What is Digg?170 Comments
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42Yeah, but China's polluting too so we should'nt attempt to move to clean, renewable sources of domestic energy until they do.
Also, they're censoring the internet and quelling political descent so we should'nt stop until they do. - earthceltic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Someone find the Heart Ring, we need CAPTAIN PLANET
- Harbinger67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19In other news, U.S. accuse Inuits of destroying their way of viewing the Inuits as a simple, lovable, fur-wearing, nose-rubbing group of people.
- saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24What the flipping hell is this "A delegation of Inuit is to travel to Washington DC to provide first-hand testimony of how global warming is destroying their way of life and to accuse the Bush administration of undermining their human rights." So, now Bush is completely to blame for Global Warming?
The Inuit are protesting the US's policies as a whole which have been in place longer than the last 6 years. The reporter decided to make this a slam against Bush as well. Jebuz Cripes people, Bush is definitely getting a lot of flak for both good and bad decisions, but blaming him for global warming. WTFH?! I know it's part of the Democrat mentality to forget that anything ever occurred before Bush came into the office, but this is re-donk-ulous.
Still, I think I might sue the rotation of the earth because 60,000 years ago it got so cold to let these hoodlums cross over from China. - Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25China isn't going to be "also a big factor" China will be THE big factor
- ekso, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@BigManOnCampus:
Since when progress and environment cannot go hand in hand together? - GuitaristTom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19basically, everyone hates america again ... still
- trer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@AngryPenguin
Hoax or not, does it not make sense that we should at least strive for cleaner air and just a cleaner environment overall? Or is that too much to ask for? - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22Digg is quite amusing at times.
Would everyone agree that most Diggers believe in "Global Warming" being mans fault? Most would agree with Al Gore and even vote for him based solely on a poorly done documentary. Yet we know that as the poster above pointed out, Global Warming is a merely a "consensus" among scientists, not scientific fact. Not actually proved to be mans doing at all.
It seems that most Diggers rail against Christianity on a regular basis, who is that guy on YouTube that always is getting hype on Digg? Dawkins?
Anyways, most Diggers oppose religion because, well, it doesn't fit a scientific model, religion is based on faith, or we could say... "Consensus".
So the hypocrisy is astounding. If Diggers looked at Global Warming with as much scrutiny as religion, where would everyone stand?
Why won't Digg look at Global Warming with as much scrutiny as religion?
The believers are just as fanatical, the end result is a brainwashing in believing something that is not factually accurate.
So why the hypocrisy in the thought process? Why such a drastic difference in beliefs upon two things that are more identical than not? - dropoutfilms, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17...If by "moonbats" you mean people who care about our environment and indigenous peoples way of life.
- Infanticide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The *gargle* ice caps *gargle* melting *bubbles*
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11This is ridiculous. We ruined their way of life 100 years ago. But hey, without us they wouldn't have whiskey, meth, snowmobiles, or central heating.
- AkatsukiNoTobi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Global warming is a hoax because this article says so!
http://digg.com/environment/Global_Warming_is_a_hoax_2
/Do I really need to put an end sarcasm mark here? - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@floorman56
The Kyoto Protocol is a steaming pile of offal. It's only nominally about reducing CO2 emissions and primarily about funneling money from Annex 1 countries to Non-Annex 1 countries.
Before anybody replies that "it's a good first step" - that is akin to proclaiming that it is neccesary to take two steps backwards in order to take one step forward. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25well, mr and misses inuit... it isn't just the u.s.... china is also a big factor
check it out
http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com/2007/01/24-cough-too-far.html - speedo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I live in Ivujivik, you can google it. This is not about money, life is actually getting harder here. We do not have casinos and please stop making jokes, its not funny.
Food from the store are expensive and hunting is still needed for most people. It is not as simple as just saying things are different now, so we are complaining. I heard a prophecy from our elder passed down to her, Ivujivik will one day have trees. She also said everything will be ''destroyed'', but is not worried because this idea is normal to her...it is bound to happen.
How arent we warming up our planet? All the polution, houses, cars, factories, vehicles, etc heating everyday. No more then few small fires were on 500 years ago.
This is not about hating america either even though many know about the 9/11 conspiracies, etc. (jk) ;) You are our cousin and we visit you.
We see less and less snow every year since a long time. People used to travel on ice in june, we now travel by canoe. Our mountain is now dangerous and has many big brown patches of rocks, I remember sliding on that mountain. I have went in the toundra, fishing and hunting routes are not there anymore or we can barely go though them. Want me to go on?
