digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

telegraph.co.uk — Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Gazoo2001, on 05/01/2008, -34/+25Misleading teaser for the article, probably designed to get the skeptic and denier fanboys excited.
    And from the article:
    "...it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away."
    • InfidelAl, on 05/01/2008, -14/+23It doesn't make you question these predictions just a little? The lastest IPCC report was what, a year ago? If they missed this event that was only a year(?) out from the report then how accurate should we assume their longer term predictions are?
      • Gazoo2001, on 05/01/2008, -4/+15If I am understanding the article correctly, it says that the IPCC doesn't even try to model these short-term variables because they don't affect the long-term trend.
        This from the article: "The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific..."
        • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -0/+5From my understanding of the article, they've now revised it to include such variability.
        • thebaron2, on 05/01/2008, -3/+14"...which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998."

          '98 was touted as being strong evidence that the world was warming, and these guys don't even include major climate drivers such as the Gulf Stream and El Nino in their models? And they're claiming to accurately forecast climate trends 100+ years out?

          I've never taken a hard stand one way or the other on AGW, but it's starting to get a bit ridiculous when any event, no matter which extreme it leans towards, can be touted as evidence supporting the theory. How useful or trustworthy is a theory that's built in such a way to cover any and all eventualities?
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -1/+5We're trying to model climate change over the next century. Not the easiest of tasks. I mean, this is science at work. You get a rough estimate, you get more data, you refine the model, get more data, refine the model... it's the nature of the beast. If we didn't refine the model based on new data, what use would it be?
          • Duositex, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6@macwierdo42 - That's the problem. The people touting the results from their models are stating these results as FACT. They state it is the TRUTH and that we must ACT based on these pieces of information. So we're supposed to develop a concrete method of combating AGW while they continually move the target around? Preposterous.
          • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3Duositex, no one is touting the results as facts, but rather see the worrying signs the science is providing for us. This latest study gives us a clearer picture, and doesn't change the basic trends identified by earlier models. It shouldn't make you *more* skeptical, but rather convince you that these scientists are doing the best they can to provide more accurate science...
          • DavidBGie, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4The global warming believers are now just trying to save face. When 2015 comes around and the earth is still not warming who is going to care? What about all the "evidence". Melting glaciers? The earth has been cooling for the last 7 years! The global warming theory started out as science but now it's just politics as usual.
          • thebaron2, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1@Archie:

            Proponents are most definitely touting it as fact! Not all of them, but a great many. It was a "consensus" - there wasn't supposed to be any more debate. Those who don't toe the party line are "deniers" (a clear reference to holocaust deniers, which was a historical fact). The evidence was apparently overwhelming and undeniable.

            You may not fall into the group pushing it as fact, but most politicians are and many laymen supporters are as well, because it's been presented to them as an unquestionable conclusion. Many of these people are on digg, although it seems like the tide of popular opinion is beginning to shift here, also.
        • Gazoo2001, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1@macweirdo:
          (Strange, I can't seem to reply directly to your comment, so I'm replying here...)
          In your comment you said "From my understanding of the article, they've now revised it to include such variability."; I don't see that in the article, am I missing something? To clarify, I'm speaking about the IPCC models, not the one discussed in the article. The analogy I have in my mind is this...bear with me here, it may take me a bit to explain....let's see, a driver is slowly accelerating or decelerating a bus (the bus's speed at any given moment is analogous to the Earth's global avg. surface temp.); the passengers are standing in the aisle and as a unit are either running towards the front or the back of the bus, and this slightly changes the speed of the bus at any given moment (this would be an El Nino/La Nina event for example). The motion of the passengers does not change the overall trend of acceleration or decelaration, just the value of the speed and acceleration at any given moment. Yes, this is no doubt a simple-minded analogy...I imagine El Nino/La Nina and other events do feed back into the climate system somewhat. I haven't read up on that so I can't say for sure.
          Does this seem like a reasonable analogy? Seriously, I'm asking for someone with more climate knowledge than me to comment.
      • Math, on 05/01/2008, -1/+13Long term predictions, and predictions about average temperatures/trends are easier to make than predictions about short spikes or dips in the temperature record. That's the nature of a chaotic system.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1I miss chaos theory. I mean, doesn't anyone remember Jurassic Park? Sure, Malcolm couldn't predict things like Nedry shutting down the power, or the dinosaurs starting to breed, but he could predict that the dinosaurs would end up overrunning the park.
          • grimward, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1That's not chaos theory, that's "common sense" :D
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Well, yes - I wasn't being serious.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -1/+9Question the predictions, sure. A little healthy skepticism is good for you. Dismiss them outright? Not so much. I really don't see how "the predictions may be off" translates into "Global warming is a lie!" With all the data we have, we must conclude that anthropogenic global warming as at least a possibility. There certainly isn't enough data to conclusively show that it's a fact, but on the other hand, none of the data we have outright contradicts the possibility.
        • WasabiBomb, on 05/01/2008, -4/+5Agreed.
          Dismissing AGW simply because "we don't have enough data yet" is like accepting creationism just because we haven't found all of evolution's"missing links".
        • jjesusfreak01, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4True, but to be completely honest, there are alot of skeptic scientists out there that dont agree that we are in a sustained period of global warming, but rather just a warming cycle that will reverse into a cooling cycle in the next 50 years. Thats the way the planet works...

          These scientists get paid to be alarmist. What happens when in 2015, the planet continues cooling? Theyll likely just spin it as a quick cool thats about to be followed by more massive global warming....

          A poster below me notes that in fact humans are not the biggest producers of CO2 in the world, nor are we even close. Volcanos and the ocean are the biggest producers, and the biggest contribution we have given is not from industry or cars, but from cattle.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Yes, that is a possibility, but there's no more evidence to support that possibility than there is to support the possibility of anthropogenic global warming. This is what I'm saying. How do you reach conclusions when there's not enough data? And if you're worried about one group of scientists being paid off, isn't it just as likely that the other group is being paid off, as well? I suggest you stick to the data, not opinions, the actual data, the models, all of that, and reach your own conclusions - don't let some mouthpiece tell you what to think.
          • philipl411, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2I have had people tell me that man made co2 was worse than naturally occurring co2. They could never explain the difference, but to them it was there
          • sailormoonbeam, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2it's not "who's making more co2 or nh4." the point is that it is being introduced by humans above and beyond the natural amount that the earth can readily handle and clean out of th environment to keep the climate more cyclical.
          • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2"there are alot of skeptic scientists out there that dont agree that we are in a sustained period of global warming"

            Not that many, actually. A *vast* majority agree that we are in a period of sustained warming, and nearly all of them believe it to be at least partially man-made. Deniers make it sound as if their viewpoint is the majority, while they can't even agree on the basic elements of their position (i.e. is it warming or not, is it man-made or not, is it desirable or not, can we stop it or not...get your act together, guys!).

