What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
538 Comments
- brstilson, on 01/05/2008, -14/+133This article cites no sources at all.
- estevens, on 01/05/2008, -162/+249Another collection of simplistic answers to complex questions. Why not just answer each question with "Because we know better than you". Let's take just a couple of these:
Warming is "beyond anything the planetary cycle would account for" - prove it. How about we are just now returning to the levels seen in the most recent warming periods, following the Little Ice Age.
CO2 has increased 37% in 200 years - so what, the most important GHG is water vapor. Where does that factor into the models? Oh, it doesn't, how nice.
No trend of increased solar radiation - good to know you actually read the papers. The issue is not radiation output, but the level of cosmic rays which affect cloud cover (that water vapor stuff). The level of cosmic rays is in turn tied to the sunspot cycle, which we are at a minimum on, which matches nicely (on an 11 year cycle) to warming and cooling trends.
High degree of accuracy from ice core - actually a lot of studies indicate that the ice core data is contaminated and should not be used. Same with tree rings.
The "hockey stick" controversy is a complicated issue revolving around statistics and modeling techniques. - no its not. Its about using the wrong data, removing inconvenient data points and really, really bad coding practices. Its not complicated - its manipulation to convince people of something that is not true. - drshorty, on 01/05/2008, -24/+109Both sides are equally at fault for politicizing the issue, which is, to say, rather unfortunate considering that it may be important to know the actual truth.
- ICSU, on 01/05/2008, -34/+96 1998 internal ExxonMobil strategy memo:
Victory will be achieved when:
* Average citizens [and the media] 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom' ...
* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality."
It worked I take it. - Evildudetx, on 01/05/2008, -20/+79Without sighting sources, this article is crap.
- graeh, on 01/05/2008, -11/+61I'm so torn - do I listen to Diggers who say that the science isn't there and they know it's the sun causing it and it's part of a natural cycle... or do I listen to scientists in Seed, at TED talks, and other various scientific outlets?
If only science was about observing the world around us and forming theories based on testing and empirical evidence instead of on the gut feeling of people commenting on messageboards that scientists are lying to secure more funding or are simply "saying we're all going to die no matter what we do"...
Seriously - if we can't at least put some sort of trust in scientific method over cognitive disonnance and selective thinking - what can we trust? - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -82/+128ah yes no sources and rambling about 'hundreds of scientists' .. a perfect site for the global warming believers and there lack of any facts
- SQLserver, on 01/05/2008, -7/+44Hey-
We KNOW that the Earth is warming, right? That's a fact.
And WE KNOW that we are releasing gigatons of CO2 into the atmophere, right?
It makes a little sense that CO2 in the atmosphere traps more sunlight, making it warmer.(no sarcasm)
What I'm trying to say is that while Global Warming MIGHT NOT be completely caused by humans, do you really think the CO2 is helping?
I mean we KNOW the seas are rising, and that it is getting hotter, and those aren't good things, right?
And we all KNOW that importing millions of $$$ of Oil sucks for our economy, and supports rich guys in Abu Dhabi, so using oil isn't really a good thing, right? And drilling in Alaska, or cutting down rain forests sucks for the environment there too.
So what is so wrong with quickly switching to cleaner Alternative Energy sources? What is the big problem? We'll save millions of dollars in the future. Don't the Global Warming scientists have the right idea, whether they are right or wrong? - ssam, on 01/05/2008, -8/+42http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ... has a lot more detail
- br0ck, on 01/05/2008, -19/+52"we are just now returning to the levels seen in the most recent warming periods" Maybe you're right, but never in the history of the planet has climate change happened so fast. It usually is much, much slower.
"most important GHG is water vapor. Where does that factor into the models? Oh, it doesn't, how nice." Water vapor certainly factors into every climate model. Have you ever even looked at one? There is a fundamental difference between water and CO2 and that is that water vapor precipitates in a few days and does not build up, but CO2 gradually builds up over centuries as sequestered CO2 fuels release the prehistoric gas back into the atmosphere. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
"but the level of cosmic rays which affect cloud cover" The cosmic ray theory for recent warming has been thoroughly debunked. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
"actually a lot of studies indicate that the ice core data is contaminated" Source? Wouldn't this be major news?
"its manipulation to convince people of something that is not true" The chart was wrong, but has it been proven by anyone that it was intentional? - doctechnical, on 01/05/2008, -32/+63A scientist is more likely to get funding for a study if there's a doomsday scenario involved. "A study of acorn gathering habits in Ohio squirrels" does not get funded, "Impact of Global Climate Change on the acorn gathering habits..." does. Publish or perish.
