What is Digg?214 Comments
- Witchbaby, on 04/24/2008, -4/+31Skepticism is fine, questioning things like this is fine. If you don't believe it, fine. Do your part ANYWAY.
Recycle
Use less gasoline by walking/bike riding.
Do little things. It can't hurt. - schibs, on 04/24/2008, -2/+19Effect: noun
Affect: verb - inactive, on 04/24/2008, -4/+21The metric system is the tool of the devil!
- futimazar, on 04/24/2008, -1/+16FYI to people spewing their midless hoax rants. The planet is unquestionably getting warmer. Large quantities of ice are melting and is alot of visual evidence to show this. The only thing that is even remotely in dispute is whether or not this due to human activity or a natural warming cycle. Apparently most of you screaming about liberal conpiracy are too stupid to even understand your own propaganda.
- anthonykpc, on 04/24/2008, -16/+28Good site. Education is key to helping solve the environmental crisis.
- Witchbaby, on 04/24/2008, -4/+16You hate the environment? Yeah...that makes sense.
- Tochi, on 04/24/2008, -1/+13Then why the hell are you looking at articles in the "Environment" section? What did you really expect to see here?
- Logicexe, on 04/24/2008, -1/+12The Theory of Evolution
Atomic Theory
Germ Theory
The Theory of Relativity
Do you always base your opinions on science on an incorrect interpretation of terminology? If you knew what a scientific theory was you wouldn't be arguing that it's "just a theory" and you'd also realize that global warming is not classified as a theory any more than the orbit of Jupiter is a theory.
Oh and, no, climate change has not been refuted time and time again. If it was you'd have very few scientists still promoting it, but then again, you probably think it's a global conspiracy. Fire can't melt steel, there are no transitional fossils, NWO, rabble rabble rabble. - MidnightRealism, on 04/24/2008, -3/+13Global temperatures have trended upward for over a century.
- pintomp3, on 04/24/2008, -2/+12it won't help. just like evolution, those who choose deny it are doing it for ideological reasons.
- Mootabolife, on 04/24/2008, -10/+19Those sad looking polar bears are going extinct you delta bravo.
- ncairns, on 04/24/2008, -3/+12"Its humanities supreme arrogance that we actually believe that we are affecting this planet in the extreme ways that the environmentalists want us to believe."
It is people who suck very badly at math and science - and, in your case, English - propping up this myth. - AntBing, on 04/24/2008, -7/+16The National Wildlife Federation is pretty reputable, and if you don't belive 6 billion people can change a planet you're an idiot.
- ncairns, on 04/24/2008, -2/+10This has been explained over and over and over, but it never seems to sink in - yes, the planet has natural climactic cycles; but, no, this isn't one of them. A climatologist would tell you there are three main shapers of the global climate - solar flux, Milankovitch cycles, and 'other'. Let's look at each of the three:
1. In a geological sense, solar output has been extremely stable for at least 10,000 years. There was a slight upward trend which capped off to even in the 80s, but since then there has been no real change one way or the other. Moreover, if the Sun were indeed responsible for the global warming on Earth, isn't it only logical to expect to see analogous warming on at least many other planets and moons in the solar system? In reality, though, we've only observed evidence of warming (and, in some cases like on Mars, only localized warming) on four or five of the 170-some substantial bodies in the solar system.
2. Milankovitch cycles are fairly well understood, which makes it reasonably easy to dismiss them as the cause for the warming we've seen for the past few decades. First, previous climactic changes caused by Milankovitch cycles are pretty much worthless as predictive models for the future because, although we do have quite a good record of them, they occurred under vastly different atmospheric conditions to those we have now. The amount of CO2 and other gases we've pumped into the atmosphere renders most of our historical data useless. There was, of course, a time in the planet's primordium when atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now, but the planet itself was fundamentally different then, so we can't really extrapolate anything meaningful from that. Second, the warming we've seen in simply too fast to be caused by Milankovitch cycles. Even the fastest warmings we've ever recorded amounted to a 5-6 degree increase over several tens of thousands of years. And, for the record those of you who would bring it up, the Medieval Warm Period was a regional, not global, event.