I hope we can at least slow down the global warming or get prepared for the future. Let's build a better future. - AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -17/+23Global warming IS a hoax, there is no evidence to show that co2 emissions are causing global warming, or that global warming is even happening. The only thing that HAS happened is that scientists around the world have reached a CONSENSUS that global warming is happening. Now, tell me which step of the scientific method includes coming to a consensus about a hypothesis. Observation, Description, Prediction, Experimentation. Scientists can come to as many consensis as they want, that doesn't prove the theory.
The propaganda out there now only shows CORRELATION, correlation!=causation.
I am disappointed that the digg community would be taken in by this liberal media firestorm hellbent on demonizing americans and defecating on our intelligence.
I am willing to admit when I am wrong, so If you can prove otherwise, I will recant, if not, your eyes have been opened. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7They never blamed Bush for global warming. They blamed America. They blamed Bush for doing nothing about it.
And what can he do? one more time UNTIL THE BYRD-HAGEL RESOLUTION (S. Res. 98) IS REPELLED BY THE SENATE BUSH CANNOT GO WITH KYOTO!!!
ONLY the senate can repeal it!!!
For them who keeps forgetting
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[41][42] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[43] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Tell Senator Kennedy to repeal S. Res. 98 or shut the hell up. - GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@AngryPenguin47: did you really just say there was no evidence "that global warming is even happening" APART from the consensus of "scientists around the world"?
Riiight... do you really think that this global consensus was reached by all the scientists getting together and having a nice cup of tea? Isn't it possible that, just maybe, they all agree that something is happening to the climate because they have conducted a great deal of independent research and their findings have extensively peer reviewed?
There is little argument in the scientific community that the climate is changing.
The debate is simply about how much of this change is anthropogenic and whether we can do anything about it. - Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11No, no, no. It's "im in ur igloo stealing ur jennifer love hewitt."
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I dunno, I think my Toyota Corolla has less impact than say, the reversal of the planets magnetic fields...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/
After all, it is the earths magnetic field that shields us from cosmic rays...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
If you only had two choices in regards to what would cause a planetary wide climate change, would you choose:
A) The combustion engine?
B) The shifting of the planets magnetic poles?
Think about what a shift of the inner core of our planet would do to the climate compared to what pollution would do.
I'm definitely not saying pollution isn't bad, but lets put things in perspective here.
If you wanted to make a gazillion dollars would you...
A) inform people that global warming is caused by a process they have no control over?
B) Guilt people into believing they are the problem so that they will consume new technologies that make them feel guilt free?
Just food for thought. - eatsushi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9what if we all move into inuit territory, then they can't hate us because it will be like they are hating themselves! Genius!
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4actually since the winds in the Northern hemisphere travel from west to east, the "upstream" here would be China and the old Soviet Union.
- jkdrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Ah, so now global warming is the fault of the great evil Bush.
- sirber, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11I'd say sniffing gaz and drinking is killing their ways, not global warming.
- Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@ Erikbra81 and iloveliberals
You're missing the fact that they aren't saying "Let's pass the blame onto other places" I believe they are saying "We're not the only ones doing it, so don't bring your crusade just at us" Why should we take all the blame when we aren't doing it all? Maybe because it's cool to say that America is to blame? - speedo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I was there and met people from few places in Nunavik, they all agreed the global warming is happening. Traveling has been harder for both people and animals. Polar bears come to mind. There has been wolves too in our area (Ivujivik) and heard that there were alot in kuujjuaq, I dont know if this is a result of a changing climate.
- trer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Iloveliberals
The United States has been telling indigenous people (and not so politely, I might add) to go stuff themselves since they got here from Europe.
Educate yourself, please. - ralphc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4OK, laugh all you want, but I swear the headline read "Intuit accuse US of destroying their way of life with global warming" and wondered how global warming was affecting Quicken sales.
Maybe I should get away from the computer more. - William01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're right, majicjava, we don't know the exact mechanism that initiated every warming (or cooling) cycle in the past. And no one claims that increased CO2 is the only thing that can cause increased temperatures. What we are almost certain of, is that increased atmospheric greenhouse gases like CO2 WILL lead to an increase in global temperatures.
And as you point out above, global increases in CO2 (often after an initial small warming initiated by other causes) seems to have a strong correlation to increased global temperatures. Scientific studies of all available factors, combined with computer models, seems to show a causation between increased CO2 and increased global temperatures. If you are looking for some metaphysical causation, that is beyond the scope of science.
