What is Digg?288 Comments
- roddack, on 06/24/2008, -7/+37To Quote Mr. Burns “Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she’s losing. Well I say, hard cheese.”
- pintomp3, on 06/24/2008, -7/+34i deny global warming and refute the findings of climatologists. i am smarter than the people at NASA. what are my credentials? i have a digg account.
- gerrylazlo, on 06/24/2008, -4/+28If you actually read the article instead of crossing your arms and sneering indignantly, you'd see that they aren't taking the readings from human recordings. They are determining it from tree rings, coral reefs, and ice cores. If you want to debate the accuracy of those sources, that's fine, but do it with something more than "that's *****" without even really looking at how they are determining their conclusions.
- DuffDemon, on 06/24/2008, -3/+25Simple - It can be measured by sampling tiny air bubbles trapped in ice core samples.
- greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -14/+34Hey Deniers - If the science is wrong, show us how it is wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time with the ***** ad hominem attacks that waste everyone's time and just show how the science is wrong. Here it is
All you need to do is come up with a single valid piece of scientific evidence and climate change falls apart; and as long as you have nothing, no evidence, no science, nothing, all the ***** attacks and smart remarks in the world don't change the fact that is right.
So show us - inactive, on 06/24/2008, -8/+23Hooray for rampant speculation on the part of global warming deniers! I swear, I am sick of it... I have tried my damnedest to listen to the other side, but all I ever get is "ZOMG U BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING AND WORSHIP AL GORE YOU RETARD LOL!" Seriously, what the *****? I have never met a single one of them who even cared to discuss the issue, much less actually back up their claims with actual data and scientific research. I mean, I do have my doubts about global warming, don't misunderstand. But I am highly disinclined to trust anyone who insults me for having the audacity to be on the fence.
- aladrin, on 06/24/2008, -3/+16Right, just like we can't know water levels or what creatures lived 400,000 years ago. Oh wait, yes we can. There's this thing called 'science' that let's us figure things out from evidence left behind.
- SOS84, on 06/24/2008, -2/+13What part of ice cores do you now understand? Air bubbles trapped in ice is representative of the atmospheric conditions of the time they were encapsulated per the law of partial pressures. These records cover more than 650,000 years and will hit a million years in the next decade. This data is undeniable, period. Attempting to argue against it makes you sound uninformed.
The article claims of accurate record keeping refers to extremely precise temperature records only. However, we can use multi-source proxy data to estimate past temperatures and conditions with a very high degree of certainly for the entire period following the Wisconsinin glacial event. - greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -9/+19The Deniers have posted this same thing 50? 60? times, so I'll keep posting why it's nonsense.
This petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...
It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts, the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...
Of Frederick Seitz see http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2863 (enough said)
Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren't many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age - like there's been no updates in the science recently?
If I may quote http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2863
"The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
Notice how Climate Change proponents never cite or source Gore? it is only the Deniers who do so. Proponents refer to climate scientists, climate science, scientific journals and blogs. Deniers do not wish to deal with the actual science (or more likely, cannot) so they ignore this and always return to attacking Gore. As if that proved anything? Totally irrelevant.
Oh yeah, here's another example of Denier math 19=http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5 ...
Here is a collection of links that talk about the actual science
http://plum.com/greenfyre.1721075/climatechangelin ...
For a complete debunking of the Denier myths see http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
And on and on; it's a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone's time. - Haecceity, on 06/24/2008, -4/+12Twinkies. They contain no natural ingredients.
- dafunkmonster, on 06/24/2008, -13/+21No, I don't trust some nutjob (who happens to be "employed" by NASA) whose conclusions defy all the data that NASA is currently collecting. Nor do I trust the IPCC, whose conclusions are written and promoted by a group of people passing themselves off as scientists (implying biologists and chemists), when really, most of them are political and social scientists.
- Haecceity, on 06/24/2008, -3/+10I don't think anyone's ever suggested that continental drift is caused by human activities, that it will present us with significant problems within the foreseeable future, or that we can do anything about it. Could your analogy be any more irrelevant?
- pintomp3, on 06/24/2008, -2/+9The Discovery Institute is a U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.
