What is Digg?77 Comments
- aptimass, on 06/13/2008, -5/+32One of the things that just amazes me is that the planet has been cooling for 10 years, thousands of scientists are refuting global warming, yet the media seems to ignore the other side of the debate. I suppose their choice is what is causing so many more scientists to "come out of the closet" to save us from the poverty that the libs want to shove down the throat of all mankind.
- praderwilli, on 06/13/2008, -2/+22If this were a story about Obama's shoes it would have 5000+ diggs so far.
- mech887, on 06/13/2008, -3/+23I would like to see how a global warming believer would refute the claims made in this article.
- NinjaMunky, on 06/13/2008, -2/+20Not to mention the fact that there are recorded pole temperatures. 2 years ago, it dropped an 1/4 of a degree on average (which disproves global warming on its own)!
- Robart, on 06/13/2008, -2/+17If this article were more global warming gloom and doom it would get 5000 diggs and would be featured on Diggnation. I would like to see a more open debate about this issue. I'm not sure its as cut and dry as most people think.
Anytime someone complains about gas prices I remind them that high gas prices are the best thing to combat global warming. We should be dancing in the streets celebrating high gas prices...right? - abran1984, on 06/13/2008, -2/+17The backlash against global warming is getting stronger by the day; it will soon be one of those things we look back on and laugh about
- mustangmike53, on 06/13/2008, -1/+16Their latest despicable tactic is to blame every weather related disaster on Global Warming, including the Burma cyclone and now the death of 4 boy scouts in the Iowa tornado, in direct contradiction to their refutation of every non-warming weather event as being 'local', 'anecdotal', or 'not part of the overall global trend'.
- Cognoscenti247, on 06/13/2008, -4/+17Global warming is the most brilliant scam in history. Take something that always changes and convince people it is their fault.
Truth is , Al Gore has millions invested in Green Technology in Generation Investment Fund and is using this terror tactic to steer federal subsidies and investments to his pocket. This millionaire couldn't be happier that people now blame hurricanes on Global warming and gas is over 4 bucks a gallon - It is millions more in his pocket to fly in his private jet and offset his carbon footprint by funneling more money through his investment company. I withdraw my long held belief this man is a doofus.
Facts still remain, we are not warming, it appears that trend ended over ten years ago, 98% of CO2 comes from the earth naturally, and every storm, earthquake, variation in temperature is NATURAL. - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -2/+14refute? they won't even debate and that would be a waste of their time since they have already been told there's a 99.9% consensus. You can't debate religion, it's simply what you believe.
- aldigg, on 06/13/2008, -4/+15I like the idea of suing Al Gore for fraud. Make him prove man-made global warming in a court of law. It cannot be done. He loses.
- zmigliozzi, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12Only if a national news network would grab this interview and report on it, only if.
- zelig, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12Totally. The highest temperature globally peaked in 1998. Since last year, it has started to fall. NOT ONE WORD about this on the MSM. The machine is in full gear, it's hard to stop a fast moving train. I work for NAT GEO, and inside the building, hardly anyone still believes this hoax, yet at the corporate level, the PR campaign is in full gear. So much for right winger corporate owners controlling the MSM, as I keep hearing from the likes of The Huffington Post. The TV networks, newspapers and carbon credit corps. have no intention of stopping the scare campaign.
- praderwilli, on 06/13/2008, -1/+10Global warming is the best thing to come along for the government since UFO's.
The government denies UFO's, but, they also release some small amount of info that is just enough to keep people believing that they are real. The benefits of this are to keep people from seeing what is really flying around up there,,,our experimental aircraft.
Global warming works much the same way with the exception that the government is not trying to cover anything up, nor are they trying to disprove that it's happening. They'll be just as happy to look the other way while sucking up all the free tax money that we as citizens are throwing at a problem that doesn't exist. - mnocket, on 06/13/2008, -2/+11WOW! Not one global warming supporter has commented yet? Is it possible that they are experiencing a slight bit of doubt?
- HotSaucePanCake, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10This is Absolutely true.
I want congress to stop looking into steroid cases and start looking into whether Al Gore and hes minions were busy purchasing oil futures.
This screams fowl play and market manipulation. - salstress, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10Very well stated article. I am so sick of the hypocritical left.
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5When you get the chance to see the movie "The great global warming swindle" do it! It is an eight part video, that use to be hosted at YouTube but has since been taken down. It proves that global warming is from sun spot activity.
John Coleman the owner of the Weather Channel on Global Warming
http://thenewamerican.com/node/7524
"Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas"
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/1984230 ...
"Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds" making the global warming models unreliable
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08050 ...
Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about (the falsehood of) global warming
http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/04/expert-w ...
