Talk about backpedaling....
We've heard for nearly 10 years that earth's temperature is going to rise some 3-5 degrees C in the next 50-100 years depending on who you talk to, and now since the world's temperature has levelled off for 8 years, the salesmen want to re-brand their product as something you can't possibly objectively measure, and call it "global disruption".
What a joke. Either you know what is going to happen, or you don't. You don't get to say, "Well, in the future there will be greater uncertainty." It's a completely vacuous statement. - apox24, on 07/04/2008, -2/+10Ah junkscience.com - famous for defending tobacco firms, asbestos and denying any and all environmental problems, you do believe in lung cancer right? it's just a front for various groups, it is a heavily biased unscientific source that you can't use in a serious discussion.
Read some proper articles, try the NASA GISS website, or a reputable journal, not some vested interest website that is an insult to anyone's intelligence (even those who disagree with the consensus on climate change).
And what the hell do you mean acid rain hoax??? - greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7So thousands of scientific studies disappear because someone calls it arrogant? Cool, you must be Harry Potter. Can you make hunger and poverty disappear too?
- SoyJames, on 07/03/2008, -9/+16Human Consumption Global Disruption
- hauntedchippy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7That blog is the rantings of an uneducated sociopath. You cannot seriously expect anyone to think that it can offer a candle to the truth. It really is a testament to human nature just how stubborn we can be when threatened with change.
- greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Heartland? You cite Heartland as a credible source? ROTFL
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
Exposed: Fake List of 500 global warming skeptics scientist http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1618/73/
Heartland Institute Spreads FUD & Lies About Global Warming http://envirowonk.com/content/view/183/1/
Heartland Institute deniers denied by 'U' profs http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diary ...
Four hundred skeptics? Try 19 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5 ...
Top Scientists Demand Names Removed From Climate List http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-docu ... - greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Heartland? You actually cite Heartland as a source?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
Exposed: Fake List of 500 global warming skeptics scientist http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1618/73/
Heartland Institute Spreads FUD & Lies About Global Warming http://envirowonk.com/content/view/183/1/
Heartland Institute deniers denied by 'U' profs http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diary ...
Four hundred skeptics? Try 19 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5 ...
Top Scientists Demand Names Removed From Climate List http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-docu ... - angryredplanet, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6BTW, there is "current consensus".
Nearly every reputable scientific body on this planet agrees that the Earth's climate is going through an anomolously rapid change. The majority of those suspect that human activity is a major component of this observed shift. There is also irrefutable evidence that the oceans are warming and turning acidic (for further info research coral bleaching) and are becoming close to the limit of its carbon buffering point (i.e. it will no longer absorb CO2 from the atmosphere without serious tangible changes to life within it).
I'm going to copy and paste because I can't be ***** paraphrasing for ignorant people http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is ... :
In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
in either one or both of these documents:
* http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
* http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ...
In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like? - Denneval, on 07/04/2008, -3/+9***** EXXON.
- thebellmaster1x, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9Except that the "CC" in the IPCC has always stood for "climate change." "Global warming" was a dumbed-down term invented for the unscientific. Within scholarly circles, it has always been known that such "global warming" would never necessarily entail warming in every part of the globe. It just causes extreme weather around the world.
- rationalist, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Thank you, think123, for illustrating precisely the rhetorical misdirection, trickery, and practice of the "Great Lie" method used by denialists. Your comment is a perfect accompaniment to the article.
- MSP1, on 07/04/2008, -7/+13"JOHN HOLDREN: Well, the denial movement has flourished, in part, because of the preoccupation of the media with balance and with controversy. And so, if you have 3,000 scientists working for years and producing a report that says our considered opinion is the climate is changing by this much, it’s changing this fast, it’s having these effects, and you have two or three so-called denialists or a few small think tanks, some of which were certainly funded by Exxon, saying the opposite, they get equal time. The deniers get equal time in the newspapers, on the television.
Another problem is that a denier can tell a lie in a single sentence that takes a scientist three paragraphs to rebut, but the scientist never gets the three paragraphs in the sound bite culture that our media represent. And so, the denialists, even though they are small in number, they have no credible arguments, very few of them have any scientific credentials, get attention out of all proportion to their credentials, the merit of their arguments, and that delays the generation of public understanding and political will to do the things we need to do to address this challenge. There are a lot of things we can do, but we have been delaying doing them, in part because the so-called skeptics, or more accurately deniers or denialists, have basically obscured reality for much of the public and indeed for many of our policymakers. " - thebellmaster1x, on 07/03/2008, -4/+9Yes, he does think you're a total idiot because you are a total idiot. We need to keep coming up with terms that don't confuse you. "Global warming" never meant that everything's going to get hotter. It meant that climates will become extreme. The official term has never, ever been "global warming." That was a term created in hopes that it would convey an upswing in the world's average temperature. But, of course, people like you took it to mean that the entire world would have hotter climates. Really, it's your fault that we have to change the name since you constantly misinterpret what we mean.
