What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
$9 t-shirts today only view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
281 Comments
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -30/+148How can you possibly think for yourself when it comes to extremely complex climatology based on a turbulent history of the planet and predictions of future temperatures?
Remember those dimwits who deny evolution? They're also "thinking for themselves" ...
Science is hard. It's not meant to be casually understood and instantly digested like a tabloid headline. - NICU, on 10/12/2007, -29/+138There's no real information in this article - just like the pro-global warming articles. I wish it would stay as a debate over global warming and not turn into a political debate. If it were purely scientific they could use research, facts, and proof to decide what's actually going on. Unfortunately people who don't like Al Gore want to prove him wrong, and people who don't like the people who don't like Al Gore want to prove them wrong.
- GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -35/+132Read the article, if you agree: GREAT! if you disagree: GREAT! just take the time to read and learn and think for yourself, please.
- synystar, on 10/12/2007, -36/+122Even if there were no evidence, to date, that humans cause global warming, we should not use that as an excuse to continue to harm our environment. Sounds like a good way to justify wrongdoing... get some experts to claim that there isn't a problem. The responsibility still lies with us, because we have the power to change our practices.
- smackywentz, on 10/12/2007, -19/+63What it mean think for self?
Nevermind Anna Nicole's Live at the Funeral Red Carpet Show is on. - Aklblue, on 10/12/2007, -24/+58Just keep in mind that some of the "scientists" who put this report together have a long history of being associated with Big Oil. Like this character for example; http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=421.
Problem is that the general public believes all the crap the media feeds them. - hughns, on 10/12/2007, -17/+50Please consider the source material: The Daily Mail is a reactionary, highly conservative newspaper with a strong anti-environmental stance. It was once memorably described as a newspaper for "paranoid, privet hedge voyeurs" (although I forget by whom). The bulk of the articles are about health problems relating to middle-aged women (the key audience), celebrity gossip and hand-wringing about either the NHS, asylum seekers or the perceived decline of England.
- NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -14/+46Greenhouse effect false? Anybody heard of the Planet Venus!? The surface can melt lead, why? The Greenhouse effect!
- americanuck, on 10/12/2007, -24/+56Option A) We spend money now as insurance against global warming
If Global warming is unpreventable or false, then we lose some money and/or die out. If it's real then we have prevented the biggest threat to humanity and our quality of life that we have ever seen.
Option B) We don't make any effort to stop global warming and/or reduce humanity's affect on it.
If Global warming is unpreventable or false, then we save some money and/or die out. If it's real, we're *****! - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -17/+44"somehow I doubt that the university of Ottawa is on the big oil payroll"
Actually it's not unusual at all for researchers at Universities (or the Universities themselves) to take significant amounts of money from big corporations like the oil companies. You hope they have enough integrity to remain impartial but it doesn't always happen that way. - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -17/+44The greenhouse effect was made up by Al Gore and the UN to spread their socialist tax'n spend liberal agenda. Everybody knows Mankind will never be able to harm the planet because it's just so big!!!!!1one
Everyone knows if you pump lots of carbo bioxide in a REAL greenhouse it will be nice and cozy and you will feel rite at home becuse CO2 is life. Exxon told me so. That, and I like riding six feet above everyone else on the highway. I will never ride the bus. And Senator Imnhoff (he's like the head scientist of the EPA) said God is still with us and he'd never let anything bad happen to us.
/sarcasm - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -13/+37It's hard (of for some, apparently very easy) to ignore the steepness of the recent climb, and how much it exceeds estimates of previous spikes.
- toby34a, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32Exactly. Science warning here:
Fact: Carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation.
Fact: Increases in carbon dioxide means more solar radiation is absorbed.
Fact: Other gases also absorb solar radiation, and those gases are also increasing.
Debatable: How much impact do CO2 and other gases actually have? That is the debate. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26"The surface can melt lead, why? The Greenhouse effect!"
I'm sure being 1/4 AU closer to the sun than earth helps a bit too. - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23The Mars myth ... again (& again & again).
We can measure the Sun's output directly, instead of making guesses based on fragmentary evidence from other planets. Due the where we are in the 11 year sunspot cycle, solar radiation has been _declining_ during the period in question. The long-term trend is that the Sun's output hasn't changed much in 50 years.
Mars' orbit is more eccentric than Earth's. Mars doesn't have oceans, doesn't have rain, has an atmosphere totally different from Earth's, and has huge dust storms that noticeably impact the climate. No rain, remember, so the dust lingers in the atmosphere. The dust storms produce large year-to-year variability and large regional changes.
These are basic facts that are ignored by cherry picking climate deniers. Its pretty bizarre that the same people that want to dismiss 150 years of direct temperature readings, 800,000 years of ice core data, etc, will instantly jump to conclusions based on a few years of photos of Mars' South Pole.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/ - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24In Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri I just get the planetary council to vote to launch a solar shade and within a few turns the water levels begin to decrease.
- Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30@twertyto
"You people digg down magicjava but did he say anything incorrect?"
Points 1 & 2 (CO2 lags temps) are true but misleading.
Details here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Point 3 about measuring CO2 is garbage. We didn't develop the ability to accurately measure CO2 until the 1950's. Charles Keeling, of "Keeling Curve" fame realized that the high levels of noise in CO2 measurements could be avoided by taking measurements in Antarctica and/or the top of mountain (Mauna Loa in Hawaii).
Point 4 is empty FUD, like when a creationist talks about how radiocarbon dating is inaccurate. - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -58/+75This is funny. It's just like when the tobacco companies paid scientists to say that nicotine wasn't bad for you in the 1970s.
Who wants to wager that this is as a result of oil companies looking to make an extra buck? - gniess, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24So the two points this article tries to make are:
1. That temperature increases in ice core records were followed by, not preceded by, rises in CO2.
See why this does not disprove current warming here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
2. That temperature decreased for a few decades after the very industrial period of WWII.
See why this does not disprove current warming here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm
High levels of particulate pollution in this period reflected more sunlight, thus cooling the earth. "But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect."
As is usually the case with articles claiming that anthropogenic global climate change is false, these arguments have been largely refuted already. If you're going to post evidence against anthropogenic climate change, at least have it be based off of a recent peer-reviewed journal article, not just one scientists opinion. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18You know, I keep wondering, if this is science, how can there be opposing VIEWPOINTS?
You look at the evidence. If the evidence is consistent enough, then there's enough information to form a theory.
If the evidence is not consistent enough, then your results are inconclusive. There's no viewpoint.
Viewpoints come when the scientists think they can inject their personal conclusions into a scientific argument and abuse their credentials to further their own agendas. Evidence be damned. - doktorrocket, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27Sounds kinda like Pascal's wager, and the same reasoning could justify spending on vampire prevention. Just sayin'.
- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"Fact: Carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation."
Not quite. Solar radiation hits the ground and heats the Earth. The Earth re-radiates that energy in the infrared which is then absorbed by carbon dioxide. Minor point but that's fundamental greenhouse effect.
@merreborn
Being closer is not a major effect. Venus is hotter than Mercury and it is much closer to the Sun. - Elad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Greenhouses should still work, right?
- chaosgasket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14This is a really good point. From the articles on his website (http://www.science.uottawa.ca/est/eng/prof/clark/clark.html) he appears to be a specialist in the study of gases and other chemicals in ice and groundwater. Apparently what he is really objecting to is the argument that increased CO2 is the leading cause of global warming, and he isn't even saying that it isn't true, just that the science behind it is not solid.
So, in reality, he is arguing for something we should all want, better science. - mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Politics suck. No one thinks for themselves anymore. Once they associate themselves with a certain group or way of thinking they refuse to consider things rationally because they are afraid it will alienate them.
- pattherat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I am quite sure the great debate will continue for a long time to come. But, why don't we step back and embrace conservation and alternative fuels for the other real benefits they will provide:
Lower energy bills for those who conserve, less dependence on foreign countries for energy provisioning, continuing research in finding RENEWABLE energy sources, etc.
I fear this he said, she said argument over what causes climate change will allow people to distance themselves from even trying to conserve or to support alternative forms of energy. They will simply use the refrain that their consumption does not cause global warming while easily forgetting the other benefits of change and research. - pingveno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Note: I started writing this over a half hour ago, so I haven’t taken recent comments into account.
Like many articles that go against the consensus of the scientific world (aka, Intelligent Design), this article uses distortion of fact, deceptive wording ("say scientists"), and ignorance to advance their beliefs. For example:
"The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists."
Note the use of the wording "At the time", which suggests that the consensus has changed. It hasn't. The same people are just writing the same articles. The UN report was also hailed as one of the most thorough reports available by the international science community, not just 2,000 leading scientists.
Also note that Ian Clark is one of only a few "Global Warming skeptics" in the science world. The Wikipedia category for "Global Warming skeptics" (including non-scientists) is only large enough to fit onto a single page. The other scientist cited, Paul Reiter, is associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI, which is basically a front for lobbying for fewer regulations by big corporations, recently ran a television ad with the tagline "CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life." Need I say more?
Further reading:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smoking_as_a_civic_duty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute (see Funding section)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics - jeopardydd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15ok, time for a serious look at the sources in the article:
1) Paul Reiter: he is a professor of biology, specifically in the study of insects http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060505/20060505_26.html
ok, the article doesn't quote him as saying man-made global warming is a sham, just the way they compiled names for the UN report.