Story on a famous scientist that said there is no global warming was attacked by antibusiness, marxists who believe in global warming. "Storm subsides between William Gray, CSU"
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103. ... - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6VIDEO: John Coleman on Global warming
http://thenewamerican.com/node/7524 - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4When you're trying to claim that a slight rise during 150 years of recorded data over the course of millions of years of Earth's history is definitive proof that humans are causing rampant global warming, it becomes a valid question.
Right now, all your showing is that we've had a few hotter than average years over the last 150 years. Meanwhile you could isolate the coldest years on record as a claim that during that period the humans played a hand in global cooling.
How can one not be skeptical about a theory that is comprised out of such a small amount of tangible data in the grand scheme of things? - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4NASA had the hottest year in the US as 1995 until Steve MacIntyre analyzed the US weather station data and found NASA had made an error when restoring some of the data after Y2K (year 2000) software updates. Result, NASA had to correct their data and their website to show the hottest years in the US are in the 1930s with the hottest being 1934.
Steve looked at the data after Anthony Watts started actual physical surveys (with pictures) of NOAAs National Climate Data Center weather reporting/recording sites (the are a real mess - though the US stations are the best in the world) and found serious problems with the actual physical locations and the actual historical temperature records.
Therefor, this "Global" high surface temperature in 1998 is probably based on flawed data (inappropriate site location and urban heat island effects). - tkstock, on 06/13/2008, -3/+7I have no problem believing that the earth is on a warming trend. It's a natural phenomenon that would be happening despite our presence on this planet. Science isn't definitive on this subject, but it's been shown that the earth warms a cools all the time. Why not now?
What pisses me off the most is the usage of the phrases Global Warming and Climate Change - people use them to mean man-made climate change when in fact the phrases are independent of the cause. If you want to talk about the human contribution to climate change, fine, just use the correct phrase, "anthropologic climate change"
I believe we should be stewards of our environment - but it shouldn't be mandated by the government. Market forces are already driving people to become more efficient and environmentally friendly. We don't need the government to save us from ourselves. - usafdave, on 06/13/2008, -4/+8ATTENTION EVERYONE WHO DUGG THIS ARTICLE:
This will NEVER make the front page.
This is like prohibition. A small group of angry puritan housewives and nancy-boys somehow bamboozled the majority to outlaw booze by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!?????WTF??? It's happening again... only this time the crusade is against the lifeblood that made the 20th century EXPLODE into activity.
I feel like that kid from Superbad playing his PS2... "what the... ugh. That's fun. That's real fun. If I can't even win then... *****, why the ***** am I even playing?" - notadiggtard, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Wow.Talk about comparing two unrelated processes,AND being wrong about the effect of salt on boiling water!
Idiot!
http://itotd.com/articles/521/water-freezing-and-b ...
Too lazy to go there?Here's a clip:
"[Myth:]Adding salt to water raises its boiling point. Chemically speaking, this is a verifiable fact. Salt does raise water’s boiling point (and lower its freezing point—which is why home ice cream makers use rock salt). But the real question is whether this makes it take longer to get to the boiling point (and, for that matter, how far above 212°F/100°C it will get). Despite what you read in cookbooks, scientists claim that the amount of salt you’d typically add to a pot of boiling water is too small to make any meaningful difference in the boiling time or boiling point." - Equalizer, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6Al Gore and his Global Warming Ass-Clownery Pwn3D AGAIN!!!!
- bigtallmofo, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6Excellent article. I was taught in school that our atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, 19% oxygen and less than 1% "assorted other gases". Well, Carbon Dioxide happens to be about 0.0385% of our atmosphere at present.
Add to that:
1. Literal fact of global cooling in last 10 years
2. Tremendous history of getting climate and weather prediction wrong - both short term and long term predictions. Remember the worries about Global Cooling 25 years ago?
3. The barely hidden agends of global warming's proponents
4. The fact that most global warming papers and predictions were based on NASA data that was proven to be erroneously interpreted
5 Much, much more
It is far more reasonable to be dubious of global warming or man-made climate change than not.
Having said that, it is only common sense that one conserves a finite resource. This includes fossil fuels. However, as the author states we shouldn't destroy our civilization in the process. - praderwilli, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Quote Algore much?
- bentl1, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Just more proof of the great global warming scam ........ Don't get me wrong, I love the eco-lemmings, that's how I make my living ..... After all, anyone who really believes in that fairy tale is easy to bleed cash out of ...... if they can't discern the truth between Al Gore and reality, they deserve what they get ..... Remember the old saying? A sucker is born every minute. Well, thank goodness for them. While they're on their knees praying to Mother Earth to forgive them for wearing leather and driving a car, I'm using their cash for better purposes .....
