What is Digg?62 Comments
- ohnoerino, on 11/03/2008, -0/+15Truly outrageous!
- DscHmi3, on 11/04/2008, -2/+17It's not so much global warming as these half-baked, knee-jerk responses to a problem that isn't even completely defined yet that truly scares me.
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -5/+18I should start selling carbon credits, I want money for nothing for solving a problem that is not under our control to begin with!
- badenglishihave, on 11/04/2008, -4/+15Here's a "Big Plan": just wait for the temperatures to drop again. Then we can invent another "Big Plan" to stop the imminent global ice age.
- diggduggjoe, on 11/04/2008, -0/+10The title should be "5 Stupid Ways for Man to Really Screw Up the Climate:" As little as we know, to make plans like these is foolish. My guess is they are all based on some computer model which likely is not 100% accurate and some unknown effect with kill the planet.
- jumpjet701, on 11/04/2008, -1/+11Build FAKE trees? how about just mass planting REAL trees.
- Sh0rtstak, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9I want a cloud machine
- kelly, on 11/04/2008, -2/+10I wish I could digg you up 100 times.
- Ymeg, on 11/04/2008, -0/+86
- DeFex, on 11/04/2008, -0/+7McCain is all for copying a volcano. in iran.
- SuperMoses, on 11/04/2008, -3/+10For the love of Carlin, are humans so incapable of lowering their consumption that we need to come up with these extravagant plans to reduce global warming? God forbid we let the possibility of earth going to ***** interfere with capitalism and it's push for more consumption
- spyd3rweb, on 11/04/2008, -2/+8They get paid to take this stuff seriously.
- vinbot, on 11/04/2008, -1/+7Crazy schemes that could make matters worse. How about we transition away from fossil fuels and in the meantime find the best and most humane ways to adapt to whatever climate change brings our way (disease, drought, flooding, climate refugees, etc.)
Do we want to fully and completely domesticate the earth? Seriously? - ohnoerino, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6Oh wait. That's Gem.
- stagnate, on 11/04/2008, -3/+8scientists will favour anything for a bit of cash
- mattymc, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6If spore has taught me anything...
- Rockkybox, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4One theory behind global cooling is the idea that something disturbs the salt levels in the sea, which allows more of it to freeze in winter, reflecting more light, making it colder etc, what might have triggered the last ice age is the medditeraian drying up, leaving salts, which resulted in less salty seas elsewhere.
That or tiny changes in the earths position in space - inactive, on 11/04/2008, -4/+8The scam artists who have perpetuated the global warming myth are now trying to exploit people's fears to make money off them.
They're all confidence men. - DeFex, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4Bending Unit 22 has the proper answer.
- kidlinux, on 11/04/2008, -1/+4Or the sun being less active. Y'know.. that giant nuclear fusion reactor in the sky.
- chaoswings, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3Well I think the fake trees are actually rather plausible compared to the rest. If anything it will speed up the planet's recovery if we get our act together.
- kidlinux, on 11/04/2008, -1/+4Haha, yeah, they're just gonna go and ***** up the environment in other ways.
- SuperMoses, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3"It's capitalism's fault for providing for the consumer's wants?"
Oh ya.. I forgot. Companies don't spend millions of dollars on manipulative marketing campaigns into making people want something they don't really need. Thank god those cigarette companies came along, because their was a burning desire for cigs by the populace. I'm sure their large campaigns to make cigarettes cool had no effect.
Here's someone who helped people get what they "want":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
Btw, we can apply this kind of manipulation to why Bush was re-elected. Divert from the issues and make it more about qualities. Who would we rather have a beer with? Forget the fact that the majority of Americans, according to polls, favour universal health care and the kyoto agreement... they vote Bush because election campaigns aren't about these issues. They're about whether the candidates are patriots, likeable guys, etc - aviazn, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3Yes, we are incapable of lowering consumption unless we have major incentive. Humans are animals; animals consume resources until their populations crash. What's more extravagant: seeding the ocean with iron, or thinking that we can enforce widespread behavioral change that goes against millions of years of human nature on every human on the planet? One is a technological challenge; the other is a political one. Personally, I'd expect faster technological progress than political progress.
- Vodd9, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3I've been thinking about this: How about a few mega-chimneys which could be at the same time mega-elevators that would reach into outer space so they can be used both to get rid of greenhouse gases and for space exploration.
- atmenterprises, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3Absolutely not.
- Humpasaur, on 11/04/2008, -1/+4Completely and transparently insane. Popular Mechanics is just industry hype -- the solution involves autonomous technolgy, sustainable design, permaculture...not further huge industrial programs with unforeseen side effects.