2) Gary Calder: a FORMER (see, in the past) editor of a magazine that IS NOT PEER REVIEWED :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist
now, that doesn't mean that the magazine isn't legit, in fact, it probably is. However, I cannot find one mention of Gary Calder having a degree in anything having to do with climatology. If he did, wouldn't they mention that in the story? I did find references to a book ($$) he has coming out soon about clouds being the cause.
3) Philip Stott: "emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies" - enough said
4) Professor Ian Clark - he's actually a real professor, actually studying climate (how refreshing). He's also basically, the ONE main scientist who has come out against the general consensus view on man-made warming. Every time you read about a scientist who doesn't agree with it, it's this one guy. Does that mean he is wrong? nope. But the fact that ONE expert thinks differently certainly doesn't make it all that much more likely that the greenhouse effect is a "myth". Given the amounts of money involved (and big oil has been proven to be paying for research with an agenda) of course there are some no-name professors somewhere disputing it. There were plenty of scientists who's research were funded by the tobacco companies that said that cigs were not addictive or dangerous. Why can't they find a lot more?
But the headline to the article says "greenhouse effect a myth, say "scientists". Plural. There's only one confirmed "scientist" that is quoted in the article as talking about the greenhouse effect being a myth. why would anybody take the words of one no-name guy over the rest of the entire scientific establishment? that makes no sense. For some reason, current, credentialed scientists who study in the area of climatology and think that CO2 emissions have no effect or potential effect on warming are few and far between.
Add in the fact that when you really look at what most of the real scientists who are quoted as thinking that man-made emissions is not a cause of warming think, most are arguing at the margins. they think things like the temp is rising quite as fast as others think, or think that it plays a roll, but that other things contribute as well. Their words get taken out of context and get portrayed as if they disagreed with the basic idea, which they usually do not.
Also, the guy making the documentary has been found to have gotten into trouble for distorting the words of scientists before: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19980402000124.html
Oh, and to add to all of that, Exxon has been paying scientists to dispute the climate study: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11
For a blog (yes, with an agenda, lefty) arguing against the comments in the article: http://www.leanleft.com/ - FibrillatorD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16It is pascal's wager. Except, pascal should've stuck to matrices and hard math.
We need to ditch the whole "agree/disagree" garbage and let the facts decide. Also, science has no agenda. The vast majority of the people studying this are trying to find the truth, whatever that is. So far, the community is very much in the "global warming is real" camp, which alone says a lot.
But we need to be critical. Remember that science once told us that the flu is caused by an imbalance of the four bodily humors, the world is flat, and cigarettes are healthy because they keep weight down. - saso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16The point is that pollution is bad. There can't be any debate about THAT. Global warming or not, we need to decrease the rate of deforestation and pollution or we will not have a very nice planet to live in.
- Billiam627, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20"I think that the consensus is in and that global warming by humans doesn't exist. Can you morons get on to something else like global healthcare of free global abortions that you love?"
I'm not sure what planet you are living on bro, but just because you think something doesn't make it a "consensus" - rEvolution3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Professor Ian Clark says that he doesn't believe in the Greenhouse Gas Effect, but he does believe in global warming: http://www.thefulcrum.ca/view.php?aid=39180
- wdoyle0447, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Regardless if you are a conservative or a liberal, or if global warming is used for political reasons there is no reason not to treat the environment well.
Anyone who has taken any basic statistics and math courses should know statistical results CAN be made to favor one's argument rather easily. You should also know that modeling any system as big as Earth's climate + impacts is anything but perfect.
You don't have to believe everything spewed to you in propaganda (if it turns out to be that). So I reiterate regardless of who is right, do what you can to reduce your consumption. What is the downside? - hughns, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24Gore a radical liberal? I'd always considered him a fairly moderate, centrist politician. Besides, being an environmental advocate should have absolutely nothing to do with your political orientation. There are swathes of sensible conservatives who now subscribe to the scientific consensus.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+29Shh, we just need to distract the evil liberals long enough for the white, blue eyed, blonde haired, clean white robed, sandal wearing, Tennessee accent having, King James English speaking, royalty Jesus to descend from heaven and smite the godless pagans that didn't become card carrying members of the United States Republican Party while we go to heaven and make potty jokes about Al Gore for all eternity
- AzrealDarkskies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Dr. Sengir is one of the "leading authorities" on Global Warming denial. He was also one of the leading authorities on there not being evidence that cigarettes cause cancer. Back when that was a major issue in the courts he received funding from leading tobacco companies through APCO, which, ironically he also received funding from Exxon Mobil through for his "research".
Another authority in global warming deniers is the group "Friends of Science" which are formed of Ph.D. scientists, but who have also received funding from Exxon Mobil indirectly.
Something that should be noted is none of these scientists have had work published in academic papers in years.