It was predicted that increased CO2 would lead to higher global temperatures. This seems to have taken place. What standard do you have for a successful test, and can it be achieved quickly, which is very important given current trends? - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You need to use an ascii symbol. For the "cents" character it's "& # 1 6 2 ;" in an HTML document. Take the spaces out, of course. Just my 2¢.
- topace3000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Their current "way of life" is dependent on products produced by the same factories apparently causing global warming. What is the US gonna do, turn off all the factories in the country? Still won't help, stuff will just get produced elsewhere. So either the Inuit are just ignorant/political pawns, or they're looking for help in the form of a handout. I'd say it's probably a little of both.
- trer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7let's pollute away! global warming isn't real! put more crap in the air. Let's drive SUVs at 5mpgs for ***** and giggles.
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Another point I'll add is about the "correlation between CO2 and temperature" all this means is that when one happens, the other soon occurs.
The problem is in real life the temps go up _before_ the CO2. This has been shown in study after study for both historical and current situations. Yet the global warming crowd never mentions it. - jstone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@magicjava:
A world where most of florida, lower manhattan, and many other low-lying regions (even whole countries) are underwater is not a better world either. The economy should come second to the planet, because if there is planet there is no economy. Think about it. - speedo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree to william01,
We should look at it this way: add just a little bit of water into ur glass every few minutes and see what happens. Look at the big picture. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@vikingcoder I've read your link and I see data indicating a correlation between CO2 and temperature, not a cause/effect relationship. These are not the same thing. There is no doubt a correlation exists. But a correlation does not mean, or even imply, a cause/effect. Especially when the alleged cause (CO2) occurred _after_ the effect (rise in temps).
@william01 I'm unaware of any scientist claiming to be able to explain why temps went up _before_ CO2. Could you provide a link to this info?
You say that our climate models have difficulty predicting every question about the climate I've asked with the exception of water vapor and cloud cover. Could you tell me what percentage of warming is due to water vapor and cloud cover? - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@magicjava
"Yet the global warming crowd never mentions it."
Depends on who you are counting as the "crowd". That assertion is certainly false when applied to climate scientists.
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 - William01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I think being able to look at a model and see an explanation for the data we know is a reasonable expectation. Current models cannot do this."
Climate scientists think it can, you think it can't.
Most of the things you ask are much harder to predict than if global average temperatures will increase, just as weather is much harder to predict than climate, and I do not know the current status, if any, of predictions for these events. The role of clouds and water vapor in determining the climate is pretty well known.
In the past at times the initial triggering mechanism for warming was something other than an increase in carbon dioxide, and preceded it often by centuries. That does not seem to be the case today:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical03.gif - Meathook, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6So it is the Canadians fault. Thanks goodness for once it is someone other than George Bush.
- spritom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I read "Intuit" too the first time through.
Oh Noes! Global Warming is killing Quicken, QuickBooks, and TurboTax! - right75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@william01:
What?! I just posted an article from the 70's that states that very claim! Read the article already.
As for global cooling being speculative -- that's true, it never happened. But what about global warming?! Is that not speculative as well? How can these people even hope to predict global warming when they can't even accurately predict the weather in our country a few days in advance?
Sorry, I don't see the evidence. All I see is a bunch of environmentalist whackos using the government to impose their agenda on the rest of us, and I refuse to participate. - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"And no, the climate models do _not_ show that CO2 can cause global warming."
Basic physics - that can be demonstrated in a laboratory - tells us that. Observations of past events can be used to refine the estimates of CO2 climate sensitivity. You don't need global climate models at all for some of the basics.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
"The models cannot tell us if warming would increase or decrease cloud cover."
Clouds are difficult because they both reflect light and trap heat, and the details of the effect depends of cloud type, cloud height, etc. I'll concede that is a source of uncertainty. Clouds _might_ be a source of negative feedback that are not fully accounted for in current models, but a) at most they would slow the increase in temps, not totally stop or reverse the increase in temps, and b) if anything the IPCC consensus has produced slightly undershooting predictions, so there doesn't seem to be a missing major negative influence.
"But that little fact is just left out of discussions on these models and global warming."
When it comes to your average digg discussion, you are correct. However, that assertion is false when it comes to climate scientists.