3. So, 'other'. That's intentionally ambiguous, of course, but it generally refers to things like oceanic versus atmospheric gas sequestration, oceanic current trends, cataclysms like volcanic eruption or meteor/asteroid impact, and, yes, human actions. All of those things are being observed, and the fact is, and I will admit that I'm not a climatologist - but I have worked intimately with the relevant data in helping to develop predictive computer models, the only quantity which has increased at a rate and size commensurate to the warming over the past few decades is human CO2 output. Yes, the planet itself produces a lot more CO2 than we do - but we still produce over two dozen billion tons of it every year. The planet is robust, but its ecosystems are fragile. Minute, even largely imperceptible, changes can cause enormous changes. - pinchduck, on 04/24/2008, -3/+11What does reducing greenhouse gases have to do with established/constitutional rights? Seriously, I don't understand your post. Is there some fear that hybrid cars and solar energy will effect your right to free speech, practice of religion, or right to bear arms?
- inactive, on 04/24/2008, -12/+20Great resource for global warming information
- inactive, on 04/24/2008, -4/+12No and no.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html - mickman17, on 04/24/2008, -0/+7I for one believe that there is something to Global warming - maybe not as human directed as some think but ***** is changing and we need to adjust to the change in climate.
I am intrigued to have newer technologies around for energy production -solar, wind, etc - why not enjoy the gifts of nature - do we have to continue to dirty the air and water with the fossil fuel based energy production we have today? Personally I dont believe in the idea that this is a big conspiracy led by Al Gore trying to take over the world - I do however believe that the big oil and other oil/fossil fuel based industries are spinning the issue to protect their vast control and financial securities..
Frankly its silly to continue to debate this issue - the debate should be how are we going to adjust? Mother nature will take care of herself but we will need to adjust the way we live in minor and potentially major ways to minimize the impact to our existence on this
peace out.. - ncairns, on 04/24/2008, -6/+13It never ceases to amaze me that people with no expertise whatsoever in the field feel so confident making such blanket, demonstrably untrue claims to prop up their false beliefs. Ah, but you're a Ron Paul supporter - of course you'd have no problem with cognitive dissonance.
- MidnightRealism, on 04/24/2008, -8/+15It's a step forward away from you dimwits, so yes. Being open-minded to people who are wrong doesn't really get us anywhere.
- MadAce, on 04/24/2008, -1/+8That wasn't a NASA report. NASA still backs up the global consensus on climate change (since they have an education 'n stuff).
You're referring to this:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352241,00.html
BUT
How selective can you get? Ever considered reading a whole article?
"Critics quickly pointed out that Chapman may have been "cherry-picking" the data. A strong La Nina formation in the Pacific pushed down January temperatures over much of the Northern Hemisphere from where they had been a year earlier, but average global temperatures are still much higher than the 20th-century average, and the NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record."
And even then...
Did you know that ALL of the conclusion forming institutes that provided Chapman with his data (on which he formed a conclusion, not shared by the aforementioned institutes) share the current scientific consensus on climate change?
And they're pretty reputable. We're talking about the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and the Christy group at the University of Alabama.
To say it with the words found on the Hadley Climate Change Unit website:
"Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it." - ljvillanueva, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6They have dug up ice, ice contains bubbles, bubbles contain the mix of gases when the bubble was formed, gases were analyzed, concentration of each gas in the atmosphere back to 420k years is known. That is how science knows what the concentration was.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6Is that Evidence in the Exxon Quarterly, or National Shill Magazine?
I think Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly may even have a comic book for the character; "Captain Pan It."
