What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
39 Comments
- elijahyossie, on 10/06/2009, -0/+16I think that these would be fascinating to read anyway, let alone the climate and weather information.
- muzzy, on 10/06/2009, -1/+10I doubt the pollution during WWII was nearly as much as it is currently, or has been for decades.
Ya, you had a war machine running, but the world was far less industrialized and even in the developed nations, while the war was going on, consumer goods production and normal pollution such as personal travel, etc. was dramatically cut back.
Also, those two "earth shattering explosions" actually put off a lot less pollution than your standard firebombing, not to mention the hundreds of nuclear tests that followed WWII and were much bigger detonations than those over Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
So, in short, no, WWII-era 1940s still would have a tiny carbon footprint compared to modern society.
Why are we even talking about this? This article is about 18th century ships... - HuangFeng, on 10/06/2009, -0/+6"Fine, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred thousands of times throughout history. In fact, most of the dramatic changes happened before humans even existed."
@TimTheTaxMan: Your logic is flawed. Nature makes changes previously therefore humans can never be responsible for any changes. On can definitely accept your first statement then argue (with evidence) that humans ARE indeed responsible for the bulk of the current warming. The "debate" that you are hearing most nearly always comes from politically or otherwise motivated groups with poor/irrelevant/no credentials. The overwhelming science points very strongly to humans being responsible for the current warming. - drmangrum, on 10/06/2009, -1/+7Meh. While captains are notorious for logging lots of information, the data will be highly suspect since there is no guarantee their instrumentation was accurate,calibrated, or recorded correctly. Each measurement would have to be taken with a substantial margin of error. While that margin would become smaller the closer the logs get to modern measuring device, it still means the old data is polluted.
- Trent1492, on 10/06/2009, -2/+7Hello Taxman,
"Fine, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred thousands of times throughout history. In fact, most of the dramatic changes happened before humans even existed."
You just committed the Genetic Fallacy Argument. Just because something has happened in the past for one reason does not preclude it from happening now for a different reason. E.G. People have died of lung cancer long before cigarettes ever existed; thus cigarettes can not cause cancer.
"If we accept that, I’d argue that climate change is a natural part of Earth’s history."
This time, however, we know that it is humans causing it. Do you really think that the geophysicists and astrophysicist of the world have not ruled out natural causes through such means as using satellites to monitor the sun's out put. Really?
"Even if humans are contributing (which is debatable), why is this time so different that we should engage in extremely expensive (in terms of money and raw economic output) methods of controlling it?"
You have made the presumption that no action will entail no cost. What price do you put on reduced agricultural output because: of shifting rain patters, depleted glacier run off, increased salinity of soil, increased vulnerability to storm surges, and increasing the length of stay and the latitude of crop pests? Think about that. That is just the affects on agriculture. - MyKillK, on 10/06/2009, -1/+6If the information supports man made global warming, it will be paraded in major stories in every newspaper as further proof of disastrous man made climate change.
If the information doesn't support man made global warming, or isn't accurate enough to make any real interpretation, you won't ever hear about it again.
That's how it goes in this totally lopsided debate. - Trent1492, on 10/06/2009, -0/+5"I think your assumption is just as invalid. In your world, nothing but humans can cause climate change."
Where did I say that? What I have said is that natural causes have been investigated and ruled out for the current warming.
"I freely admit that we may be contributing on some level. My point is that is really doesn’t matter."
Why does it not matter if humans are warming the planet? You declarations to the contrary are not fact.
"You make the presumption that action will change anything at all"
Why, yes, I do . It is a perfectly reasonable PREMISE to hold that since humans are causing the present warming by injection massive amounts of fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere that if we stop then we will lessen the damage. BTW, do not think I have not noticed that you never addressed the no action will have no cost argument.
"If we accept the argument that humans are solely responsible for this current change in climate, what are we going to do when the next natural shift occurs even when our carbon footprints are zero?"
Non Sequiter. It does not follow that since nature changes the climate that we should do nothing about humans changing the climate.