- chonuts, on 01/05/2008, -15/+44"Drug-crazed son"? He was pulled over for pot, which was his first and only drug-related offense to date. Where did you get "drug-crazed"?
And what do you expect Al Gore to do? Drive around the country in a hybrid VW Bus handing out hemp pamphlets? Yeah, that'll get people to listen. He's raised a considerable amount of awareness to the notion of global warming. I think all of the people and corporations who are now changing their ways because of the attention he's brought outweighs the fact that he may not be true to his word every single minute of the day. Not to mention he donated his entire salary as a venture capitalist to his NPO, Alliance for Climate Protection. I guess what I'm trying to say is... What have YOU done lately that makes you so much better than Al Gore? - davecor, on 01/05/2008, -1/+29I dugg you up, but the word is "Citing"
- ICSU, on 01/05/2008, -13/+40http://www.ipcc.ch/
Hundreds of scientist from all over the world prepared the report with help of thousands other scientists who peer reviewed it. - jerbaker, on 01/05/2008, -13/+37"the most important GHG is water vapor. Where does that factor into the models? Oh, it doesn't, how nice."
You lack an understanding of basic physics. Do you know that water evaporates more rapidly when temperatures are higher, and less so when temperatures are lower? You can see an extreme example by heating it on your stove. Now, what do you think might cause the surface of the earth, where water is sitting, to become warmer and increase evaporation??? Think about it overnight and come back to class and let us know what you come up with.
The models do take into account water vapor by the way. It's part of why global warming is so scary, because it starts a positive feedback loop.
"The level of cosmic rays is in turn tied to the sunspot cycle, which we are at a minimum on, which matches nicely (on an 11 year cycle) to warming and cooling trends."
Except the current warming trend has lasted about a century. That does not fit with an 11 year cycle.
"actually a lot of studies indicate that the ice core data is contaminated and should not be used. Same with tree rings."
Link to peer reviewed studies or articles please.
If you're a skeptic, fine. Please stop spreading misinformation though. Learn a little before you speak like an expert. - sprash, on 01/05/2008, -8/+32I always thought that the best technology came from America.
The efficiency of solar panels and Batteries is growing exponentially. So if you Americans still want to drive your SUVs (which I never understood) why not take part and help developing new technologies and make them available for cars by using them and stop denying global warming? Why stick to Oil powered cars which is an inefficient technology that is more than 100 years old? If you take the sunlight of all American desserts and convert it into energy it would be enough to power the whole world. This would make your country pretty independent. I always thought that that was what you want to achieve.
As for Global warming: As a physicist I know that there is no "law" that can tell you, that global warming is real. The only chance you have is to simulate the whole world with pretty big computers. The outcome of those simulations is very strong dependent on the assumptions you make. And the number of assumptions you have to make is huge. But no matter which assumptions you make you will always see this: If you increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere and leave all other parameters the same the global temperature will rise... in the best case almost negligible in the worst case up to several degrees (Kelvin) per year.
The only ones who tell you that the global warming is not real are the Oil companies. And somehow they managed to tell you with their big marketing machine that you would give up your freedom if you accept the facts.
For me freedom means independence. - joshak, on 01/05/2008, -8/+31I live on the east coast of Australia, right next to the spectacular great barrier reef, which is dying because the water is getting too hot. Out west our farmers are committing suicide (1 every 4 days) because the worst drought in 1000 years is killing their land and livelihood. I've heard that elsewhere in the world the polar bears and penguins are dying. I see over in America you are experiencing one of the worst bush fire seasons in 70 years, coupled with some pretty disastrous weather events. It's so frustrating to watch these things happen and on the other hand see people who still won't take global warming seriously. And I know people aren't taking it seriously because so many use uncertainty about the causes and even existence of global warming to justify their reluctance to do even the slightest thing for their environment. You can deny the existence of global warming all you want but at least understand that the cost of doing something to prevent it and finding out it wasn't real is far less than doing nothing and realizing all to late what we stand to lose.
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -6/+28Yeah. People go into Climatology for profit. Are you stupid?
Not all climate scientist study global warming. Many study other facets of the climate. They get a lot of funding from many different sources, mostly from universities and private groups. the government funds NASA and NOAA.