- aleone31, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4What difference would that make what so ever? Either the 31,000 scientists who believe that global warming is a scam are right, or the 2,500 scientists who are funded by the UN are right. Sure some of the 31,000 are funded by Oil companies but not all, and some of the 2,500 are not paid by institutions who favor Al Gore and big government control of your life. It is science - it should not be political and we should know the answer with out worrying about being manipulated by the powers that be -- but you know that's never been case. We are not so removed from Mendel, Galileo, or the control of the state are we. Why can't people see this?
- droo31, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Lefty idiots always chime in with their oil profits nonsense. How much profit is Al Gore making off his green scam? No domestic drilling for oil, no drilling in ANWR, no off coast drilling in our own waters, no refineries, etc. This is why OPEC has us by the collective balls...environmentalism gone wild.
Too bad that real scientists like Coleman are silenced because it isn't "popular". It's like McCarthyism all over again. - danielttt, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3greenfrye...Read Chicken Little...you're going bonkers here and, while that's quite funny to watch, it's also rather pathetic..Stay away from Al Gore, he's a bad influence.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3http://whois.domaintools.com/realclimate.org
Then google Betsy Ensley. Considering her other "interests" and business partners, I'd say it's relevant with regard to her having certain agendas.
"It's very simple, either show the science to be wrong, or acknowledge that you cannot."
Well, since I'm not a climatologist, and you seem to be. I can't really speak to the science, other than what I read. Now considering that I read just as many pro-global warming articles citing "facts" as anti articles citing "facts", I'd say that the definitive proof is still out on this whole ***** topic.
So I'm not going to just jump to conclusions and will continue to be skeptical about the whole thing. - inactive, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3"If this were a stock, this is a company you would investigate"
And if that company was WorldCom and you bought stock, you'd lose your ass in the end.
Who's using radical skepticism? I'm merely stating that there is only a tiny piece of tangible documentation in the grand scheme of time, and correlation does not necessarily imply causation. That's normal, healthy skepticism. I'm not denying the "maybe", I just don't think that there is enough data gathered, based on the grand scheme of time, to make a definitive conclusion that this is what is definitely happening. That doesn't mean that I'm going to burn 10 tons of coal in my backyard every year, while laughing maniacally. It just means that the jury is out in my opinion, and I'm not going to scream jump in on the "sky is falling" chant.
So forgive me if I don't opt to jump lock-step with the battle cry of humans leading to the ruin of the planet's climate thanks to CO2. I'll choose to remain skeptical until there it becomes undisputed fact. If that happens, I'll gladly welcome the cries of "I told you so".
(of course, my out being that by the time that the "I told you so" happens our generation will most likely be long gone) - notadiggtard, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3"heat causes more CO2 to be released, which causes more heat, which causes more CO2, etc etc."
OK Einstein,By that theory,There would never be cooling cycles,Just a never ending spiral to a Venus-like result. - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Ice core and deep sea sediment analysis shows CO2 increases FOLLOW warming periods. Increased CO2 levels do not precede the warming and therefore cannot cause/drive the warming trend.
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3"hottest years recorded"
Exactly. A pool of about 150 or so years.
How do they compare with the actual temperatures of say the year 250 through the year 400? Or 6000 b.c. to 5850 b.c.? The may be the 11 of the hottest years of recorded temperature, but what about the hottest years of unrecorded temperatures? - mzx639, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2The idea that global warming is man-made is a HOAX! Any who believes that crap, and especially Gores lies is a complete idiot!
- merlinus, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2The problem here is the focus on global "warming". That is a misnomer that achieved widespread use when all of this was still a relatively new idea.
The true issue here is "global climate change as caused by mankind". The earth's climate is a very complex entropic system of infinite variables. It takes a lot of energy to affect it but once that affect has begun to take hold, it takes a lot more to reverse it. Also, it's not something that can be "reversed" - the climate is not a "forward" and "back" sort of system - there are so many variables that are all in effect in varying degrees all the time. And by the time any "reversing effect" has begun to have an impact, the effect you're trying to reverse has become part of the system too and you can't really "go back".
The fact of the matter is, the billions of tons of emissions and pollutants we dump in our atmosphere, in the oceans, chopping down the rain forests, etc, simply CANNOT be having a negligible effect on the natural course of climate change. There is no way to measure that effect accurately since there are so many variables and we don't even know them all, but anybody who suggests what we are doing is having a negligible effect is an idiot or has a conflict of interest.
The solution is, to minimize our effect on that. That's all anyone is talking about. Of course, "how" and "how much" to minimize that, is not so simple. But that is a different problem - and more of a political/economic one. - inactive, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Past warm periods in the Earths history have had more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do today - yet, runaway greenhouse warming did not occur.
- tkstock, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3It was two degrees warmer outside my house today than it was yesterday. Try and tell me that isn't due to global warming!!!!
Nyah!!! :) - BBWolf, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2The central argument and causal component of the AWG adherent's is that Human created CO2 added to the atmosphere caused AGW.