Just because it looks cool on a computer doesn't mean it's good design -- or even sane. - wunksta, on 11/06/2008, -0/+2@kidlinux
solar variation only counts for so much. the actual milankivotich cycles that rockky was referring to, actually play an important part in our history as do ghg emissions. its a combination of all factors. unless you actually understand those factors, you cant really just blame it on what you think is causing it without understanding it. - badenglishihave, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3Um... what? I'm pretty sure they haven't.
Global warming is real; there is just hardly any data to suggest that it's man made. Nature will correct itself eventually. - vinbot, on 11/05/2008, -0/+2Interesting responses.
Barackalypse - If I had a magic coin to make wishes, I'd wish for you to grow some brain cells. Change, whether we want it not, will always happen. Fact is, humans are causing an accelerated warming of the earth. If you don't want to accept that, then we are on completely different topics. If you do accept this idea, why would you oppose finding renewable alternatives, combined with conservation measures?
blast_flame - Wow. If you can't agree that there is "intrinsic value in the earth remaining wild," we really don't have a heck of a lot to discuss.
Planetary climate engineering is risky (agree/disagree?) and there are other things we need to do first. Like dealing with a major cause of the problem -- fossil fuels. I'm not asking anything from any person who can't acknowledge this reality except, get the ***** outta the way, cuz CHANGE is coming! - Rockkybox, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3When some forgotten genius made the first domesticated fire, humans began to adapt their environment to suit them instead of adapting to the environment, this is just a continuation of that. Of course none of these ideas should be put into effect without a serious analysis of the consequences(did the cloud idea make anyone else think of the clouds in the matrix?).
From a description of the last ice age in a short history of nearly everything:
'blizzards with hurricane force winds were common. Temperatures routinely dropped to minus 45 Celsius, and polar bears padded the southern English dales''
We managed to get through it as a species, but populations were very low and scattered, and people were naturally more adept at dealing with harsh conditions, imagine conditions like that with our present day population, I don't think humans would be completely wiped out but the number of deaths would be astronomical, sure the world will survive, but not many people will, so I for one am for the advancement of climate controlling technology.
I am also interested in your position on global warming, it is clear that greenhouse gases in our atmosphere absorb more of the suns energy, and it is also clear that we have unlocked ALOT of the CO2 that was stored underground as fossil fuels, so what makes you doubt it? - deinem, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3Dugg for special surprise ending: "None of the above." You sure got me popularmechanics.com
- SuperMoses, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2aviazn: The problem is not that humans are consuming things they need, they're over consuming things they want. This is the side effect of capitalism. Products are pushed to your face on a daily basis and extremely sophisticated marketing campaigns convince you that you *need* these products. This causes humans to behave differently from other animals in that we consume useless crap because we're convinced we need this useless crap.
This problem (humans over consuming things they want) is not due to human nature. It's due to the nature of the system. A system that pushes consumption at all costs. Anything for profit, irregardless of it's effects on humans, society, and the environment. - chase001, on 11/04/2008, -2/+4Wow. And here I thought the Global Warming Denierosaur went extinct like the other dinosaurs. Next you'll tell me there are still Flat Earthosaurs.
- atmenterprises, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3@badenglishihave. Go to the NASA or NOAA sites and look up temperature variations for the last decade. You'll see. But we are in agreement: it's not man-made.
- Barackalypse, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3Comments like this make it clear to me the problem for many environmentalists isn't really climate change or any other physical occurance, its simply that they don't like a particular activity and latch onto it as a reason to try and force everyone else to change. If there was a magic coin to toss into the ocean and reverse global warming, there would still be people insisting, like you, that we need to stop using fossil fuels or recycle or keep our houses at 65 degrees in the winter and 80 in the summer.
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3Fastest and cheapest benefit comes from cutting back on your energy consumption. Cut WAY back, it's not hard, but takes some adjustment. Get rid of your car is the big step. You can do it.
- wunksta, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1there would still be valid reasons to get off fossil fuels. energy independence and keeping energy prices low. i dont see whats wrong with those things, but maybe you do?
- wunksta, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1i would say that the value is in ensuring that we dont ***** the environment up. its about maintaining it so that it provides for us but we dont over consume it and leaving nothing for us.
short term profit in exchange for long term negative effects is NOT a way to run a world. i could be wrong, but we need to protect the place we live to make sure we can still live there in the future. - atmenterprises, on 11/04/2008, -2/+3What do you mean "wait"? They've been dropping for a decade.
- dave11980, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2Just out of curiosity, did this spike begin before, or after the industrial revolution? Also, to quote the Digg statisticians, correlation does not equal causation.
- JulioChavez, on 11/04/2008, -2/+3Any layperson that looks at the 600,000 year CO2 and temperature charts can see that CO2 levels are much higher than ever before ( at least since 4 "ice ages" ago, anyway ) and that rising CO2 levels are closely correlated to rising temperatures and vice versa.