Check out the CBC's "The Denial Machine" or the BBC's "Climate of Fear" for a brief overview of that. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Yeah, thinking for yourself is great, but I don't have the foundational knowledge needed to say one person is right and another is wrong on this topic, so I and the rest of the non-scientists have to rely on a consensus of people who know what the hell they're talking about.
- absurdist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@adding years:
I am no sympathizer to the Israeli cause, Zionism, or the concept of a "Greater Palestine."
And you, sir, are an idiot of phenomenal proportions.
Re: sources - put up or STFU.
BTW: "That's what you pro-israelies always want. facts. facts. facts. If you weren't so busy demanding facts then maybe you'd wake to the truth that Israel occupies one of the largest land masses in the middle east and it threatens its neighbors and the world every single day for the lst 60 years."
Yep, that's me. I'm a sucker for facts... as opposed to paranoid delusions. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"...to cope with a warmer world..."
Even if humans learn to cope with a warmer world (or more accurately, a more extreme climate), that's forgetting all other species of life on this planet that depend on a small range of temperatures, everything from corals to polar bears. To think of this as a purely human problem is missing the bigger picture entirely. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13This is the main problem - people make their own assumption then look for the evidence to back it up, rather than the other way round.
Something to do with Mars ice cap = Mars global warming = Earth global warming = not man made = sun getting hotter = liberal conspiracy!
It's really quite a talent to make up such tenuous connections like these. - farley2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8When you say "There are verified, peer-reviewed scientific studies that directly validate the theory that most of the world's most significant CO2 deposits are generated by Israel" people expect SOURCES! Without sources you look like a troll. Just give them if you know them and if you just "heard" from a friend they existed well....then you deserve to be dugg down.
- 68024, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Oh yeah, the Daily Mail, great paper. Very trustworthy.
- Kratisto, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Thanks to Al Gore, among others, Global Warming is no longer a scientific debate, which could be researched by competent scientists, but a political debate, which can be trashed by pseudoscientists for hire, anyone who doesn't want a more environmentally friendly bill passed, or, hell, even religion. As it stands, I take the point of view that whether or not we are to blame for global warming, there are measures we can take to slow it down and make our planet more livable through [natural or unnatural] climate changes - so we might as well try. As for the guys listed in this article, a quick wikipeda search reveals the incredibility of these "scientists".
- hughns, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Nicely put. It really amazes me how blinkered and selfish some people have been when dealing with this monumental issue.
- feucht, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8UK readers, there is a big show about the global warming deniers on Thursday on Channel 4 at 9pm. I'm not a scientist, but I am fed up of being fed the standard view that we are to blame without seeing something of both sides of the argument. I am suspicious of scientific consensus, because consensus is self-propelling, and knowledge is not a democracy. All research is funded by someone, and most of the time they have a vested interest in what the results should be, and that is true on both sides of the debate.
While any move to avoid profligacy should be welcomed, if you think unplugging your mobile/cell phone charger is going to fix this, when India and China are building coal-fired power stations by the thousand, then wake up and smell the coffee. If CO2 is the problem, then we are looking at changes that will have profound effects on the way we live our lives, or we have to find technological solutions (artificial trees, space mirrors, cloud seeding ships etc etc). If we don't really know what the effect of really reducing emissions is, and it might involve crashing the world economy to achieve this in any meaningful way, then I would rather wait. Then again, shouting down any one who disagrees with you might be easier... - LexMortis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Funny comment.
All the anti-"global warming" dismiss the Earth temp rising and polar ice melting... but for 3 months this happens on Mars and all of the sudden it's "DUH!" on Mars. Except Earth? Maybe you should look at things in perspective.
This is BAD SCIENCE. Why ask you?
Some scientists have looked at the Earth and Mars, noticing an increase in the temperature. Boom, instantly the sun gets blamed.
Instead of jumping to conclusions, study the sun. THEN form conclusions based on those studies. - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
- VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Here is something I would like to ask the people on both sides of the debate. Personally I agree with a little from each sides of this debate which has become a war of 2 religions really.
If Exxon/Mobil is funding only anti-Human Caused Global Warming, then there is reason to questions this. But at the same time we should look to see who is finding the scientific studies saying the opposite, that it is mostly man. If we see questionable sources or politcal sources backing them, should we not also question those studies?
Trust, but verify. Always check behind the curtain whether you agree with the propaganda or not! Personally I am antipaganda, wherever it comes from! - farley2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Kolanos
"For the global warming faithful digging me down:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html"
Great Article! I really loved the part
"Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. "
So even the article you want to use to support your idea that the sun is the cause, DON'T support your idea that the sun is the cause! - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Part of the current argument over "greenhouse gasses" is that we do not know if greenhouse gasses are causing global warming or if increased greenhouse gasses are a result of global warming.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 281 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 