            "These scientists get paid to be alarmist."

            That's an unfounded accusation. There is a lot more evidence of scientists getting paid by Big Oil to downplay the potential risks (many of them the same who got paid by Big Tobacco to downplay the risk of cancer from smoking, BTW).

            "A poster below me notes that in fact humans are not the biggest producers of CO2 in the world, nor are we even close. Volcanos and the ocean are the biggest producers"

            Humans produce a *lot* more CO2 than Volcano (about 30 times more, if I recall correctly). That's not up to debate - look up the numbers, there's no way an objective person would claim otherwise. Similarly, cars produce more CO2 than cattle (who do produce lots of methane, though). Furthermore, CO2 from cars is *new* carbon being introduced in the atmosphere, since carbon from fossil sources has been out of the cycle for millions of years...
          • vikingcoder, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0It's currently ~140 times more.

            Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes. Humanity's 28 billion tons of CO2 emissions in 2005 exceed all the volcanic emissions during the entire 20th century.

            The only other GHG that volcanoes emit is water vapor which shortly condenses back out of the atmosphere since the long-term atmospheric water vapor concentration is a function of temperature.

            Humanity's CO2 emissions are ~4% of the oceanic & terrestrial outgassing. The catch is that anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion based CO2 emissions are not complemented by anthropogenic CO2 absorption. The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year. The terrestrial biomes are also net sinks that are currently absorbing 5 billion tons more than they outgas each year.

            http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
            ( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )
            http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
            http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg ...
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
    • jayscot, on 05/01/2008, -7/+8You, my little emo friend are the fanboy.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4To people like you, anyone who doesn't dismiss entirely the possibility of anthropogenic global warming outright is a fanboy. I could say, "It's very unlikely, but not impossible," and in your eyes, I'd still be a fanboy.
      • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4jayscot: insults instead of logical arguments - that seems typical of the deniers on this site.
  • valejo, on 05/01/2008, -17/+23Interesting, but my understanding was that the leading science suggests that natural variations are an order of magnitude less dramatic than the human-caused global warming.
    • likesoy, on 05/01/2008, -4/+5Any sources for that?
      • sailormoonbeam, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1kevin trenberth and michael schlesinger are some good places to start.
    • Beylan, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6Ice Ages are a natural variation.
      • Patrikimo, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4They are not a short term variation though... For the OP's argument to be valid he would have to be talking about short term variations being an order of magnitude less. Short term variations tend ot be quite extreme, but end up being negated over time because they are from singular huge events like a Volcano ejecting particulate matter into the atmosphere caused a worldwide temperature drop which went away when the ash et al settled down to the earth. The problem with man made pollution is that we do it continually and so it doesn't go away.
    • Opiate, on 05/01/2008, -6/+5It's a shame all the people raised by government schools buying this *****, no wonder we're being duped.
    • bdbElysian, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1I’ve read all kinds of stuff on this issue, natural and human made. All this is great for wasting time on very obvious issues like getting rid of smog so many breath everyday and then have to see on those nice hot summer days...

      As I’ve said soooooooooo many times: Who cares what causes global warming? Clean the air, water, and soil and wait a few decades. If global warming betters or worsens we’ll know then what the problem actually is.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It is my understanding that the actual temperature changes over the past century are completely within the average range of the past 10 thousand years. It is also my understanding that the IPCC has made ridiculous predictions of "exponential temperature increase" and "irreversible damage", but when you look at data, you find that the actual measurements are relatively boring, and that the future predictions tacked on by the IPCC look ridiculous by comparison.
  • trixterIreland, on 05/01/2008, -23/+52temperature decreases are blamed on natural cycles, temperature increases solely on man. Seems a bit odd to me, but ok. CO2 levels as reported by NOAA (the ones that monitor the favourite direct sensor outside an active volcano (#2 co2 producer on the planet) surrounded by an ocean (#1 co2 producer on the planet)) have gone down the last 2 months. Combine that with a temperature decrease over the last year, and its no wonder that news articles are quick to point out that its still mans fault.
    • Metasquares, on 05/01/2008, -4/+5Have we actually done anything to slow the cycle? We're still spewing out more CO2, so we're probably not the cause of this.
      • friday1970, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2How about you start by putting your money down on a few trees in your yard. I've planted plenty in mine. Don't believe in this global warming hype, but my yard looks fantastic.
    • Math, on 05/01/2008, -12/+22You are spreading an urban myth. The co2 emissions from volcanos are signifcantly less than human emissions (about 100x less):

      http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
      http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/volcanos ...

      Also oceans are a co2 sink. Oceans absorb co2. How can water (h2o) produce c02? Oceans will only release co2 that they have previously absorbed.

      People need to think about things for at least half a second before spreading this *****.
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/01/2008, -6/+8The only situation in which the oceans can produce CO2 is if they get warmer- just like a soda will fizz out more if it's hot. In other words, global warming makes the CO2 problem even worse.
        • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3WasabiBomb, not sure why you're being dugg down. I guess deniers don't like it when you provide rational scientific arguments!
      • dafunkmonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"Also oceans are a co2 sink. Oceans absorb co2."
        That statement is only a half-truth. Oceans both absorb and release CO2. When the oceans warm, they release more C02, and when they cool, they absorb more CO2.