OK, lets add some Facts to our discussion shall we and see where that takes us;
FACT: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
FACT: 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
FACT: A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapor and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
What you have just read is True.
Co2 Is, in fact, a Lagging indicator; it is a Function of increased Plant and Animal life (respiration) enabled by Increased temperatures. It Caused nothing.
It is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans, and more life to exist.
Closing every factory and taking every car and truck off the road tomorrow would do nothing to effect global temp or weather.
Now that you have the facts, I have a suggestion;
RELAX, it ain't your fault, and the next time someone tells you need lower your standard of living, and keep others from raising theirs because (wait for it) Co2 is increasing! The correct response i not to join in the lunacy, but somply ask... 'So, Your Point?' - jaxcs, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I wrote about trends and you tell me about worldcom. I guess you must not have any investments. Every investor knows that prior performance does not guarantee future performance, but it's a strong indicator. This is how the entire stock market operates, this is how your insurance rates are set. Stocks with strong trends we call blue chips and are the traditional financial parking place of widows and orphans. They are the closest thing we have to a sure thing.
You asked about the temperature between year 250 through the year 400 and 6000 b.c. to 5850 b.c. There's no reason to believe that the results will support or deny a warming trend. You just want this information, that's radical skepticism. You write that you'll remain skeptical until it becomes undisputed fact, so here's a little thought experiment for you. What would constitute undisputed fact? - BigManOnCampus, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3While I agree that man-made global warming is a scam. High gas prices have little to do with that. Your high gas prices are due to another supposed fear, that of peak oil, that has been sold to speculators who sold it to investors. Speculation on high future oil prices is driving the current price up.
- droo31, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1It just friggin' snowed where I live! It snowed on June 10th! This has not happened since the 1950s. Global warming my A$$.
If significant warming was taking place...wouldn't the record high be set every year? It never is...you'll have a record high for a date or a record low, but generally those max temps are all over the map historically.
Al Gore and his douchebaggery have got us all freaked out and paying out the nose for fuels. - kingygk, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Thanks Al.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Also, the series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, are still used by climate researchers today. This model ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere.
Now, a Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center has updated the math. The new model for the greenhouse effect gives far more accurate climate predictions for Earth and show there cannot be runaway CO2 driven warming.
See DailyTech/Science article "Basic Greenhouse Equations Totally Wrong"
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou ... - danielttt, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1The difference is that 25 years ago, common people had the sense to question these "brillaint minds". 25 years ago, they were laughing stocks. Nowadays, if some "great thinker" comes up with a disasterous theory, we throw millions of dollars at it. Academia is all about research grants and not so interested in truth as in past years. This whole damned subject is about money, power and control. No one want's to think any more. If for no other reason, Al Gore as the leader and his abject hypocricy should be evidence enough to question this nonsense. We're all supposed to fall in lockstep behind one another, sacrifice our standard of living and security because of a dumbass computer model. AdrenalineJunky...stay in line with your lemming buddys, Mr Gore is just ahead and he will direct you over the cliff. Pardon me for stepping out of line.
- greenfyre, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1The science is good or not regardless of who reports it.
No, I am not a climatologist, but I trained as a research biologist and can assess research.
In your reading it is easy to start sorting the ***** from the shinola. Do they reference their info? ie tell you where they got it and how. When you follow up, what do you find?
Many were skeptical of Einstein, Darwin, Heisenberg - but they couldn't touch the science. Have a look at the debunking sites I linked - do they make sense? do they explain the data?
Are they honest? Do they talk honestly about the things they are not certain about?
Major clue, do they lie about their credentials like Singer, Ball and Swift? Do they lie about the data and never talk about what they can't explain? Many do this, but surely Lomborg is the king.
You don't have to be a scientist or even a dedicated amateur; basic inteligence, basic climate change background eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and some gut instinct for when someone is trying to sell you will serve you fine. - AdrenalineJunky, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1It doesn't matter if they are unrelated processes, as that is not the point. However, you are correct, I mis-remembered the grade school experiment.
Thinking back thirty years, we did indeed measure the different BOILING POINTS of pure distilled water and water with salt added. The experiment had nothing to do with "time to boil".
So it was not as good a comparison as I intended. Oh well.
Do I need to come up with other examples of how small amounts can have large affects? How about box jellyfish poison. That work better for you?
The point is that disregarding the impact that CO2 can have just because it is a small part of the atmosphere is foolish. - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Their not the hottest years unless you severely restrict the historical time frame.
The most recent Complete Solar Cycle (1996 - 2006) from SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) is graphically shown here as the Astronomy Picture of the Day:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071203.html
It's the Suns energy output that drives our climate - not man. - danielttt, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1A class action suit against that wooden monkey....Great idea and what fun to watch.!
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is