Your defamatory attack is disgusting. Unable to counter someone's data, you attack the person instead. - TGMD, on 01/05/2008, -3/+24What's this a bloody religion!? It's SCIENCE, it's not supposed to believed, You're supposed to be critical of it! You're supposed to challenge it and try and poke holes in it!
- londubh, on 01/05/2008, -8/+28It's hard to tell if there are more global warming denialists on digg than aren't. They are probably just more vocal. No amount of evidence will persuade them otherwise. It's like arguing with a slightly more educated creationist.
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -3/+20Do you have a critique of the data from the report or are you basing your conclusion from a preconceived bias?
- jerbaker, on 01/05/2008, -8/+25How can diggers think the scientific community is spot on when it comes to the debate over intelligent design and then mock them about global warming? You either accept the scientific community's integrity or you do not. You engage in the same hyperbole, misinformation, and deception as the intelligent design crowd, just the subject is different.
- ICSU, on 01/05/2008, -4/+21mostly debunked:
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness. ...
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/ab ... - flink405, on 01/05/2008, -32/+48C´mon, the guy at that website does not explain anything. Just blah, blah, blah without any back up.
One cannot disprove something by just saying something else. Show the facts, the proof, the research.
For example he says: "There simply isn't any reliable study showing the sun's intensity has increased, causing the climate to warm."
No "reliable study". In other words, there are plenty of scientific studies showing that the sun´s intensity has increased, but there no scientific study that fits his conclusions therefore they are unreliable.
He writes: "What we are experiencing today is not natural."
How does he know what is "natural" or not regarding our climate and weather? 50,000 or 1,000,000 or billion years ago the climate and weather was different than today. Was that not natural?
Is the climate and weather we are experiencing today artificial, not natural? Silliness by the person with that website. - JoeVet, on 01/05/2008, -8/+23"Warming is "beyond anything the planetary cycle would account for" - prove it."
Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model. Ammann CM, Joos F, Schimel DS, Otto-Bliesner BL, Tomas RA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 6;104(10):3713-8. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713
"Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Instead of just passing gas like you deniers, the more educated folks read the peer reviewed literature. This is but one example of many. Where is your rebuttal? One is all you need. Nothing? Go back to the Fauxnews and Drudge Report where your kind go to avoid truth and moan about intellectuals. - aussieNickuss, on 01/05/2008, -6/+21"The earth's ocean level are not rising, and will not rise even at current trends." - why are islands in the pacific "sinking"?
"The same logic of a glass of water with a few cubs of ice in it. Melt the ice and the water will stay at the same level." - ice blocks displace the water....when they melt they merge into the rest of the water. Whats different about ice caps, is they sit on top of land mass....they don't displace the oceans.
"In order for the oceans to rise, all the land based glaciers and permafrost would have to melt and travel to the oceans." - they are doing that right now.
"just because someone has a fancy degree " - they know more than you do.
"I personally think that this whole global warming charade is derived by groups bent on gaining power over us." - just like the oil companies trying to disprove global warming so they keep their power over us? - amarketingman, on 01/05/2008, -10/+25I think there is evidence supporting both global warming and natural warming. But either way, we know the way we're treating our earth is wrong. Why don't we just do things right and if it helps with global warming, then so be it.
- doctechnical, on 01/05/2008, -1/+14Given that the funds paid by duck hunters (via stamps, licenses and contributions) do more for the duck's ecosystem than any other group, I think their priorities are in the right place.
The logic is not difficult: Duck hunters like to hunt ducks. The more ducks there are, the better the hunting. Therefore duck hunters promote and protect places where ducks like to be. QED. - TomRitchford, on 01/05/2008, -4/+16Just saying, "It's not true!" isn't the same as a logical argument.
You wrote: "Warming is "beyond anything the planetary cycle would account for" - prove it." The two words "prove it" do not constitute a rebuttal of the *tens of thousands of papers* written on this subject.
"CO2 has increased 37% in 200 years - so what, the most important GHG is water vapor. Where does that factor into the models?" As a previous poster wrote, the water cycle is self-regulating, but CO2 accumulates. Plenty of atmospheric models DO take the effect of water vapor into account, anyway.
"No trend of increased solar radiation - good to know you actually read the papers. The issue is not radiation output, but the level of cosmic rays which affect cloud cover (that water vapor stuff). The level of cosmic rays is in turn tied to the sunspot cycle, which we are at a minimum on, which matches nicely (on an 11 year cycle) to warming and cooling trends." I don't see your point -- are you claiming that scientists are being fooled by well-known periodic effects of sunspots? We've been observing the climate directly in detail for far more than 11 years and we have historical evidence going back thousands of years.