        Also, if anyone would take the time to re-examine Al Gore's ice core data, you would note that the "adjustments" he and his editors made to the data was to modify the time track between CO2 and global temperature. The raw data shows that global temperature changes always LEAD CO2 changes by 800 to 1000 years. Whenever the global temperature peaks and starts declining again, 800 or so years later, CO2 levels peak and begin to decline.
        And let's not forget that global temperature minima and maxima have come and gone for millennia without any help from mankind. The truth is that the issue of global warming has become a political obsession, to the point that it's almost a religion. Scientists who come out and say "wait a minute, lets not jump to conclusions based on frail predictions from computer models" basically get called heretics. Believe what you want about global warming, but be assured there are thousands of people whose jobs depend on everyone assuming its man-made.
    • sailormoonbeam, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3the thermohaline circulation may temporarily slow down or stop due to the amount of fresh water that is being introduced into the oceans from the melting ice sheets. fresh water is less dense than salt water and "floats" above salt water. fresh water also freezes at warmer temperatures than salt water. if the fresh water that is "floating" on the ocean surface freezes, it may cause a temporary slowdown to the heating that is occurring, both naturally and anthropogenically. in the long run, temperatures will continue to rise until a point at which the additional excrement of greenhouse gases stops and the climate system is given the opportunity to heal.
    • loki49152, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1You've hit the nail on the head. Got an extra $0.25/hour raise you didn't expect? Thank you, Jesus! Rains on the day you wanted to go to Six Flags? That must be SATAN!

      The idea of man-made global climate change - and environmentalism in general - comes from the exact same type of thinking, except with "nature" and "man" in place of "god" and "satan". It's a purely backwoods old-timey religious belief held by people dressing themselves in "scientist" costumes to give it some kind of respectibility.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It should also be noted that most global temperature readings are taken in cities. However, what nobody notes is that even if the average global temperature were completely static, because cities are growing, the temperature in urban areas will still be on the rise. The more concrete, blacktop, high-rises, cars, and people you pack into a city, the hotter it will be. It's called higher energy density.
  • Ninh, on 05/01/2008, -19/+77Funny how observations that are not in favor of the global warming hypothesis are explained away while everything that would support it is trumped up. That's supposed to be scientific? I'd call it lobbying.
    • glaz, on 05/01/2008, -11/+18Are you trying to suggest that government can make money in the form of new and obscene taxes by trumping the crisis ?
      • rthakidn, on 05/01/2008, -3/+5I think he's implying new revenue from "offsets" and grants are to be had if the myth of global warming DOESN'T go away. It does seem inconsistent that downward changes are viewed as "variation" while upward changes are trends. Now, those beating the global warming drum could do much to convince skeptics of the danger of GW (oh that's ironic isn't it?) if their efforts were not financially beneficial to them. Let's face it this man made crisis has turned out to be very lucrative for several entrepreneurs and politicians. And by man made, I'm not referring to CO2.
        • LadyAmerica, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4Especially lucrative for Al Gore!

          Gore is CEO of "Generation Investment Management", an investment-management firm that invests in "green" technologies and "sustainable" businesses. Gore is making $$millions off pushing global warming hysteria.

          A recent article in Financial Times tells of a new fund at Generations:

          Quote: "The Climate Solutions Fund will be one of the biggest in the growing market for investment funds with an environmental slant. > The fund will be FOCUSED ON EQUITY INVESTMENTS IN SMALL COMPANIES IN FOUR SECTORS: RENEWABLE ENERGY; ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGIES; ENERGY FROM BIOFUELS AND BIOMASS; AND THE CARBON TRADING MARKETS.

          […]

          This fund "is fundamental finance...because the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy is a ginormous step that is going to happen quickly,” according to fund manager, David Blood.

          "BOTH MR GORE AND MR BLOOD HAD INVESTED IN THE NEW FUND TO A “PRETTY SIZEABLE” EXTENT, Mr Blood said." Endquote

          (Source http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a- ... )

          As they say, follow the money...

          We are getting SCAMMED!
    • GeorgeStone2, on 05/01/2008, -12/+4All along I have been saying there's no such thing as man made global warming .
      I could find my old digg post from a year or so back that said it. And I got dugg into oblivion.
      We will see...

      brb, carbon offsetting.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2Evidence? Do you have even one shred of proof that anthropogenic global warming is an impossibility?
        • Railer, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2Actually there are many scientific either showing AGW is impossible so small as to be unimportant, but I've long since given up trying to convince people who's minds are closed.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4I've long since grown tired of having this ***** debate. I don't know. I don't ***** know about global warming - the evidence thus far seems inconclusive to me. I don't know anyone who does know. And yet ***** like you want lord over everyone else about how much more enlightened you are. Yeah, ***** you for thinking you're superior on account of the fact that, in light of a lack of concrete evidence, I have been unable to make up my mind about global warming, and in fact would consider it a great mistake to decide one way or the other at this point.
          • Railer, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2No problem, you don't know I don't know. Don't tax the LIVING ***** OUT OF ME while we try to figure it out ok? Rights and freedoms are being taken away as we speak, and billion dollar "green taxes" are being discussed, so you better decide pretty ***** quick which side you're on, because once these taxes are in place they NEVER GO WAY.
        • ryanlive, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3You ask for evidence that Global Warming is not man made (anthropogenic for those in Rio Linda) but there is no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Is it a possibility? Perhaps. But there is no way to determine how much of an effect man has had or not had regarding global warming.

          It is absurd to make drastic social and economic changes in our way of life for a hunch and a so called scientific consensus (AKA group-think and peer-pressure.)
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2The problem with this debate is that people can't see that AGW isn't connected to the fact that we have to drastically change our way of life. Even if there is no AGW, we still have to change - we can't support ourselves like this forever.
          • vikingcoder, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0I like this "for those in Rio Linda" bit. It allows me to easily identify those who get their scientific knowledge from radio talk show hosts.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -7/+20I don't get you people. You're just as loony as the Al Gore crowd - just as fanatic, just as sure of yourselves. Recently, just for fun, I've decided to look at as much evidence as I could find, examine all of the arguments, and I've reached the conclusion that anybody who has reached an actual conclusion is absolutely off their rocker. None of the arguments I've seen against global warming have held any water. At the same time, there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively establish that anthropogenic global warming is a fact.
      • angryredplanet, on 05/01/2008, -6/+7If you were forced to make an assessment given the evidence of melting glaciers, polar ice sheets and permafrost against exponentially increasing emissions of CO2, what would you conclude?