I hear a lot of the talking points like; "The sun makes the earth hotter -- duh!" and I always find that they are in fact, baseless comments (Sun does add the heat -- but it is really, really stable and our ozone increases with more solar winds so it tends to stabilize over time). But, if they are repeated enough, people think that there is controversy, so why not keep polluting? - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6Some people believe freedom is about Liberty, and some people think Freedom is being able to buy a Hummer and a big screen TV.
The deniers tend to lack a bit of nobility. - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -0/+6I'm trying to think of a plausible conspiracy theory on how you benefit from Recycling, Walking and lowering Pollution. So far this is all I've got;
Step 1) Alarm people about global warming and suggest alternative energy and conservation.
Step 2) ????
Step 3) Profit or Communism.
OK comrades, our scheme is working ...
*maniacal laugh* - bhealy1, on 04/24/2008, -5/+11Great site, I hope it isn't just preaching to the choir though.
- SOS84, on 04/24/2008, -16/+22Sadly it did not take long for the conspiracy theorists, flat Earthers and idiots to make their presence known. Just stick your head in the sand along with your idol James Inhofe and all will be well with the world.
- inactive, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5The whole "liberal" concept is a remarkably quaint localized American idea that has no equivalent one inch over the border.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6Well, seeing as how Bush has been firing scientists for publishing TRUE things, and appointing shills who write what he wants to read since he has been in office -- I don't much trust NASA, the EPA, the FDA, or any other cronied up organization anymore.
This story could be made up, or it could be true. We can still have a problem from climate change due to polls warming and the temperate zones cooling. China's smog problem, might also be cooling the planet. NONE of this, means that humans need to reduce their impact on the earth. - ncairns, on 04/24/2008, -0/+51. "What bugs me when people go and say that it's definitely man's fault for it..."
Fair enough, but bear in mind that whenever you hear someone say that, they most certainly are not a climatologist. In my professional experience the language is never that definite, and that's generally true across the range of all sciences. The common phrasing in academic settings is something like 'there is a strong correlation between' or 'it is scientifically tenable to'.
2. "...can you say with certainty that there have never been small 50-100 year hiccups during the 5-6 degree change over 10 000 years?"
Of course not. Actually, I should have phrased that better anyway - there certainly have been such occurrences, but only caused by cataclysms. However, from what we know of how the climate operates - and this draws not only on direct temperature observations, but also things like ice core data from which we can extrapolate out a lot of things going back hundreds of thousands of years with a high degree of accuracy - large, global changes like the one we're seeing happen very gradually. Further, if indeed there have been previous events not caused by global cataclysms where the global temperature changed so drastically and rapidly, it would have needed to be caused by something fairly obvious. Milankovitch cycles as we understand them are too slow for that, and although admittedly we understand them not very well at all it would be difficult to imagine oceanic currents and warming/cooling patterns precipitating such a massive shift. That really only leaves us with solar flux, which makes sense. Since the Sun has been stable for about three decades now and there isn't planetary warming on a solar system-wide level, there's really no evidence to suggest that's the cause. I have put some effort into imagining scenarios where this warming isn't at least largely anthropogenic, but the math just doesn't work.
3. "Also there's no way that scientists can know what the exact global temperature was as accurate to every 50-100 years..."
There is a public misconception that ice core data isn't particularly reliable, and it's an incredulity I shared until my climatologist friends embarrassed me. The existing climactic records are quite accurate for nearly a million years. Given that's hardly the blink of an eye in geological time, but there's a paradoxical effect in ice core research whereby going back too far is useless for future predictions because atmospheric conditions were different enough from what they are today to yield inaccurate data. - FeloniusMonkey, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Can you diagram this question for me?