- dagnome1984, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6Not his fault. That is the way the media portrayed it all throughout the 90's. Of course the media sucks when it comes to matters of reporting on the latest science.
- monoa, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Steven J. Milloy publishes junkscience.com and works for Fox News.
"Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes to be false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease."
For about 10 years he worked for the Cato Institute, an 'independent' think tank heavily funded by Exxon Mobil.
"Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
He certainly picked the perfect name for his website and its contents: Junk Science. - phrenzy, on 07/04/2008, -6/+11This quote sums up pretty much every "denier" argument I see on digg (including several on this thread alone):
"Another problem is that a denier can tell a lie in a single sentence that takes a scientist three paragraphs to rebut, but the scientist never gets the three paragraphs in the sound bite culture that our media represent. "
(i.e. Volcanoes!, It snowed here - so it's a myth! It's a Liberal/Commie conspiracy to get more funding for the climate change criminal enterprise!, Al Gore, manbearpig!!, The "other side" has equal weight!, etc) - darienphoenix, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7*sigh*
"There are literally thousands of scientists finally coming forward to refute the climate change alarmists"
List of names and credentials, please. - hauntedchippy, on 07/04/2008, -2/+7RTFA! The whole point is that scientists aren't getting free reign, that is the cause of this problem. As is said, thousands of researchers can do decades of work to reach a conclusion, but the media have this misplaced ideal that 50% of airtime must be devoted to opposing views and so unqualified fringe elements are given a platform without merit. The data is there, the peer reviewed papers have been getting churned out for decades now, it is a reality. This is the exact same thing as evolution deniers and heliocentric deniers.
- CptBuck, on 07/04/2008, -4/+8The temperature leveling in the past 8 years is the result of "La Nina," the opposite of the infamous "El Nino" effect of the mid nineties. Pacific Ocean currents happen to have a stronger effect on short term temperature changes than does any effects of greenhouse gases. Just as the tilt of the earths axis has a stronger effect on temperature than either of these things (i.e. winter/summer.) Global Warming is a long term phenomenon that is the inexorable result of human emissions of greenhouse gasses. It's effects, day to day, are limited, because on such a short time scale there are stronger forces at work.
Nonetheless, over the course of say, the next 50 years, we will start to see noticeable changes, particularly when the problem of human emissions are compounded by the destruction of the rain forests and desertification through mismanagement of water resources. - greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -7/+11I said "everyone" ??
Gee, maybe there is something wrong with my monitor, it looks like "The scientific community" on my computer. I'll talk to my ISP about that. - darkcthulhu, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Global Bury Your Head in the Sand?
- greenfyre, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3Or maybe the science based community isn't working with "luck", they are dealing with reality?
- greenfyre, on 07/03/2008, -5/+8Total science or evidence presented in comment = 0
Amount I am convinced or influenced by rant = 0
Oh well, better luck next time - greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -4/+7A blog completely devoid of evidence or facts written by a semi-literate paranoid who seems to think all Caps adds EMPHASIS and suffers from the delusion that there is no science even though the scientific evidence is overwhelming cf
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
is all anyone needs to know?
Who knew? - greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4The fact is that 99% of the media is too ignorant about science to ask relevant, cogent questions, so they substitute Denier contrarianism without making any effort to see if it has a speck of credibility.
At least this one had the intelligence to follow the maxim 'if you have nothing intelligent to say, say nothing' - it will be a great day when Faux News figures that out. - Seidoger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4This whole interview is do damn depressing!
- monoa, on 07/04/2008, -4/+7You're confusing 'back-pedalling' with your MSM-informed understanding of the subject. There is and never has been any back-pedalling in the scientific community. The warnings and science have been consistent since the 1950s.
Here's the clue, genius - don't get your science from Digg comments, right wing blogs, your buddy who went to college or the weatherman at Fox News.
Here's a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Read it and follow the *scientific* references. Only the dumb, delusional and those blinded by their political ideology can deny the reality. - greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3"If nature had given us twenty more years of cooling from 1975"
Very true, we base our position on _what is actually happening_ not on our politics or beliefs. So if it were actually cooling, we would have said it was cooling.