FAIL - thorseth, on 06/24/2008, -1/+8RTFA
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -1/+8“All you need to do is come up with a single valid piece of scientific evidence…”
So I link you to a peer-reviewed article, and that’s not good enough for you? - inactive, on 06/24/2008, -13/+20where is the magical chart on the other green house gases?
water vapor
methane (people hold your farts in, this could get dangerous! )
nitrous oxide
ozone
CFCs - pintomp3, on 06/24/2008, -3/+9this money?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/ ...
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. - NJank, on 06/24/2008, -2/+8Well since you can't believe it it must be true. Them schmart scientists don't hold a candle to your rationale. You know, from where I stand, the earth looks perfectly flat to me too, and I can see REEEAALLLL far. them round earthers need to take a hike.
- thebaron2, on 06/24/2008, -1/+7Wow, this is being dugg up?
Accounting for, and CONTROLLING for, variables is an extremely important part of the scientific method. This is why people go through painstaking efforts to identify and control each possible variable when designing their experiments.
Double blind testing, administration of a placebo, statistically random sampling, and control groups are all examples of attempting to identify and control variables.
This is the worst thing about politics meeting science - everything thinks they're a ***** expert. - NJank, on 06/24/2008, -1/+6@greenfyre: In other words you are totally clueless about humor.
- SickMonkey, on 06/24/2008, -5/+10Putting the whole science debate aside, the one thing I find the most compelling is the fact that giant glaciers that took thousands of years to form are literally disappearing over a few decades. I know that even without a rise in man-made greenhouse gases we would still probably be in a warming cycle, but when things happen this quickly, something is seriously screwed up:
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier ...
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -3/+8Have you conducted one of these tests yourself, or are you making stuff up as usual?
It's the latter I'm sure, since it's really easy to measure atmospheric composition as was hundreds of thousands of years ago, thanks to the huge icecaps at the poles. Just drill, then analyze the layers, the deeper you go, the older the atmospheric samples in the ice.
It's actually as reliable as dating a tree. Very. - Ruqsaq, on 06/24/2008, -5/+10Ok so the graph shows CO2 levels are high? How does that translate to global warming? The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor and methane is right up there, both of which are not man made problems.
- greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -1/+6Yup, the "new list" still includes Perry Mason, Michael J Fox and Dr. Geri Halliwell as well as other fictional characters, and several people who had died before Oct 2007 ... I am surprised Donald Duck didn't sign. I guess his mail was late.
- Haecceity, on 06/24/2008, -1/+6I suggest you look up the word "unequivocal." It means the opposite of what you probably think it means.
- pintomp3, on 06/24/2008, -0/+5OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...
OISM lists six "faculty members,"[1] but does not enroll students or teach courses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_S ... - Loonatickle, on 06/24/2008, -2/+7The discussion section of almost all published studies includes the word probably. Perhaps you should read about the scientific method and the peer-review process. This website explained how old samples are obtained. It's easy to get more information on that process if you just look. Or you can comment on Digg and look like an ignoramus.
- Deaus, on 06/24/2008, -6/+10Know what the worst part about thinking global warming is real but believing (based on evidence of course) that mans impact on the change is less significant than other factors, such as sun spot activity? You get lumped in with the fruitloops such as above and labeled a "global warming denier". Its like despite the multi-faceted ways of looking at this issue its been so politicized and dumbed down that its been reduced to two sides: the deniers and the gore-ites (as labeled by their opposing sides). And if you dont belong to one of those sides you will be drowned out by the sea of people screaming their sides view point. I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure thats not how science is supposed to work.
Well I think global climate change is real, the planet is getting warmer, we need to switch to electric cars, use alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and nuclear, kick oil as much as we can and encourage developing nations to do the same. But I mostly think that because oil is a limited resource and becoming energy self-sufficient will let America get out of the middle east. As long as they control our means of heating and cooling our homes, powering our vehicles and moving the nation there is no way we will ever leave. I also think that even if we did all that the planet would continue to get warmer, and that we still need to find a way to make the earths climate more static given the rise and fall of the average temperature of the earth has been changing since this planet formed. I think that because the issue has become politicized that people believe the ONLY way to stop global warming is to stop using oil and start using alternative energy. While a good thing, what happens when that doesnt stop the rising temperature? How long before the politicians admit that they played us for fools? An entire generation? Will it actually be too late by then? And where does that leave people like me? - greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -3/+7I'm convinced!