- Sendai129, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5The main problem that I have with man made global warming is that we've been observing the climate on a global scale now for... let's say even 200 years. Now it's been recently that we've noticed a large shift in global temperature. What bugs me when people go and say that it's definitely man's fault for it, is that I don't think we've been observing the climate for long enough to be able to say that. We can certainly measure trends in climate change, but can you say with certainty that there have never been small 50-100 year hiccups during the 5-6 degree change over 10 000 years? The earth has been around for billions of years and theres no way that climate change has been nice and smooth. Also there's no way that scientists can know what the exact global temperature was as accurate to every 50-100 years (and if they can, we have way too many scientists working on past climate changes... I want a flying car damnit!) I just don't see there as being anywhere near enough evidence to back up the claim that this rapid global warming is man's fault and man's fault alone.
However, I've got no problem with trying to reduce fuel emissions to start saving limited natural resources but I don't think in the long run that's going to have enough of an effect. What we should start concentrating on is how to adapt to a new environment like every other species on the planet is going to. - MadAce, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6Lomborg is an economist. Besides, he's been refuted a multitude of times.
- regeya, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Indeed...Al Gore may be a damn liar and his followers are morons, but in no way does that invalidate the need for real change. The sad thing is that most people are such morons that they DO think that Al Gore being a damn liar invalidates the need for change.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5We are FORCED to drive cars because we don't have trains to go places we need to go in a timely fashion. We are forced to buy gasoline to drive these cars -- because other alternatives are out of the price and convenience for most people. We are FORCED to go to war, to protect resources for EXXON.
How is a decentralized, alternative energy policy going to promote Socialism? The STANDARDS that businesses should follow, so as to not cut costs by polluting our air and putting us in the hospital makes sense for our quality of life. Socialist countries, by the way, only force businesses to conform to standards for the common good -- it actually makes MORE power for the average person who is involved in a Democracy.
Sweden is far more Democratic than the United States. All you are saying is; "We want the profit motives of business to override the wishes of the people." So your alternative to a "Socialist Power Grab" (read as; "Power to the People") is more Oligarchy (read as; "Ruled by corporations.")
When you have no regulations and no rules, you have the lowest common denominator and the Monopolies make rules that preserve their profits. Maybe we can spend another $10 Billion in lawyers and police to make sure the Music industry makes more money next year.
You are trying to say Mexico is a better way to live than Sweden. That is a pretty tough sell as soon as people understand what the real discussion is.
By following the "regulation is Socialism" meme. That means having the FDA make sure that we aren't going to die from Spinach -- we are Commies. Well, more of that please. - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Hmmn. I'm not reading what he wrote yet, I just thought I'd see who Bjorn is;
"
Bjørn Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a Master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen in 1994.
"
So, that PhD in Political Science, sure could make him astute at figuring out what people want to hear. He's got some undergraduate creds in statistics -- that's it.
I make my living by supporting Business meetings. The dirty little secret is "Expert Speakers." Anything you want to sell in this world -- there is good money to be made in writing a book supporting it, then going on a lecture tour as a "disinterested third party expert" and lending credibility to the product.
Is Exxon going to have a person who wrote a book about the pollution of gasoline? No. So, you can look at any industry and there is a whole farm league of people who support everything they do. Other than Al Gore, there isn't a lot of money in talking about pollution being made. And Al Gore could make speakers fees talking about goats. He doesn't need GW to make money.
Having a hunch, I just googled "Bjørn Lomborg speaking fees" and got this; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_/a ...
I'm sure you could contact his agency and get him to speak (here, I've saved you time; http://www.speakers.co.uk/csaWeb/browse,0,LN,_,_,_ ... ). For enough money, they have an expert that can tell you that "Up is Down." It's a lot cheaper to just call a pimp. This guy does not make a living in science, but in lending credibility to people who don't want a change in energy policy. - Logicexe, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6What is it about climatology that turns otherwise rational people into scared conspiracy loons? Seriously, everyone says that we're the ones who are being controlled through fear yet I've heard nothing but discussions about possible solutions and people practicing conservation. Most scared global warming koolaid drinkers I know are hopeful, it's the other side who keeps running around spreading fear of the evil socialist conspiracy. Those evil liberal socialists have taken over the entire scientific community from all around the world! Those bastards!