"Like it or not, the Earth doesn’t exist for our pleasure."
No one has argued that. Do you always pick strawman arguments and flail away at them. I think that you do your self a disservice by not addressing what is actually being said.
"Forests have turned to desert and back again with no thought of our well-being. We need to accept that the Earth is going to change whether we like it or not."
Again, you commit the Genetic Fallacy of reasoning. - Trent1492, on 10/06/2009, -0/+4"The idea of man made global warming is a total scam."
This message brought to you by: Exxon-Mobile. - Trent1492, on 10/07/2009, -0/+4You are not making any sense grammatically or logically. So far you have simply strung gibberish together. Try being coherent, for a start.
- genconkeeper, on 10/06/2009, -0/+4Ya think. British Navy Captains were anal about recording....everything....everywhere they went. Historians have known about this like forever. Who do you think 1st discovered the major sea currents....captains of the British navy. When Krakatoa when up 1883 it was the Royal Navy Log books that gave the best snapshot of world ocean condition during and after the event.
- Trent1492, on 10/08/2009, -0/+4"You know precisely what I told you. If your lens is there, find the guru you think can show how it's avoiding detection."
I am sorry but I do not speak gibberish. - Trent1492, on 10/07/2009, -0/+4"show me the empirical evidence please."
Here you go:
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=3008
Google is your friend. - Trent1492, on 10/07/2009, -0/+4"Ice cores are most accurate but tell that CO2 levels went up After the warming periods historically."
In a naturally occurring climate cycle why would you expect that CO2 to increase without cause? The kicker here is that you can not explain the rest of the glacial/intergla without the CO2.
- Trent1492, on 10/07/2009, -0/+4Take the little blue pill, please.
- Trent1492, on 10/07/2009, -0/+3I think the Magic Polar Bear has just suffered a mental break down.
- Trent1492, on 10/06/2009, -0/+3"Man made global warming is a falsehood, it exist's only to herd people into buying new ***** they dont need to buy and pay new taxes they should not have to pay, all so the few can again capitalize on our ignorance and become more powerful and wealthy."
Please present primary evidence that the world's geophysicists have been engaged in multi-decade long conspiracy to defraud the public. - TimtheTaxMan, on 10/06/2009, -5/+8I’ll bet if we gather enough evidence, we will find that the climate has changed hundreds of times throughout history, even before people were around!
- twiztidsinz, on 10/06/2009, -0/+3You'll notice a lack of "Here be Dragons"
DAMN YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! - twohoundogs, on 10/06/2009, -0/+3Dugg for not only the scientific aspect but for the historical aspect and being put online for everyone.
- Trent1492, on 10/09/2009, -0/+3I am not fluent in crazy talk. Please go find a fellow inmate, in the asylum, to converse with.
- Trent1492, on 10/10/2009, -0/+3"Answer why your Magic Lens Church can't produce a lens, cultist"
I am sorry but I do not answer fantasy questions put out by the delusional. I have been told it only increased your already rich fantasy life. We here in reality land like to deal with these interesting things called FACTS.
"Think about it when you're down at the burger joint cleaning the grease vat in your paper hat."
Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that you are also a raging homophobe? I think that it might have something do with your over the top Internet Bad Guy impression. P - Ninh, on 10/06/2009, -2/+4Ian Pilmer refers to this information in his book on climate change.
- drmangrum, on 10/06/2009, -1/+3Wrong information is just as bad as no information. It may be even worse since many researchers don't have the objectivity to interpret data impartially as the goal is already defined.
- Litespeed, on 10/06/2009, -0/+2"It's not the earth that's in trouble, just the people who live on it."
- The Streets - TimtheTaxMan, on 10/06/2009, -7/+9Fine, climate change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred thousands of times throughout history. In fact, most of the dramatic changes happened before humans even existed.
