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.608 Comments
- greenfyre, on 12/30/2008, -161/+393The Telegraph continues it's war on reality and intelligence.
It starts by refering to Booker's article which is a ridiculous collection of idiocy as has been documnented here.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/denialists ...
In that respect it is like the rest of Booker's work; see here
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ch ... and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Cr ...
Then it repeats the silly "temperatures falling" myth when it is well known that every new record high is followed by several cool years. That's how it's been for 50 yrs and no one expected it to change:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/global-w ...
Then it repeats the The "Medieval Warm Period" Fable
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie ...
Climate Myths: Medieval Warm Period http://www.thegaiaproject.ca/science/climate-myths ...
Myth Used as Evidence Against Global Warming http://digg.com/environment/Myth_Used_as_Evidence_ ...
Then we go from hopelessly wrong to outright delusional, including misunderstanding the difference between ice extent and volume, and ignoring the source they pretend to quote. Here is what Cryosoher today actually shows about ice extent http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/MINIMA/ice ...
And as for volumte, "The 40Mb animation at the left shows the recent dramatic loss of multiyear sea ice. "
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/multiyear. ...
And of course pretty much all of the worlds glaciers are incatastrophic decline as you can easily see here:
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/johnnyroo ...
and described here http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/12/21/swiss- ...
and here http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/11/18/thirst ...
It's jut one long piece of complete nonsense - Wolfcaster, on 12/30/2008, -28/+205who cares if its real or not, leaving fossil fuels is a good thing.
- Feep, on 12/30/2008, -21/+103And cue Diggers being unbearably self-righteous despite having absolutely no qualifications or training in environmental science or ecology.
- kazz67, on 12/30/2008, -24/+79Once again, excellent research Greenfyre.
Thanks for setting the record straight. - Trent1492, on 12/30/2008, -21/+64"excellent research usually requires actual sources."
So peer reviewed articles and data produced by science organizations do not count, eh? Oh, I see you did not click on any of the links that were provided such as the ones below:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie ...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/MINIMA/ice ...
Both are graphs from the world's leading scientific organizations in their subject. Yet you call it
"however greenfyre, likes to cherry pick sources that all happen to agree with what he is saying. He never provides any balance to his bias."
Considering that I just demonstrated that you did not even bother to click on the links, the question arises: How do you know this? - inactive, on 12/30/2008, -46/+82Just because global warming is a SCAM doesn't mean we should pollute.
I run all low-power-consumption devices. I keep lights turned off, all my lights are compact-flourescent, I ride a motorcycle when I'm alone, rather than driving my car.
Conservation of power/resources FTW - Chainheart2, on 12/30/2008, -9/+41Global warming takes the cake as my least favorite "culture war" on Digg, next to the (long gone) truthers vs. anti-truthers debate
- uggyed, on 12/30/2008, -7/+35It's a shame that climate change seems to be caught up in an argument between two polarized sides (a bit like the creation/evolution argument), since I think there's a lot of scientific evidence to suggest that this is if nothing else a complex issue. But we run risks dismissing it entirely that I don't think we should be taking. Just my opinion.
- jh4rms, on 12/30/2008, -5/+33I really don't know why people are digging you down, it made me giggle, and it's true.
- dan87, on 12/30/2008, -25/+51First, its called 'climate change,' which means some places are going to get warmer and other places colder. Sometimes that will mean better weather, most times not so much.
Second, there is a difference between 'weather' and 'climate.' Its the same difference between a single shooting at a drug store and the murder rate for an entire city over an entire year.
Third, seriously? We're still doing this? EVERYONE who matters thinks this is a problem. Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama. Not to mention every other world leader for the last thirty years. Even Exxon has made a statement saying we need to do something. What else do you want? Nobel Prize? International Panel of experts? Done and Done.
Please SHUT UP! - Ransack, on 12/30/2008, -41/+66The vast majority of climate scientists say the evidence points VERY STRONGLY to man-made global warming. These deniers are like flat-earthers, every single of of their points have been refuted 1000 times yet they will go on and on, mostly because they are funded by the oil companies (the rest are just nut cases).
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -13/+38who gives a ***** if global warming is real or not..... isn't it extremely important to use green energy sources to keep our air cleaner.. our water cleaner.. and earth happier in general?
- greenfyre, on 12/30/2008, -28/+52There are no 30,000 scientists ... that is from the laughably ridiculous "Oregon Petition" hoax http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ...
No one is suing even though climate realists keep begging Coleman to actually do it so he can be exposed as a fraud in court:
http://digg.com/environment/Challenge_to_global_wa ...