Sorry, what was your point? - monoa, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
And when your opinion is dumb, don't be surprised when you get called 'dumb'.
I don't know where you're getting your 'science', but it ain't from the scientists. Try this instead:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CIn ... - hauntedchippy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Holy logical fallacy batman! Thats the same, the exact same, arguement a creationist would bring against evolution: "You weren't there! You didn't see it happening! It's just a worldview that's all!!"
You know, if you bother to read the literature (the peer reviewed scientific papers) you might just learn HOW they know what the CO2 levels were 400,000 years ago. Lots of people taking ice cores these days. - monoa, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5Very true. Also, the deniers ignore the reply when there is opportunity for one to be given - just look at the same bozos who produce the same dumb arguments that are repeatedly refuted here on Digg.
When it comes to climate change, the deniers ideology (right wing and Jesus, usually) takes priority over scientific reality. It's weird to see it so common - kinda reminds me of the mass psychosis that must've happened in 1930s Germany. - angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3@think123
Skepticism is healthy in any scientific endeavour. However, consensus is not a vote, poll or a unanimous opinion. It's the majority opinion supporting or not supporting the current theory. You've put a figure of 100's or 1000's of scientists openly skeptical about AWG. There are inordinately more who are supportive of it, hence the consensus. According to scientific opinion, we are changing Earth's climate, the only thing left that varies is the projection of the effect it will have if we're left to our own destructive devices.
Regarding the IPCC, it was established to provide decision-makers with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
It's a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of:
- The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
- The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
- The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals.
Scientists DO MAKE UP a representative contingency of the IPCC.
I am deeply skeptical of your premise that the oceans cannot get more acidic. The oceans are naturally alkaline with a pH of about 8.2. When CO2 dissolves in sea water it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), which releases hydrogen ions, lowering the pH and making it more acidic. Scientists estimate that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere and the subsequent absorption of some of this by the oceans has lowered oceanic pH by about 0.1 units since 1750. They also estimate that the oceans will continue to absorb the excess co2 present in the atmosphere and that oceanic pH will fall by a total of about 0.5 units by the end of this century, bringing it down to about 7.7. This is still slightly basic so we won't create a vast acid bath. But the pH scale is logarithmic, which means that even a decline of half of one unit will mean a several-fold increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.
This has a devastating effect on phytoplankton as they have an exoskeleton made of calcite (calcium carbonate). This is how they sequester carbon - when they die they sink, taking carbon with them, but unfortunately CaCO3 disolves in acidic conditions. I'll remind you that they're the most proficient carbon sequestration and atmospheric oxgenation organisms on the planet. They also make up a fundamentally critical part of the oceanic food chain.
The ocean does have a carbon saturation point and it's projected that we're 100's or 1000's of years away from that point. We will never get to observe this because IF it ever happens, by that time, there will be no phytoplankton, no oceanic life and hence no non-oceanic life.
As for the "hockey stick" graph, I'm not going to weigh in on that debate. Despite reading a lot about it, it is highly technical and beyond my level of understanding. I think it was, until proven otherwise, a serious error, nothing deliberately malicious or fraudulent, despite the skeptics very open claims to the contrary.
I will round that up with a quote regarding this and the many other recalculated and reconstructed graphs, from the National Climatic Data Center:
"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo ... - Iztikeit, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3"Either you know or you don't"
I don't think that's necessarily true, especially when dealing with something chaotic as climate. - ptanonimo, on 07/04/2008, -5/+7The sun influence as been accounted for.
That BS has been debunked ages ago - greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2The 90s? you make it too easy. You are right that initially they thought it might be a steady warming, oh in ... 1896 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius , maybe even up to the 50s http://youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg, but the view changed soon after.
"The following year [1966], a panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences warned against "dire predictions of drastic climatic changes." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm
BMoC, you should at least have checked the IPCC (NOT the IPGW), formed in 1988.
So please spare us any more wild speculation and at least check your own ***** before posting silly allegations and accusations. - domokunt, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4WHY WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE ANIMALS!
- BigManOnCampus, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5You're the one who's not reading greenfyre. It's been called global warming because that's what scientists were warning was going to happen. No scientists were calling it "global disruption". Go find me a paper from the 1990's where scientists were claiming that CO2 emissions were going to cause "global disruption" of climate. Go find it, I'll wait. I'm not going to say that no scientists were saying climate change, but the implication was always one prediction, that of the earth warming. Now they're backing off of that prediction but insisting that the earths climate will be "disrupted". But go ahead and redefine it any way you want that makes you feel comfortable about the validity of predictions in the past.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 