If we accept that, I’d argue that climate change is a natural part of Earth’s history. Even if humans are contributing (which is debatable), why is this time so different that we should engage in extremely expensive (in terms of money and raw economic output) methods of controlling it? - MistrBrownstone, on 10/06/2009, -0/+2They are just thinking of this now?
- MyKillK, on 10/06/2009, -1/+2Totally wrong! Having incorrect information that you believe is true is far more dangerous than having no information.
- bdbr, on 10/06/2009, -1/+2While the nuclear explosions in Japan may seem "earth shattering" compared to conventional bombing, they was really minor compared to the nuclear weapons tested in later years. Those bombs were 15 and 21 kilotons; in 1961 alone, there were 140 nuclear weapons tested with capacities in the megatons - the largest being 2,714 times as powerful as the most powerful bomb dropped on humans.
A nuclear war today could ***** the climate up in a major way...and the wasteland left behind would make Hiroshima look mild in comparison. - FauOz, on 10/08/2009, -0/+1Hmmm
I think this explains why there is a warming on all the planets now?????????????? - Fitjarald, on 10/07/2009, -0/+1It is true, Tim, that the earths climate does shift, that it goes through natural heating and cooling cycles, and that we are experiencing that sort of shift right now. I agree that the earths natural cycles don't care about your well being (or mine for that matter), but you see, I do. Therefore it is vital that we do something to either combat climate change or mitigate the amount of change, both while planning for the uncertain future ahead of us. We have adapted every aspect of our society to function in the current climate, and with a change (natural or human caused) we will have to re-adapt. Why would I not want to plan for such an uncertain future now? Or, is your outlook on life so bleak that survival is a low priority for you? Then, I don't care about your opinion, but if you do care to live, then how can you not want to do something?
- twohoundogs, on 10/06/2009, -1/+2While all that is true, it beats the hell out of having nothing.
- Trent1492, on 10/06/2009, -5/+6I would be more impressed when you guys stop setting up Red Herring Arguments that no one else makes.
- Trent1492, on 10/06/2009, -4/+4Ian Plimer is fraud:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_scienc ... - Benoldays, on 10/07/2009, -1/+1show me the empirical evidence please. There is a missing link in the science, can you find it?
- FauOz, on 10/07/2009, -1/+1Unfortunately all their instruments were off 3-5 degrees. Ice cores are most accurate but tell that CO2 levels went up After the warming periods historically.
- MyKillK, on 10/06/2009, -4/+2The idea of man made global warming is a total scam. In fact, the data set that has been used in numerous "hockey-stick" type papers has been revealed as unreliable and possibly cherry-picked. Gee, what a surprise. Another hockey-stick theory bites the dust.
- allisonV12, on 10/06/2009, -4/+2I wonder if their was any (slight) climate change during WW2,the incredible amount of pollution being spewed into the atmosphere and the oceans,cities burning almost daily and ships sinking by the hundreds,then to top it all off with two earth shattering explosions that burned cities to the ground.
- TimtheTaxMan, on 10/06/2009, -5/+3“E.G. People have died of lung cancer long before cigarettes ever existed; thus cigarettes can not cause cancer”
I think your assumption is just as invalid. In your world, nothing but humans can cause climate change.
I freely admit that we may be contributing on some level. My point is that is really doesn’t matter.
“You have made the presumption that no action will entail no cost.”
You make the presumption that action will change anything at all. If we accept the argument that humans are solely responsible for this current change in climate, what are we going to do when the next natural shift occurs even when our carbon footprints are zero?
Like it or not, the Earth doesn’t exist for our pleasure. Forests have turned to desert and back again with no thought of our well-being. We need to accept that the Earth is going to change whether we like it or not. - quistoman, on 10/06/2009, -4/+1Man made global warming is a falsehood, it exist's only to herd people into buying new ***** they dont need to buy and pay new taxes they should not have to pay, all so the few can again capitalize on our ignorance and become more powerful and wealthy.
Climate change is real you say NOOOOO! I dont know about you but it changes every six months here fairly drastically so the idea it could change significantly over years sounds like a idea that should be common knowledge to me.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is