"High degree of accuracy from ice core - actually a lot of studies indicate that the ice core data is contaminated and should not be used. Same with tree rings." Again, "I say it's wrong" is not a rebuttal. There are certainly studied questioning *particular* ice core data and *particular* tree rings -- scientists are constantly trying to break other people's hypotheses, that's why it's science -- but the *overall* effectiveness of these techniques when used correctly is not in question.
"The "hockey stick" controversy is a complicated issue revolving around statistics and modeling techniques. - no its not. Its about using the wrong data, removing inconvenient data points [blah blah]" The article itself rebuts you: "Scientists have used thousands of independent pieces of evidence gathered over decades to determine that global warming is primarily a result of human activities. So it is wholly false to argue that one graph is the basis for global warming."
Now, I'm not completely convinced on this matter myself -- but I'm convinced enough to want to learn the true facts. If you have actual *data* underlying your arguments, let us have it -- otherwise, I will have to consider your posting to be completely refuted. - aussieNickuss, on 01/05/2008, -5/+17Scientists need funding to to be able to study..........to increase human knowledge.........knowledge that makes us understand the workings of the planet.
- burningmanstan, on 01/05/2008, -4/+15They are looking at the effect of the sun. They don't ignore it. Why do people always assume climate scientists are stupid on such simplistic levels. Every freaking climate report includes solar activity, this should common knowledge by now. Frankly it is the close correlation of solar activity to global temperature that shows increased solar activity has not caused all of the warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmi ... - antidense, on 01/05/2008, -6/+17You fail to account for the fact that granting organizations only give grants to researchers who provide useful results and that everything published in scientific journals must be peer reviewed. Whereas disinformation and propaganda about GW is funded by oil companies no matter what and none of it is ever peer confirmed.
- robche, on 01/05/2008, -0/+11seriously who cares if we are causing it or not, we should still try to find more efficient ways of producing energy, simple as that. i really dont see the sense in arguing about whether the earth is warming cause of us or not. stop trying to politicize science.
if there is man made global warming, we should find better sources of energy.
if there isnt man made global warming, we should find better sources of energy. - KennMac, on 01/05/2008, -1/+11Oh shut up. Everyone uses that lame argument. In today's world, how else is he supposed to personally spread his message? Other forms of transportation produce a very similar carbon footprint. Whether you agree with his message or not, it's completely irrational to blame him for having a relatively microscopic impact while potentially spreading a very positive message.
- enri, on 01/05/2008, -2/+12We agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I think we can agree that only humans have been extracting oil and coal from the earth and burning it for energy. Burning coal and oil releases CO2. Now explain to me how you think that reintroducing many millennia of sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever?
- jerbaker, on 01/05/2008, -1/+10Thanks for that. You're right. All the astronomers are wrong. Somehow, some guy in his parents' basement was able to figure out by reading Web pages that all of the astronomers' measurements of solar radiation were wrong. Not to mention that all the climatologists models are wrong, and all the dendrologists' tree ring information is wrong. I'm really interested in this Internet thing that allowed a single person sitting at his computer to negate centuries of combined experience and knowledge of trained scientists. Please explain.
- Otto, on 01/05/2008, -7/+16The government is not magic. They can't reverse global trends.
- aussieNickuss, on 01/05/2008, -53/+62Do you think the thousands of scientists that have PROVED global warming is a major issue are doing so just for the hell of it? Are they gonna profit from it somehow....is that what you think? You can sit on your ass and continue to be skeptical towards global warming all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that human beings have changed this planet......and it is humans that are going to pay the ultimate price if we don't take the issue seriously.
- init100, on 01/05/2008, -6/+15"they didn't PROVE anything, if you actually read the IPCC report you'd know that their conclusion was that humans "likely" caused it"
Maybe you are unaware of the fact that science never proves anything, they are always talking about probabilities. In this case, they are saying that it is highly probable that human activities caused the current global average temperature rise.
"The earth is warming there's nothing YOU or I or ANYONE can do to do stop it. If it is true that humans caused it by increased CO2 emissions big whoop, there's no way to reverse that trend!"
I really don't know why this myth persists. What evidence is there that we cannot do anything to reverse the warming? The answer is that there is none. You're just taking the easy way out: "There is nothing we can do, so why try?". Talk about a fatalistic state of mind.