Is it just a coincidence that the CO2 levels are so much higher now? No. We did it. If you would expect the chart to continue past the present day, it would seem that we are at the bottom of a large upward spike in temperature followed by who knows what. Even if we slow CO2 emissions, it won't matter much at all. Fossil fuels are on their way out. The CO2 levels will fall when we stop burning oil and coal ( and stop chopping the world's forests down, IMO ) The potential damage is already done. The reason some people don't believe all this is because it has become a political issue. It shouldn't be. We should reduce emissions because they are poisonous, if for any reason - not because they are warming the planet. That just doesn't matter.
We need to tap the Sun in a big way. All the energy we could ever use and more is just beaming away into deep space like a trillion times per second. Space based solar IS the ultimate future energy source, ( barring fusion or ZPE breakthroughs ) so I think we should be laying the groundwork now.
More of our personal energies should be invested into discussing and debating how we are going to deal with our problem of a growing population and dwindling resources, not into arguing about which scientists are bought by whom. - randumbusername, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1well you know most of the people complaining about waste don't want to live like the amish.
your government is pushing for more consumption. barack wants to distribute money to people so you can continue to consume and keep up growth.
hollywood and the feminist movement probably had more to do with cigarette growth than anything. - wjboyer, on 11/06/2008, -0/+1I know that the average American home is responsible for about 40% of energy usage in the USA. In light of the overwhelming grassroots campaign success by the President-Elect Obama, do you know of any initiative that would grant tax credits, low interest federally insured loans, or any other program that would encourage the general homeowner to have their homes become more energy efficient, and even partially self-subsistent with regard to power usage?
I know that by using Geo-Thermal and heat pump technology used to both heat and cool homes, natural gas usage could be lowered significantly, and, that using wind generation and solar panels, centralized electrical generation needs over the aggregate could be lowered significantly. The increased demand for these green technologies would boost the economy through employment and manufacture of heat pump, solar, and insulation components. The decreased use of natural gas could be redirected to be used in our transportation needs, thus reducing the carbon emissions and acting as a bridge to newer electrical and hydrogen cell transportation technologies (which themselves offer a huge employment and manufacturing potential). The subsequent decrease in demand for fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel and coal offer huge monetary savings as well as reduction of carbon. The cost savings for federal, state, local government offices, as well as schools could also be enormous.
Natural gas usage for transportation would keep the demand for natural gas up, so there would be no loss of jobs, the technology necessary to retrofit present transportation systems would boost employment and manufacturing, and the cost savings to the individual and to business would help boost disposable and investment income.
The decrease of electrical usage would not only serve our rather ancient electrical distribution systems, so that they could be then more easily upgraded. The savings per household could easily off set the initial expense, and the added disposable income could boost the economic decline that we are experiencing now.
Can you see the Federal Government helping the homeowner in this way? Are there even conversations regarding these options?
It seems that band-aid fixes to Wall Street and other corporations are just giving them a little breathing room so that they can (and have been caught recently) do business as usual at the expense of the general population.
I have an approximately 3500 sq ft. house, and it is estimated that by spending about $35,000 to retrofit my house with geothermal heat pump technology, my $200/mo natural gas bill can be reduced to $50/mo and my electrical usage reduced by 40-60% which would result in a $100/mo savings. So, if I look at a $250.00 per month savings, or $3,000.00 per year with the added value of reducing the carbon footprint of my home and my automobile usage, that would add maybe $100.00 per year to my 30 year fixed mortgage. Local codes hinder the accomplishment of this goal, but through Federal regulation, much like that of the FCC regulations permitting homeowners to have antennae and satellite dishes for communications, the red-tape could be significantly reduced. - wunksta, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1the spike before the industrial revolution, the "medieval warm period" had its own causes, possibly coming out of the ice age that came before it. although its also been considered that there isnt enough evidence to suggest a world wide "warm period" spike in that time.
even with the warm period considered, we are significantly warmer in comparison.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley20 ...
interesting stuff - wunksta, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1hey thanks, i was trying to remember that guys name.
- Barackalypse, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2"Quick, we need a cover story so people will still buy into our global warming propaganda even though the Earth has stopped warming"
- blast_flame, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2What exactly is the problem with domesticating the earth? The value the environment gives us, the real reason we should protect the environment is it supports the systems we sapient beings need to live and prosper, nothing more. If we can gain more by domesticating the earth then we lose then why not? There is not an intrinsic value in the earth remaining wild.
- GeorgeTirebiter, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2Actually KAOS (remember "Get Smart" from the 60s?) came up with the best solution a long time ago. It goes like this: put a very large fan at the north pole and point it south.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 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