- VitriolAndAngst, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5Ice core samples from polar ice, for one.
They can also look at layers of dirt and metamorphic rock to see the gas compositions.
Trees probably show different growth patterns with more Carbon Dioxide -- for instance, a wider ring on a tree shows that there was more rain.
I'm sure I'm missing a lot -- but, Scientists THINK a lot about how to research things like what the level of Carbon Dioxide was a million years ago. Maybe you can read what THEY have to say. They won't be 100% right all the time. But if you come up with a better idea of how to measure Carbon Dioxide, you have a chance at influencing the debate.
Just because YOU don't know how we can figure out the carbon levels 420,000 years ago, does not mean that someone else cannot. - Kerrigore, on 04/24/2008, -0/+5To be fair, there are plenty of other countries which aren't much better in terms of consumption and entitlement. America just happens to be the largest and most populous, and, arguably, the worst offender (although it seems from what I've heard that China is getting pretty bad).
- roodammy44, on 04/24/2008, -3/+8It's not falling, it's just slightly more insulated by greenhouse gasses which is causing ecological problems.
- MadAce, on 04/24/2008, -1/+6You're clearly not informed enough to answer your own (just but easy) question. An like all retarded ***** ups you decide to dismiss everything you don't understand.
- vikingcoder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Disagreeing with evolution will also get you buried. That must mean that evolution is a hoax.
- regeya, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5Look up paleoclimatology. It's not an exact science, but it provides valuable clues into the past of our planet, and looking at the past, what we're living in is not the norm. The 'norm' is vast wastelands of ice.
But use some of that logic so many seem to hold dear. Just as rain does not bring frogs, a lack of definitive evidence of human intervention in the climate does not negate the negative effects of coal power plants, seemingly diminishing supplies of oil to make, well, everything modern society demands, diminishing crops, lack of proper drinking water, disease on the rise, oceans full of plastic and growing dead zones, and a whole laundry list of things that are PROVABLY OUR FAULT. - Atomic05, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5Ah yes, of course. Because renewable energy programs are constantly monitoring my every move and stealing my paychecks. If you're going to tin-foil-hat about something that takes your money, do it about the federal reserve and the IRS.
- MadAce, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5You probably won't understand but meh. Nothing (not even the realization that you're not about to understand everything and thus aren't able to form a funded opinion on the majority of things) will make you change your mind on this.
But I'll try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
And then there's also computer models. - ncairns, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5"In the 70s everyone was deathly afraid of "global cooling" and the impending ice age."
This is a persistent mythology that really needs to die. You cannot find me a single scientific paper from the 70s which suggested that the Earth was cooling. There was something of a media fascination with and popularization of the idea, but scientists never subscribed to it. Read the 1975 NAS report frequently cited by global warming deniers - it doesn't make any predictions at all about what the climate was doing. In fact, it said that at the time they didn't have sufficient data or understanding of the climate to make any such predictions. Now we do. - MidnightRealism, on 04/24/2008, -5/+9It will happen, it's a question of how fast. I don't get how so few people understand that the rate of change is at the core of the argument.
- ncairns, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4Nope, but I do have BSs in physics and CS and S.M.s in CS and mathematics. I've also worked as a consultant on several climatological computer models, and three of my closest friends and colleagues are PhDs in atmospheric science and/or atmospheric chemistry. I'm not a climatologist, but I'm probably better versed in the field than most people.
- inactive, on 04/24/2008, -1/+5"being a lib" - wow, that's pretty damn murcania parochial. Over here in the Netherlands "liberal" means far right !
- vikingcoder, on 04/24/2008, -0/+4http://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-sai ...
(primary sources, e.g. peer-reviewed journal papers, referenced)
The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. -
Show 51 - 100 of 214 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