        We can't be fence sitters until the 11th hour. While people still argue that the jury is out on this, democratic governments worldwide are looking at how the hell they're going to get out of this AND stay in power. There will never be enough evidence to conclusively establish that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, so what do we do? Pump out more CO2? We are the generation that needs to nail this problem, before, in my opinion, we get nailed by it.

        I hope the deniers are right, I really do but I feel very strongly after reading a lot of the evidence that they're not.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -3/+14I really don't want to touch policy. I consider myself a student of science, and I hate it when an issue like this gets politicized, because then, suddenly there is more at stake than simply getting to the truth of the matter.

          Besides, I have argued many times before that our policy should not be shaped by the veracity of global warming. There are a myriad of other reasons that we need to move away from fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions that have nothing to do with global warming, and I feel that the deniers use the zealots as a distraction. We need to stop polluting. We need to seriously cut down on smog, which is a direct product of auto emissions and a major health hazard. We need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. If we actually acted on all of these issues, the politics of global warming would be irrelevant, because the necessary course of action would have already been taken.
        • jjesusfreak01, on 05/01/2008, -9/+1Did you know in the last 50 years, there has been a huge increase in immuno deficiency ailments all around the world, caused by a lack of priming bacteria being introduced into our systems, and this is caused by pasteurized milk. For this reason, I, as a scientist, will make the obserrvation that global warming must be caused by milk pasteurization.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -4/+4You're an idiot who clearly has no concept of the scientific process or of my stance on global warming.
      • docfaraday, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6Yeah, this is an unusual position for the scientific community to find themselves in. They have a hypothesis that has made accurate predictions (particularly predictions about the results of temperature history measurements, CO2 levels, and correlations between the two). Since science is always about determining best guesses based on the available evidence, the scientific community's "best guess" is currently that there is man-made global warming. However, this best guess has nasty implications, and doing something to compensate will also be nasty. For many, the best guess just isn't good enough, and I can understand this to an extent.

        The thing that tends to put me off about the portion of the scientific community that opposes the idea of man-made global warming is that their predictions never pan out. If man is not at fault, that would predict that either;

        1) CO2 levels don't have a strong enough effect on climate to cause the warming we're seeing.
        2) Human activity has not contributed significantly to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        We certainly see a very tight correlation between CO2 and temperature. I am not sure to what extent a causal link has been established, but a causal link is certainly predicted, and so far everything we have seen has been consistent with this predication. The idea that human activity has been the driving force behind the increase in atmospheric CO2 is more contentious, but this contention seems to stem from confusing measurements in "tons of CO2" with measurements in "tons of carbon" (two very different things), and confusion about basic mathematics (ie; human activity only accounts for a small percentage of global CO2 emissions, so it must not be our fault. If you have a balanced budget, and then you start spending 1% more, and continue to do so for a couple of centuries, you will find yourself in a great deal of debt.)

        It looks to me like these two points are relatively solid, provided the data hasn't been falsified, which some suggest. But the notion that you could get tens of thousands researchers to make a coordinated effort to falsify data in exactly the same way _without_ being caught is ludicrous, but some people just can't resist a good (grand?) conspiracy theory.
        • Gazoo2001, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Thank you for your well-written comment! Dugg.
      • burningmanstan, on 05/01/2008, -2/+3First of all I'm not some crazy Gore groupie. When it comes to climate change on Digg I mainly focus on discrediting the people spreading the least credible information (EX: scientists in the 70s predicted an ice age, we don't make that much CO2, etc). Anyway saying that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist is a pretty conservation stance to take at this point. We release a lot of CO2 and CO2 can influence global temperatures. The real question is: How significant is our contribution to a warming trend? At what point does our contribution become significant enough to justify drastic action? At this point I hold the opinion that we are running a global experiment that shouldn't be run. And that in addition to our unknown experiment there other reasons to be less wasteful.
    • had3l, on 05/01/2008, -2/+8This study isn't "not in favor of the global warming hypothesis" though. On the contrary, it clearly states that changes to climate were caused by men.
      • domokunt, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3"men"? I guess we do fart more.
        • had3l, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Well, last time I blamed women, [Insert witty remark, where I lie that I have a girlfriend who is a bitch, here.]. That sure set me straight.

          EDIT: I'll be taking my "Worst Comment Ever" award now please.
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/01/2008, -2/+6It might just be that there's still more to support global warming than there is to disprove it. That's not lobbying, even though you disagree with it.
    • docfaraday, on 05/01/2008, -2/+4This is not an observation; it hasn't happened yet. This is a prediction. We'll see if they're right. Also, keep in mind that this is a single paper, and the scientific community is probably looking it over and deciding whether they think the prediction will be accurate.
    • NYPD, on 05/01/2008, -7/+4Anyone who believes this now needs Mental Help really bad.
      Al Gore has made 100 Million Dollars and on his way to 1 Billion.
      Do you know how stupid this sounds. "Well hold the global warming for 10 years."
      You can't hold it. We don't control the Planet. Never have and never will.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4Do you know how stupid you sound? To be skeptical is one thing, but to dismiss it outright without any supporting evidence is absurd, especially if you're basing your dismissal on Al Gore. What, you can't think for yourself? I'll be Al Gore believes the sky is blue, too, so therefore, it must be a lie, right?
        • Railer, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2macworld42 - does it make any difference Gore has made 100 million dollars on his alarmism? You seem to be up on all the latest "science" show me one model that predicted a decade long leveling out of warming followed by soon decreasing temperatures for the next decade and still manage to get alarmist temperature trends?

          Here's the checklist of AGW from a decade ago:
          Increased hurricanes - WRONG
          More Intense tornado's - WRONG
          Massive Sea Level increase -WRONG
          Temperatures climbing above normal rates - WRONG

          Conclusion AGW = *****

          Did I miss anything?
          • sailormoonbeam, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4Increased hurricanes - WRONG --> false. hurricanes are becoming more intense more often. deal with it.
            More Intense tornado's - WRONG --> despite the fact that the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't allow for circulations much faster than f5 tornadoes in nature, it is true that the strongest tornadoes (f4-f5) on record have occurred in recent years.
            Massive Sea Level increase -WRONG --> define massive. at about 5mm per year, that's a lot in my opinion. that's hundreds of hundreds of gallons to get 5mm the world over.
            Temperatures climbing above normal rates - WRONG --> we are seeing more changes in the extremems and an increase in the mean (overall , the mean has increased since the industrial revolution by about 1-2 degrees centigrade)

            do some real research.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Being wrong is part of science, you weirdo. You revise, and you move on. Neils Bohr was the first person to successfully model a hydrogen atom - however, his model fell apart when it was applied to more complex atoms. According to your logic, we should have disregarded his work entirely. Let me ask you... If it weren't for the politics, would you even give a ***** what people were studying? I never said that I believe in AGW, but it is a possibility, among several.
          • Gazoo2001, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Well, besides the above comment by sailormoonbeam, I can point out that you got this wrong:
            macweirdo42's screen name. It's not macworld42.
          • Railer, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1NASA -“There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.” -
            http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicatio ...
            http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/decadal_hurr ...