- thebigbradwolf, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5@greenfyre:what do the links have to do with the ingredients in twinkies?...
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4Proof?
- laserdog, on 06/24/2008, -8/+12So, there's this thing called "The Scientific Method".
You observe a phenomenon, make a testable hypothesis to explain it, test your hypothesis, and repeat.
"Gathering every possible variable" is not a required step. - MudMan69, on 06/24/2008, -2/+6But then again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
- zeusthemoose, on 06/24/2008, -7/+11Buried as red herring. Nice try though.
- inactive, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5So is Antarctica.
- auto98, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4For the majority of teh earths history it has had a higher level than it does now
So if humans are changing the environment, you could argue we are not destrroying it, we are repairing it! (remember, all the CO2 that is in the fossil fuels we burn originally come from the atmosphere) - Arramol, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5"Nature already put a bunch of straw on that camel's back! Me adding more can't possibly hurt it!"
Yes, we're all aware that normal biological and geological processes produce a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would be part of why we're not in an ice age. And now we humans are adding more. Natural processes make it warm - humans adding to those make it *warmer.* It makes no rational sense for the CO2 produced by nature to raise the Earth's temperature, while human-produced CO2 somehow has no effect. Nobody's arguing that the natural processes don't contribute, the whole point is that we are *adding* to them. - SOS84, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4Rex is in denial. This petition is and always has been a hoax. Only of handful of credentialed atmospheric scientists are still clinging to their false claims.
- thebaron2, on 06/24/2008, -0/+4Well the article begins by focusing on CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. It sounded to me like dafunk was saying that the starting point of the graph (650K years ago) was chosen by convenience, and that 650,000+ years ago CO2 levels were greater than they are now.
Now I don't know if any of that is actually true, but that's how I interpreted his post. And if the article brought up atmospheric CO2 levels then a rebuttal to that point wouldn't be a red herring - although linking a source and being more specific would go a long way to make the OP's point. - Spuy767, on 06/24/2008, -3/+7Climate change != us causing it.
- SOS84, on 06/24/2008, -4/+8The petition is a hoax. Have you noticed they changed its name? It used to be called the Oregon petition. Under its former name, the 18,000 or so signatures were investigated and less than one hundred of them possess specialized knowledge of the climate system through education or research and many of those hundred did not actually sign it, their signature were forged. The simple fact remains that the vast majority of these fools are not qualified to make statements on climate change. The number of real skeptics is easily less than fifty at this time.
- greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -2/+6Obvious alert, Gore was rich long before his movie. Provide any source that can document he has profited from his investments - then lets compare that to what he could have made had he invested in oil instead
- gerrylazlo, on 06/24/2008, -1/+5I don't personally understand the exact method for extraction and analysis of the ice cores, or the true accuracy range of such measuring, so I can understand there being some question about it. But credible arguements for or against such activities should be based on actual analysis of the method, not appearances, gut reactions, or second hand opinion. IMHO
- greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -2/+6Hansen swiftboating debunked http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/the_exxon_ ...
When Deniers post the same nonsense, I post the same link that debunks it. You could stop me cold by posting some actual science. - greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3"[citation needed]" http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/525/31-000-sci ... and the petition itself actually
- WasabiBomb, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3You might want to look up a concept called the "Scientific Method".
- laserdog, on 06/24/2008, -2/+5I like your theory because it means that I'm smarter than the smart people.
Which was something that I always suspected! Hurray for confirmation! - NJank, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Actually, I found it refreshingly humorous. and once again, greenfyre goes on the attack!
- greenfyre, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4You may well be right, but then I have to hope that at least some people are interested in the truth rather than their own agenda. It maybe niave, but it's how I roll
PS I didn't say "here is the truth", I said "show where it is wrong" - logic11, on 06/24/2008, -1/+4There has been a great deal of discussion, but when one side actually doesn't have an argument (and no, saying "You're wrong... and stupid" isn't an argument) then eventually you have to stop debating the issue and just ignore the idiots. Read the carbon concentrations in the graph... now do some basic research on the greenhouse effect. Hell, you can do that experiment yourself. All you need is a closed system like an aquarium, some co2 and a sun lamp. Oops, also a thermometer. Try it out, see what results you get. If you still don't believe in the greenhouse effect, then you did the experiment wrong or you have a really good shot at being published in a major scientific journal.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 290 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is