Coleman's "science" is a bad collection of fables that have been exposed as nonsense:
Global Warming Denier John Coleman meets up with Science
http://digg.com/environment/Global_Warming_Denier_ ...
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jo ... - greenfyre, on 12/30/2008, -14/+37"requires actual sources."
1) You never provide any, and
2) are never able to show any errors in fact or logic in the sources I provide
So how about some actual facts instead of empty criticism? - PB3K, on 12/30/2008, -15/+35Get ready to be buried. I don't see how any "scientist" can take 200 years of data on a planet that's 4.5 billion years old and think that they can accurately predict what will happen to the climate. Then when someone else attempts to debunk their theory they're considered a crackpot. This is junk science at best, and in reality is more like religion. Best part is the general public is so brain dead they eat whatever idiots like Al Gore (who, btw, has a Bachelor of Arts degree, making him in no way qualified for climate research) say to them while at the same time turning a blind eye to the environmental damage that these same people cause. This is science, it's either proven or challenged, not taken as truth because some guy with a computer model ran some numbers and came up with a theory.
I don't care if you agree or disagree with global warming, you need to challenge the data that is being presented to you before taking ANYTHING as fact. This will affect your work, transportation, quality of life, and freedom in general. Don't just believe anything because it's coming off as "the right thing to do", it may seriously come back and bite you in the ass later. - dvsbastard, on 12/30/2008, -11/+31The only thing I have learned from this whole debate is:
If evidence supports my stance it is a "study", if it opposes my views it is "propaganda"... - lolwaffle, on 12/30/2008, -15/+35Not for the deniers. They've got stock invested!
But yes, I try to point that out. A lot of the deniers seem to have blatant political bias. It seems like the only reason they are against it is because they don't like Al Gore or the party he represents. Otherwise they wouldn't keep up with the "look how much waste he makes on his jet" arguments, because it's moot and off topic.
Fact of the matter is, we only stand to benefit from renewable energy, and decreasing our ties to foreign oil. Global warming or not, clean air and rivers that you can actually eat the fish in, are well, a pretty good thing. I don't see any of the deniers adopting these ideas. It seems they are just fine screwing up the world one way or another. - alanocu, on 12/30/2008, -150/+169This environmental fatigue doesn’t suggest a belief in man-made global warming, or even that Earth’s current temperature is alarming. Personally, I think most global warmists are misguided cultists eager to swallow the religion of environmentalism. Jonestown, here we come.
To all the various people and agencies who’re trying to force their faith down my throat, do something significant or shut up. Write some energy legislation that doesn’t punish us by raising taxes on oil, or force automakers to reduce auto emissions, which will raise automobile manufacturing cost, which will then be handed down to us, essentially another tax.
I am not even railing about the hypocrisy of the wealthy celebrity warmists whose lifestyle makes a daily carbon footprint as large as one of China’s coal-fired plants. I’m not going to tsk-tsk about the well-off residents of Martha’s Vinyard who have rejected a wind farm in Nantucket bay because it will spoil their view. I could care less that Al Gore has made a bigger mess of the environment with his nine concerts than years of single toilet paper use by the entire population could compensate for.
If the stench of global warming is too much for environmental politicians and editorialists to bear, take a lesson from The Godfather – the fish stinks from the head. - inactive, on 12/30/2008, -2/+21The twelfth day begins at about 3:39. Very funny.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+19Why thank you Stalin... nice to see you providing such a convincing argument. Fortunately for us, we are well prepared to defend ourselves.
- sivyr, on 12/30/2008, -7/+22greenfyre, thank you for your well-referenced smackdown of this mess they call proof. I wish the article was a joke, but sadly no. Unfortunately, making scientific arguments that take time to read and absorb often have little impact on those who are unwilling to listen to them. I applaud you for your resilience in trying, though.
- rustintable, on 12/31/2008, -5/+20A scientific issue is not a left right thing.
Only someone with no understanding of science would not see that.
And having no understanding of science in the modern world makes you weak and totally dependant on the technologically informed. - nick111, on 12/30/2008, -2/+17Fossil Fuels aren't the only source of greenhouse gases.
- dracostimpy, on 12/31/2008, -8/+23Notice how just about every one of those is a government-run entity? Ever heard of the phrase "CUI BONO"?
Carbon taxes would be a cash bonanza for governments, and there are plenty of non-oil-company-backed scientists in the PRIVATE sector who aren't on a government payroll, with just as good credentials as any of your links, who staunchly disagree.