            IPCC - "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms." -
            - http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/bl ...

            Sea Level is NOT 5mm that's *****, 1.1 mm/year by Wadhams and Munk (2004), 1.5-2.0 mm/year by Miller and Douglas (2004) look em up, even the Topex is 2.8 mm a year 2.8 mm * 100 28 cm or 11 inches? we are all going to die of 11 inches of flooding we got 8 last century, anyone notice? The extra 3 inches is gonna kill us all?
            http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020039 ...

            The last 30 years of satellite temperature measurments have us pegged at 1.4C in a century and that trend is DROPPING. We have been warming since the 1800's from a little cold period and no it is NOT unnatural.
            http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

            "Most of the warming that accounts for that trend, however, has happened since January 1998 in the northernmost third of the globe.
            There has been little or no net warming in the tropics over the past 28+ years, while there is very slight warming in the southernmost third of the globe. "

            There ARE the FACTS unless you can back up your alarmist ***** with facts sailormoonbeam you go back to your cartoons.

    • Calibur, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1do you "believe in global warming" ?
      dont they mean "Did you conclude the same as others from viewing the statistical data on global warming" OH WAIT I KNOW... no one researches anything, its all just regurgitation of the same old ballad about global warming.

      thats okay digg me down if you will... it just proves the point
  • Mark0Pon, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2For a little background on the original scientist words & contest, check this post:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/3v4ujp
  • GeorgeStone2, on 05/01/2008, -11/+6WE DIDN'T LISTEN! WEEE DIDDNNNT LISSTEEENNNNNNN!
    • 298th_Scat, on 05/01/2008, -1/+8IT IS FINALLY THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY AFTER TOMMOROW !!!
      • Duositex, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2You sure it isn't the day before the day after yesterday?
  • Nougat, on 05/01/2008, -10/+23Totally misleading, and I blame The Register for the writing and headline.

    Stop *until* 2015 - and then, presumably, resume.

    Climate is large-scale, where smaller periods of time may warm or cool, but where the overall temperature over a long term is climbing.

    Of course, by looking at the entire history of Earth, I expect that temperatures have fallen overall, from the early, magma-ridden Earth.
    • glaz, on 05/01/2008, -5/+2Why have scientific professionals at all when we can just use Nougat to predict the future ?
      • Nougat, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2Did you read either the article or my comment?
  • wastedlife, on 05/01/2008, -8/+37I've been swayed both ways in the whole Global Warming debate. I'm now a self confessed fence sitter, and articles like this don't help.

    However I edge towards the preventative measures not only for a "just in case" reasoning but mainly because pollution ***** sucks.
    • had3l, on 05/01/2008, -7/+2Well, I thought about it long and hard, and I, alone, came up with the one and only perfect possible prediction.
      Here it goes, prepare to have your minds blown:

      You see, according to my non-existent climate models, we would be entering another ice age around 20 years from now. But thanks to Global Warming, we will offset it, warming the Earth just enough to make the temperature remain stable. Thus, the human race will be saved and we can all thank the good lobbyists who in the beginning decades of the 21st century convinced us that Climate Change was a hoax.
    • arranholloway, on 05/01/2008, -4/+3The article doesn't suggest that global warming isn't happening. All it is saying is that superimposed upon a general trend of warming there are going to be fluctuations. The title that global warming may 'stop' is a little misleading, global warming is still continuing but it's effects are being offset by a cooling cycle.
      • sailormoonbeam, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1good point.

        people don't die from changes in the mean - they die from changes in the extremes (john walsh)
    • unpolloloco, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2we should also build defense systems against alien invasion *just in case*
      I agree that pollution sucks though - and it should be reduced
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1pollution is a different issue from carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas burns very cleanly, and produces no pollution, but global warming proponents would have us believe that carbon dioxide is going to kill the earth.
      Oil spills suck. Smog sucks. But we're cleaning these things up, and the climate will change without any help from humans.
  • Wonderama, on 05/01/2008, -10/+24Now how else am I supposed to express my general discontent and adolescent angst if this vague cause is taken from me too?
  • 0xbaadf00d, on 05/01/2008, -12/+24How convenient. Now in 2015 IF it's still not getting warmer, they can say, "See aren't you glad we taxed the ***** out of you? We saved the planet!!"
    • CaptainShaun, on 05/01/2008, -5/+2Well, they wouldn't let it stop. They would "invest" some of the tax revenue from global warming into activities that would alter data so that they could justify continued taxation. From their bottom line, it would be a great investment.
      • jjesusfreak01, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3There is a great book called, "a city in winter", in which there is a state run newspaper that makes crazy claims, but repeats them over and over again until everyone believes it. Thats really all the government has to do in 2015 when everything starts cooling off. Just tell everyone its getting hotter enough times, and theyll believe you. People are stupid.
    • had3l, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2I think Global Warming is probably true, but I guess it's probably preferable to just let it happen so that we can point and laugh at the skeptics: "Nah Nah Nah, I told you so!". That is a much better scenario than actively working to prevent it, succeeding, and then have people come at you saying: "See, I told you there was no such thing as Global Warming!"
  • MrFurious2k, on 05/01/2008, -14/+16It's not "Global Warming" people, it's "Climate change" and everything is evidence of it.
    • jnava121, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2yeah , the pollen came this year and it rained... exactly mr. furious today i experienced climate change as evidence of decreased temperatures... ManBearPig was at my house yesterday too..
  • pasta2000, on 05/01/2008, -8/+25Now I know why people started saying "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming."
    • Opiate, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3Yup because climate change is a natural every day occuring thing, pretty hard to deny that. They couldn't tax the ***** out of us and take away our sovereignty without some perceived threat .. see terrorism.
    • vikingcoder, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0Started?