"Even if al gore was right in his POS propaganda film, which he isn't, and global temperatures would increase as much as he said they would, humanity would be at most inconvenienced a little, None of this massive global disaster stuff, that's all lies!"
It isn't lies at all. You might be only inconvenienced, but many people might have to abandon their homes when crops fail and the severe droughts occur. Think longer than your nose reaches. - JoeVet, on 01/05/2008, -6/+15"most important GHG is water vapor. Where does that factor into the models?"
Hate to break it to you but water vapor has been incorporated into current models. This happened soon after your buddy Dr Richard Litzen came up with his discredited iris effect where he was paid by big oil to say cloud cover will save the planet. If your going to stay in the argument you need to stay current. The lame arguments that you deniers put forth are usually shot down by factual scientific data as soon as they come out in your neotard opinion articles. - deanjarvis, on 01/05/2008, -0/+9Why do smart people (diggers) refuse to believe an actual fact? It's like they have blind spots in their intelligence. When it comes to this subject, a lot of people seem to think like the evolution deniers.
- jerbaker, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8You sound like an intelligent design proponent.
- Petrarch1603, on 01/05/2008, -3/+10source?
- davecor, on 01/05/2008, -2/+9Careers and fortunes will be built on this debate. What then if we discover it's a natural event?
How do we explain ourselves to millions of poor people that we wasted decades and billions, and can't relocate them to higher/more fertile land?
Australia will be overrun by displaced Pacific Islanders... best to make peace with that and get ready to welcome your new neighbors. - jerbaker, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8Actually, it's the deniers who would have us pay for their beliefs. The costs of doing nothing are astronomically higher than the costs of combating global warming. Skeptics would have the rest of us foot the bill for their laziness and apathy in figures much larger than just dollars, but lives and property.
Even in terms of a gamble, having the entire scientific community behind one horse, and having the price for not picking that horse be cataclysmic global catastrophe, why in the hell would you not bet on that horse? Even if it's the wrong horse, the cost is less than if it were the right horse and you didn't bet on it. - bryano, on 01/05/2008, -18/+25The earth has been heating up for the past 2000 years. Just because it was at an optimum temperature (for humans) several decades ago doesn't mean that trend should stop. This article doesn't do a very good job of explaining either:
"The current warming cycle is natural ... "
"What we are experiencing today is not natural" - Aidanjalali, on 01/05/2008, -15/+22We're screwed whatever we do now, really. I had a lecture about it at a People and Planet gathering in Newcastle - we've already reached one 'point of no return', and of about 5 more to choose from, 2 of them are closing fast. (One is a series of methane fields frozen under ice, and I believe the other has something to do with the mid-atlantic drift....)
If we all had made our contribution 20 years ago, we wouldn't be on such a slippery slope now. As it stands, the governments are the only ones that can really turn things around now. So, although it's good to be turning your lights off as you leave the house, the real focus of everyone's effort should be lobbying all governments to abandon oil and adopt newer energy resources.
And no, biofuel is not an option. Carbon-rich tropical forests are being stripped down to bare land for biofuel resources. It's not a long-term solution.
So basically, yeah, if everyone worked together and people actually gave a damn and we let our governments know...we could do something. The problem is that Earth's climate changes naturally over thousands of years. Its the stupid people that say 'well its all part of a natural cycle' - NO, it's NOT. We're speeding up something which should have thousands of years to take place, to give wildlife time to adapt. So stop being so naive, and start letting other people know what a slippery slope we're all on. - doctechnical, on 01/05/2008, -16/+23Thank you, Mr,. Torquemada, for that brilliant insight into the rational scientific debate before us.
The New Inquisition, Ladies and Gentlemen. Convert or die. - bryano, on 01/05/2008, -17/+24I agree with pretty much everything you say, except for the point about water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas. Yes, it is a more potent GHG compared to CO2, but its influence is negligible due to the water cycle (which unlike the carbon cycle, is self-correcting).
- climateHeretic, on 01/05/2008, -4/+11So what? That is a insignificant amount compared to the donation campaign of just one major environmental group for the same period. Oil companies have funded research, there is no direct evidence that the money ewas used to discredit AGW.
16 Million OMG! the WWF spent 16 Million in 2006 alone on fund raising.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=sear ...
So who do you think has more money and is pushing their agenda harder, big oil 16 Million in 7 years or WWF 16 Million in 2006? -
Show 51 - 100 of 538 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