For one, there's the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_a ...
Climatologist Tim Ball:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming ...
Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13773
"In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said."
I can provide more examples, but that should suffice to show that the GW verdict is still out among non-govt-payroll scientists, but that government has a vested interest in supporting GW theory which they're quite willing to support by firing scientists who don't walk the line. - Trent1492, on 12/30/2008, -8/+23"Would this article have run in 2003, 2004, or 2005? Would anyone make such a declaration in the very same years that other people were saying, "The debate is over" ??"
The answer is yes.
Revisiting the Global Warming Hoax, June 16, 2003
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2003/inter061603.ht ...
The Global Warming Scam, 09 January 2004
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1055542/p ...
Senator Inofhe Speaks on the House Floor, January 4, 2005
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupda ...
Google is your friend. The denial goes as far back as the late eighties. Go ahead and try putting in the appropriate search terms in either the New York Times or Wall Street Journal . Btw, did anyone mention that that a newspaper or newsweekly is not a scientific journal? - Stormwern, on 12/30/2008, -1/+15lol, fox news is blowing global warming out of proportion?
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -2/+15Plus, since you're riding a bike, you're more likely to die, which would significantly reduce energy consumption.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -1/+14I believe that global warming is man-made thanks to the info I have right now but I'm always skeptical and I always open minded for a different view. Right now the scientific community agrees that global warming is man made but that isn't an static fact, it may change in years to come. It won't be the first (or last) scientific fact to be proved wrong.
- trucanadian, on 12/30/2008, -27/+40Ice is not disappearing wtf? Stop lying to people. Take a look at NASA's images of greenland and antarctica and ask someone in newfoundland if they've been seeing less ice. And i hope you realize that just a snowy winter for one year doesn't count as a change in climate.
Buried - DaFunk, on 12/30/2008, -9/+22OK, let's for a moment pretend that global warming doesn't exist. That's not the point. The point is that regardless of what affect you believe we have (or don't have) on the environment, we NEED to be conscientious of our actions and strive to have as little of a negative impact as possible. This doesn't mean crippling world economies to do so, it means constantly looking for ways to change current habits while planning for a more environmentally-friendly future. In my opinion, "man-made global warming" is a moot point. If it exists, we need to change; if it doesn't exist, we still need to change.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -5/+17this pisses me off on two levels.
1) nevermind the nature of the claims inside the article
2) you imply that science has a political bias
So many people are for/against legitimate scientific issues just because it's somehow (infuriatingly) become entangled with the party platform. Liberals believe x? It must be false. Conservatives don't believe in y? It must be true.
This line of thinking just boils my blood. That's partly why we can't have legitimate debate in America, that's partly why we can't have any honesty or logic in the place where it's most sorely needed, it's all the goddamn party line, all the god damned time.
I can't debate with 98% of people. People aren't interested in logic, reality, or even what's best for the country, it's winning the argument, promoting your cause, coddling your prejudices...facts be damned.
Some conservatives claim relative morality is the downfall of western civilization. I posit it's relative REALITY. Nihilism won't destroy us, but this postmodern it's true because I believe it's true define your own reality ***** MAY just.
:angryface:
:sigh: - r0g3r, on 12/30/2008, -3/+15Buried for bogus science......
- Trent1492, on 12/30/2008, -6/+17So what court is this being filed in? Who is their legal counsel? I have been hearing all of these threats of law suits for ages now and nothing ever materializes.
- nick111, on 12/30/2008, -28/+39Well actually, these people would disagree with you there:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
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
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)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250 ...
And you are qualified to make this assertion, how exactly?
Do you even have a science degree? - Cloned, on 12/31/2008, -5/+16The number one reason why global warming may not actually exist?
Politics. - Chalks777, on 12/30/2008, -4/+15good lord, that's perhaps the most retarded thing I've ever heard. I thought history taught us (many, many times) that killing people based on differences in beliefs* was a BAD thing? Seriously.
*There are many reasons why it is a "belief". Not the least of which is the lack of a good sample set of data. We have what, perhaps 100 years of weather patterns recorded? Not only that, but the recorded patterns are hardly representative of the entire globe... it's only recently that we've had the ability to monitor the entire earth (relatively) easily. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -3/+14translation: 'I don't know the difference between weather and climate'
- dracostimpy, on 12/30/2008, -8/+19Facts don't mean much until you fit them into the system. There are just as many anti-GW facts as there are pro-GW facts, but nobody has yet to invent the definitive climate model software package that can scientifically make sense of all these facts. Until we have a climate modeling system that proves it's better than a coin toss at predicting future climate conditions, I'm not going to commit myself to radical lifestyle changes.