      Both terms are appropriate. It's "global warming" because the average global temperature is rising. It's "climate change" because the Earth's weather system isn't a static system that will increase the same amount at every point when the average increases.

      Notice that the it's the IPCC, not the IPGW. The first report was released in 1990. How many of the deniers on this site who like to spout that "people are just now calling it climate change" were even alive then?
  • beckerG511, on 05/01/2008, -8/+23"Lets start covering our asses now."
  • itsthebrod, on 05/01/2008, -9/+25Time to go do laps in the parking lot with my SUV again...
    • Duositex, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2Might as well just let it idle overnight. Turning those things on and off is such a hassle.
  • truthhurts28, on 05/01/2008, -13/+24In 2015 it will automatically start getting warmer? What a crock of *****! These crazy assholes cant even give an accurate 5 day forecast! Much less a 8 year plan. I believe some of the folks are changing their tunes since over the last several years it has averaged cooler temps.
    • had3l, on 05/01/2008, -4/+7Exactly. Who needs computers worth millions of dollars to make complicated climate models when truthhurts28 already posted the truth about the future of the world on digg.
      • jnava121, on 05/01/2008, -5/+2Exactly , who needs natural documented cyclical global temperature models that were out before computers existed? That prooves nothing , the world cools, and warms in cycles. There is no way we are on a natural warming cycle of the earth. Impossible !
      • truthhurts28, on 05/01/2008, -3/+0Exactly. All they need to do is ask me!
    • MidnightRealism, on 05/01/2008, -1/+7Meteorology and climatology are different fields, dummy.
      • truthhurts28, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2Yes, Al Gore, I realize that. I was just trying to make a point of how i dont believe they could accurately predict what will happen years down the road. If this global warming is real, the actual climate variations will be much different than presumptions based on history. But I guess that I should have asked you instead, your obviously a lot smarter than I am.
    • zmigliozzi, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3There is a big difference between the people who tell you the weather than a real meteorologist/climatologist. Your local weather forecaster more than likely just graduated with a communications degree.
      • jabelar, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0The weatherperson on the news gets their info from climatologists, they don't each just make their own guesses you know.
    • sailormoonbeam, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1where do u get cooling the last several years!?
  • jayscot, on 05/01/2008, -6/+6It looks like this will be how they justify taking control of your assets when climate change proves to be something that is naturally occurring.
  • SuperVepr308, on 05/01/2008, -11/+14It will stop when The Goracle and grant-happy "scientists" squeeze every last drop of money out of it.
  • thanakar, on 05/01/2008, -10/+10In other news, scientist (who have only been around for a hundred years) have no real clue in the climate cycle of a planet that has been around a few billion years.
    • had3l, on 05/01/2008, -3/+6In other news, a humanoid species from the planet Earth just realized that they don't have a clue about the reason of their own existence, are too lazy to apply the scientific method to find out, and therefore decided to commit mass suicide.
      • jnava121, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1had3l you missed that space ship. It left a few years ago. However you can teleport to their location by taking some Cyanide tablets if you want
    • beatle42, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4Do astronomers also not have any understanding of stars, which have been around even longer than the climate? Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean we can't understand it.
      • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1Don't try to use logic with deniers, they are incapable of grasping such a rational concept.
  • coffee200am, on 05/01/2008, -11/+8That rips it. From now on I could care less about "global warming". Apparently nobody knows much about it. Sorta like Bigfoot.
    • truthhurts28, on 05/01/2008, -1/+0I heard bigfoot died. It got too hot for him in the forest so he went up north. Then all the glaciers melted and he drowned. That damn global warming!
    • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Too bad neither of you could actually understand the article. It doesn't say they don't know about GW, it said the opposite: they now understand it better, and do not question the basic premise of it at all.

      Of course, to get this you need basic reading skills, which I'm not sure you have (since you completely misread the article...)
      • danielttt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Keep stretching it dude. Maybe, eventually, you will begin to believe your own rhetoric...You're diatribe is BS. You know it. We know it. What bothers you is the fact it becomes more and more clear you haughty know it alls are fast becoming laughing stocks. Read up on Chicken Little. Might be very insightful. In the meantime, keep praying eveyone will begin to forget this nonsense...
  • desertDenizen, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4That would be cool.
  • brbeaird, on 05/01/2008, -5/+5Sounds strangely like someone trying to buy themselves about 15 years to get global warming figured out...
    • dila813, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0Or to figure out that it is just global coolign
    • danielttt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Trying to buy 15 years for everyone to forget this foolishness is more likely.
  • anewman3, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4There, that should buy us some time for a while.
  • VoodooPunk, on 05/01/2008, -8/+8But according to Ted Turner most of us will be dead and those left alive will be cannibals by 2015. When will people quit being gullible idiots and get over the whole man made global warming fantasy?
    • londubh, on 05/01/2008, -2/+3Ted Turner just informed me that you are on the menu.
    • danielttt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You miss a basic point. Ted Turner thinks he's the only one who exists of any significance. In 15 years he will likely have left us for....whatever. To him, that is everyone.
  • TedLW30101, on 05/01/2008, -6/+9If this doesn't highlight how much of a farce this 'GW/CC' trend has been, I don't know what is.

    Come up with a way to correlate man's effect on environment, over-exaggerate it, then when the natural course of Nature takes over and corrects (as it has done for millions of years) claim it's a 'temporary reprieve'.

    So, in a nutshell, hot years are man's fault. Please pay us in Carbon Credits to fix this.
    Cold years should be ignored.

    Why don't they tax people for left-hand turns?
    • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -2/+2Because the computer models are refined, this proves that GW is a farce? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
      • TedLW30101, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Computer models simply extrapolate based on input of parameters. Since noone knows all the parameters that influence the Earth's weather it is impossible to rely solely on computer models.

        The day that you can input all parameters for (let's say) the year 1980 and then let the computer model extrapolate out to 2008 the weather to 95% accuracy will be the day you can rely on those.