For example, here is a entire blog devoted to clouds:
http://atoc.colorado.edu/headinacloud/ - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The "UN bureaucrats" thing is just a talking point that can be easily disproved by looking over the actual author list of the IPCC report.
The primary harm to the Inuit currently is from melting permafrost, not from the currently modest sea level rise (article was inaccurate on this point). Melting sea ice can also impact their hunting. - professor357, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4William01, your dynamic equilibrium argument assumes that there is no outside force affecting the planet. Let me remind you that the sun is the major source of energy inpinging on our planet, and it is not a constant. Solar inactivity was the cause of the "Little Ice Age" that global warming advocates continually try to ignore. And solar activity is the source of the current warming trend. Even without the presence of humans, the biosphere is cycling carbon between ocean storage, land storage, and the atmosphere. And as the solar-induced warming increases the temperature of the earth and its oceans, additional carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere, in magnitudes that dwarf the anthropogenic CO2 inventory. Anthropogenic global warming advocates believe that human CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm, because they see a correlation between CO2 and temperature. HOWEVER, correlation is not proof of causation. Those of us who believe that the current warming trend is part of the natural climatological variations of this planet understand that the CO2 concentrations are going up because the planet is warming. And that the human input of global warming gases to the process is not significant.
It's all well and good to talk about the IPCC inventory of anthropogenic GWG. However, it is important to realize that the inventory is the result of a political agenda, just as the summary conclusions and forecasts are biased against industrialized nations. For example, you probably realize that the methane emissions of cows are included in the inventory, to the tune of about a tenth of a metric ton of methane per year, per cow. What about the CO2 emissions of that same cow? Respiration uses oxygen and releases CO2, which comes out at a concentration of 6% CO2 [60,000 ppm CO2]. Why don't they count the CO2 emissions of cows in the IPCC inventory? Because then people might question why human respiration is not considered as a source of anthropogenic CO2 as well.
Your personal CO2 "footprint" due to respiration is more than 1/2 metric ton of CO2 per year. With an average of 1/2 a metric ton per human, and 6 billion humans, the planetary budget due to human respiration is more than 3 billion metric tons annually. That's more than 10% of the so-called anthropogenic inventory of carbon dioxide. Now add in the respiration from all of the domesticated animals, which wouldn't exist if humans weren't raising them, and we're talking about additional significant sources of CO2 amounting to about 30% of what they count... since respiration emissions aren't even considered by the IPCC. And they don't want to include this as a source, because it makes China, India, and third world countries with little industrial activity but with a lot of people look bad.
Not only that, but the realization that the IPCC inventory doesn't have all of the anthropogenic CO2 sources means that all the plans as to how much CO2 will have to be reduced to effect a significant change in "global warming" fall apart. When the world's population is increasing at a faster rate than the industrial nation's CO2 emissions, the Kyoto cutbacks would be correctly seen as a drop in the bucket. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My 2 cents is this case doesn't have a chance. For the court to a case seriously, you have to show harm. As hard as it may be for the global warming folks to believe, that's not going to be easy.
A report written by UN bureaucrats saying that untested computer models indicate oceans will rise 3 inches 100 years from now is going to be a pretty weak case. - William01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That is a popular press piece, not a peer-reviewed scientific article. From the RealClimate link:
"I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened." - GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@srodolff: I think william01 covered it quite well, but here is an analogy: imagine the carbon cycle as a fountain. Water (representing carbon) is pumped from the pool (absorbed carbon) and sprayed into the air (released into the atmosphere). It falls and lands back in the pool (is re-absorbed). That all works great for ages until someone comes along and adds 1/30th more water every day. It's not much but eventually the fountain will overflow.
If man-made emissions make up 1/30th of what the earth produces yearly (I'm not sure where you got that figure but I'll run with it) then that could mean that in 30 years you've doubled the total amount of CO2. - oifish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And how much money do you think he is getting from Gore?
- Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@professor357
"since respiration emissions aren't even considered by the IPCC."
Ever thought about why this is?
What is the _net_ carbon for a person or any animal over the animal's lifetime. Nearly zero. And what is the _net_ carbon after the body decays. Zero. The same holds true for plants as well.
Now if the carbon from the plant/animal gets "sequestered" in, for example, a peat bog - that causes a long term _reduction_ in carbon.
"And they don't want to include this as a source, because it makes China, India, and third world countries with little industrial activity but with a lot of people look bad."
Political paranoia is no substitute for scientific understanding. -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 