Al Gore and his eco-brigade may be proven right in the distant future, but I'm not willing to concede that until I see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, since that's the legal standard by which we adjudicate in America. There is more than ample evidence that Global Warming is a dubious claim, and whereas I'm cut from the "ounce of prevention" mold and have already taken steps to reduce my footprint despite my skepticism, to go to extremes like carbon taxation and harsh emission reduction treaties means that PEOPLE WILL DIE.
Like it or not, the fact is that the more we burn the more we eat, so to take away people's ability to burn is to take away their ability to avoid starvation. Perhaps a more workable solution would be to reward good behavior via tax credits for the Googles of the world who embrace clean alternatives rather than penalizing those who don't. Make the incentives big enough and even Exxon execs will be planting trees in the near future.
I mean, isn't that what we all learned in Psych 101 and Dr Spocks' books; that the best way to bring about positive change is not to punish bad behavior but instead to reward good behavior? Why are the so-called progressives suddenly so REgressive when it comes to this one issue? - heldtbt, on 12/30/2008, -36/+46The green movement is hurting us more than helping us.
http://www.greenisafad.com - Todynho, on 12/30/2008, -14/+24Ya, as a card-carrying Republican I have always found it was much easier to believe that thousands of scientists, from all over the world, have conspired with a cabal of like-minded global leaders, for over two decades, simply to aid Al Gore sell carbon credits and earn "millions of dollars" (puts pinky-finger to corner of mouth), ya, that's much easier to believe than ***** with the planet's natural equilibrium has consequences. s/
Btw, I think you forgot to include a reference to "kool-aid" in your rant. Your superficiality is stunning. - DyceFreak, on 12/30/2008, -7/+17yea I read the story and thought it was rubbish... I mean they put down temperatures are falling as the first AND last reason.. That's like a retard's way of arguing against global warming, someone who obviously doesn't understand the concept.
- Moses410, on 12/30/2008, -41/+51holy *****, something conservative on digg?
YAY! - hwy9nightkid, on 12/30/2008, -21/+30if you don't like emissions regulations, move to Mexico.. they have the air you're looking for.
High quality of life means taxes sometimes - enki25, on 12/30/2008, -24/+33I don't have any education in climate science. I trust that global warming is occurring and that it is probably being caused by human beings. I have this trust due to the fact that, of all the people talking about it, the people who are denying global warming sound the stupidest.
I don't want to be a bigot or anything, but in deciding the best course of action in any situation I generally think it's wise to ignore stupid people. This is just a generic belief I have. - bruce86, on 12/30/2008, -2/+11"As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the ... - twinklyJesus, on 12/30/2008, -20/+29Cue the Digg bury-brigade!
- BrownBears, on 12/30/2008, -8/+16first time digg has ever taken the telegraph seriously.
- rv361162, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8It's only gone because bury brigades have taken over.
- cwilsons, on 12/30/2008, -2/+10@DagonNL- well it will always be the ones with a fanatical mindset to do the lynching. If you care about the future of this planet, maybe don't throw out the laws that people died to have written just yet, hmm?
@Digg Community- it's up to you, but I'd urge you not to Digg-down extreme statements- If people have these views, then I would like them to have the courage to say them, and I'd certainly like to hear them, because it's much easier to identify a fascist or a biggot or a fanatic when they feel like they have nothing to hide. - VitriolAndAngst, on 12/30/2008, -11/+19A lot of ice is melting on the planet. That's a fact. Any growth, at the South Pole, is more along the lines of thin ice sheets, while the huge ice fields are breaking off.
It may be seen, that part of the cooling going on -- other than being a normal deviation from the hottest 10 years on record -- is that when ice melts, it is an exothermic reaction, which means that it cools more as it melts than when it is not melting. Hence, perhaps the melting is causing a temporary cooling effect. So, when the heating starts back again, it might be faster than the assumed trend would indicate. Telling a bunch of anti-science folks, hoodwinked by the latest Tobacco propaganda from an industry of polluters, that they are wrong, will be very little comfort.
There is a lot of complexity, but I'm going to go with the consensus until it is proven wrong. Not faith-based science. Apparently, the only conspiracy theories that are acceptable, are that 2,000 climatologists are lying about the weather for funding, in lock step, while the idea that Oil Company collusion, or false flag events for multi-billion dollar wars by people who've spent their lives lying, is something that is farfetched. -
Show 51 - 100 of 619 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