        Until then the Earth will turn and change as it will regardless of how long I leave my Refrigerator door open.
        • danielttt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Your fridge door is open??!!!! By my calculations, that's another 0.0000001532458 seconds we've lost. Close the damn'd door you thoughtless crumb.
    • Gazoo2001, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1"If this doesn't highlight how much of a farce this 'GW/CC' trend has been, I don't know what is."
      You don't know what is highlight how much of a farce this GW/CC trend has been if this doesn't?
  • Ruler4you, on 05/01/2008, -11/+6Yup, when your lame science won't hold up under even basic scrutiny it's time to put some break points in there. Give your self some wiggle room.
    Face it you GW zealots have got STAY off the crack!
    • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2It is the deniers' claim that do not hold up against basic scrutiny. There has been *no* convincing argument from deniers, not a single one, meanwhile idiots like you can't even understand the basic point made by the article (i.e. GW is real, and now they've refined the model by adding short-term variations).
  • londubh, on 05/01/2008, -3/+14Huzzah! We should celebrate by having an SUV convoy drive across the country and build coal fire power plants along the way. Take that penguins and polar bears and Holland and Bangladesh!
    • Opiate, on 05/01/2008, -4/+1I think it's more hooray for not being guilted into a non-democratric global government, mind you too late for the EU, so desperate to out-do the US it losts itself in the process.
      • londubh, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4You mean like secret prisons, torture, searching people's laptops at the border, warrantless wiretapping, national security letters from the FBI, Pentagon propaganda against US citizens. Oh, yes. That is so democratic.
      • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Opiate, I've got a case of tinfoil hats for sale. Very cheap, never been used.
  • pilgrim3970, on 05/01/2008, -9/+10reading through the comments and I have to think "wow" since it hasn't been all that long ago that questioning Global Warming would get you dugg down. Guess the sheeple woke up.
    • Rigbymatt, on 05/01/2008, -5/+1They haven't "woken up," they're just getting violent.
    • vikingcoder, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0Questioning evolution will also get you dugg down. That must mean that the theory of evolution through natural selection is a hoax, and anybody who believes it is a sheeple.
  • IslandDog, on 05/01/2008, -13/+9People still buy into the Global Warming propaganda? Did you buy your carbon credits from Al today?
  • NobodyYouKnow, on 05/01/2008, -0/+10Party like it's 2014.
  • glaz, on 05/01/2008, -6/+2British Motor Vehicle Tax is said to SORE in the next two years up until 2010. This is such an elaborate scam. In a few years the Government will show data confirming that the planet is cooling and claim a success. Then, in 2015, they will claim that the world is beginning to heat up again and our efforts (tax) will NEED to go up to sustain the enviroment.

    It comes down to this, every error is the collective ***** up of the people and every success is that of the ruling party who has punished said people.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0Dugg, four truth and also because you're incorrect homonym of "soar" maid me deeply laugh: "Hoe, hoe, hoe!"
    • dila813, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0You are the smartest guy on this thread so far, you get it!
  • pattyman5000, on 05/01/2008, -6/+3Sorry, typo in the headline: SCIENTISTS should be in quote marks, not STOP.
  • jnava121, on 05/01/2008, -6/+2it's ok guys, im a scientist and i plan on leaving my air conditioning turned on really really high until 2015. It's all really sophisticated and no one should question my research or financial ties to corporations. Gordon Freeman showed me a few tricks and we are working on a new atmosphere cooler in the black forest.
  • Encablossa, on 05/01/2008, -10/+7If I had any belief in global warming, Al Gore sold it away.
  • ihateinternets, on 05/01/2008, -5/+5I dont know about you, but when it comes to global warming i would want to err on the side of caution.
    Hmm dont really see how driving less walking more, turning things off , using energy efficient things is such a big drama for people.
    • InfidelAl, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2I guess that would be okay if not for the real-world negative effects of erring on the side of caution if it (AGW) turns out to be false. The higher food prices and starving in some parts of the world, helped in part by the push towards bio-fuels... Or what about the gobs of money thrown into erring on the side of caution that could have been used in other beneficial ways? Like spending it on infrastructure in third world countries to give them fresh water supplies? Or spending it on agricultural infrastructure so these countries can better feed themselves.
      That's not to say that your examples of walking more, or turning things off would have any negative side effects. But if AGW is real, then doing those things wouldn't be nearly enough to have any positive effect what-so-ever.
  • sindex, on 05/01/2008, -2/+11Gee, imagine that. We're still collecting data and can't really prove anything yet (sort of like all rational people have been saying for the last 15 years), and now even Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists may be shifting slightly to that side. I believe man does indeed play a small part in the heating of the planet, but we are not solely responsible and thinking so is to give us far too much cosmic importance.
    We absolutely should spend these next "safe" years investing in clean, renewable fuel sources, reducing emissions, reducing dependence on foreign (and even domestic) oil, and funding research into this matter. Human beings on the level we're at now are a complete unknown with regards to the environment. It's time to be responsible, not only in our individual actions, but in our research, in how we present data, and how we look to the future. Let's remember that the PLANET is in no danger here - humans are in danger. Earth will exist long after humans are gone, unless somehow we're fortunate enough to outlast every other species in history and see the Sun devour our planet in 5 billion years. And I don't think, even if we exist that long, that we'll live here then.
  • mr5150, on 05/01/2008, -11/+2These ***** "scientists" haven't a clue as to what is going on so they now shroud everything into "Climate Change".
    Worthless ***** who know ***** and the only reason they open their yappers is to show some self importance and solidify funding for themselves from the state by keeping the public in fear of the intangible....like "cough" terrorism.

    Fear is a great motivator for governments to have their way with the public.
    • inajeep, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Complain about the weatherman who can't predict weather too? It's a complicated system even if the pretty moving colors on the map seem fairly simple. It's all guess work but I'll listen to their opinions over most digg users any day.
      • mr5150, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Retards usually take state sanctioned ***** as the panacea...keep being a moron ...ignorance is bliss.

        BTW I didn't ask for your opinion.
  • NYPD, on 05/01/2008, -10/+5Anyone who believes this now needs Mental Help really bad.
    Al Gore has made 100 Million Dollars and on his way to 1 Billion.
    Do you know how stupid this sounds. "Well hold the global warming for 10 years."
    You can't hold it. We don't control the Planet. Never have and never will.
  • splatter, on 05/01/2008, -1/+6Here is National Geographic's take on Noel Keenlyside's findings: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/08 ... (less sensationalistic than the Telegraph article).
    • inajeep, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Link fails
      • splatter, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2National Geographic Article: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080430-global-cooling.html
        New York Times Article: www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html?em&ex=1209787200&en=ddd0094cc411eb2f&ei=5087%0A
    • splatter, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Sorry for the broken link, guys. The National Geographic article can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/5vg5xn -- The New York Times also did a piece on the same information: http://tinyurl.com/3qe3w2
  • Rigbymatt, on 05/01/2008, -9/+7Global warming will stop when we stop driving 4 tons of metal 100+ miles a day to work, with only 1 passenger.
    It will stop when we curtail industry outputs.
    It will stop when we turn off lights, find highly efficient natural ways of generating electricity.
    Global Warming will stop when we stop pumping 8 billion tons of carbon into the bloody atmosphere every year, and not a minute sooner.
    • Opiate, on 05/01/2008, -2/+5It will stop when you stop wasting precious carbon with your hyperbole.
    • unpolloloco, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4it did stop! not by anything we did (other than starving people in third world countries)
    • dila813, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1It will stop once everyone dies because we blew all the world's resources on a fictional problem
    • danielttt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Last one to the stone age is a rotten egg. Get a grip. Reality aint that bad.
  • omnithought, on 05/01/2008, -6/+4"WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEE!!! Oh, uh, heh...umm....well, ok not yet."
  • Kallius, on 05/01/2008, -8/+6But...but...but...if we stop believing in Global Warming, how are poor old Al Gore and David Suzuki supposed to make money? Not to mention the industries that benefit from the scaremong...er, the enlightening information?
    • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3I'm sorry, but why should I believe a random Internet denier more than David Suzuki, whose reputation is spotless?

      You deniers wouldn't know science if it hit you in the face. Name *one* argument against GW that has sustained peer-reviewed scientific examination. Just one.
  • MrViklund, on 05/01/2008, -3/+1In your dreams.
  • zmigliozzi, on 05/01/2008, -6/+3If it's not global warming, then it must be global cooling.
  • saffsam, on 05/01/2008, -4/+0yet more information, on this hot topic, yet what do we really know ;)
  • jimmyjohnston, on 05/01/2008, -4/+7What's most amusing is the way so many misread this article. The article does not deflate the concept of global warming but continues to explain the natural shift in temperatures that occur. Global warming is the unnatural additional temperatures that we humans have placed on top of the natural ebb and flow of global temperatures.
    Anyone who still does not realize that carbon emissions increase the global temperature needs help. If you cannot accept that fact then at least accept that it is a best practice to leave as little of a foot print as possible on this earth so that all the future generations can continue to enjoy the beautiful planet as we have. Unfortunately this past 110 years we have completely left our mark as having been here.
    If you do not believe in global warming then at least believe in alternatives to natural resources for energy such as solar panels. The air would be so much more clean if we didn't use oil or coal and just used the sun.
    • unpolloloco, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Anyone who doesn't realize that no one has even near determined whether human factors affect anything at all needs help. I agree that we do need to focus on the environment more, but focusing solely on carbon dioxide (probably one of the smallest issues) is silly, but moreso criminally insane. I think causing the starvation of people in third-world countries is probably enough reason to stop and reevaluate what we are doing. Alternative energy (i.e. solar, not ethanol) is good because we reduce dependence on foreign oil, and in the process use a much cleaner energy source, reducing smog and other air, water, and land-use issues.
      Anyway, what in the world happened 110 years ago that changed ourfootprint so much? We've always been screwing it up from the beginning of humanity.
      • jimmyjohnston, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Ethanol for the one year that it seemed like it may be an alternative to gasoline is already out of the picture. Anyone (I'm speaking of USA politicians and movers) who affects policy change knows ethanol cannot happen because of the disaster it will cause for the poor. Ethanol is used as a small filler right now in gasoline and there are no talks that it will one day replace gasoline, except among the people who haven't caught up with the rest of the times yet. At this point the government and scientists realize the two best ways to make clean energy are from solar and nuclear power and then we also have wind power that works in specific parts of the country.
        Over the past 110 years some significant things have occurred that have irreversibly changed the face of this planet: combustion engine, automobile, airplanes, interstate highways, just to name a few.
        The only people still debating whether global warming actually exists due to human factors are those who don't believe it.
  • jetboyterp, on 05/01/2008, -9/+8Intersting...."Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate..."

    Gee, imagine that...Global climate is a result of natual global climate! So once again, a big "Bronx cheer" to the man-made global warming knuckleheads.
    • archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Read the article again, the point clearly went right over your head.
    • alkajazz, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1"However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model."
  • LargeTrout, on 05/01/2008, -8/+9I'm digging up anyone in this article who believes, like me, that Global Warming was either a lie or a misconception. Scientists have been bombarding us with constant Global Warming propaganda for the last decade and now they're saying "they now expect a 'lull' for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".

    In other words these "scientists", who have bullied the "deniers" (as they call them) into submission are starting to see that the climate varies on its own accord. They just don't want to admit this fully by declaring themselves full of steaming *****. These idiots aren't scientists; they're speculating. Earth's climate varies from one decade to the next. Sometimes we have ***** weather, other times we have decent weather. It's been like that since the Earth was formed.
  • splatter, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Different news outlets present Noel Keenlyside's findings in a slightly different light.

    I think National Geographic did the least-biased presentation of the information: http://tinyurl.com/5vg5xn
    The New York Times also did a piece on Keenlyside's findings: http://tinyurl.com/3qe3w2
  • s2ao, on 05/01/2008, -3/+9Read the bloody article -- they never actually say that global warming is stopping (despite the Tory-graph trying to spin it that way).
    Buried for the misleading description.
  • truthhurts28, on 05/01/2008, -4/+1We can stop all of this. All we need to figure out is how to stop cows from farting! It stinks and is destroying our environment!
    • kevinsmail23, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Al Gore is bringing alot of global warming abuse down on cows.....someboda call PETA!
      • danielttt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1How could Al Gore have so much disdain for something made of meat?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.