What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
357 Comments
- AmnesiacJack, on 06/26/2009, -47/+110But MIT doesn't know jack crap who do they think they are with their fancy diplomas and education! Clearly life time politicians and big money government officials know best! Booo with science and facts het any one wanna use this jump to conclusions mat I bought?
- MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -15/+69Everybody: read the MIT report yourself before jumping to stupid conclusions based on this sensationalistic and misleading headline.
- Madrigalian, on 06/26/2009, -39/+73Well, let's go ahead and tax the ***** out of everyone and raise fuel costs to the point that no one can afford it anyway. No reason to ruin a good government tax plan with science and critical thought.
- MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -12/+44Here is MIT's actual statement. Read it without the spin and see if you can find the part that says humans don't contribute to global warming:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
Don't forget this sentence, right in the second paragraph:
"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming." - radicaldementia, on 06/26/2009, -10/+40Did any of you actually look at the MIT report? The report is solely focused on methane, and does not even mention CO2, which is the primary cause of man-made global warming. Nowhere in this report does it say that global warming is part of the Earth's natural cycle.
- jonnyeuchre, on 06/26/2009, -15/+44
For me, climate change is a moot point. If you don't want a cleaner earth, then you're a ***** idiot. End. Of. Story. - daveesq, on 06/26/2009, -10/+35This article is an excellent example of selective quoting out of context. Buried.
- MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -10/+34Here is MIT's statement. Read it without the spin and see if you can find the part that says humans don't contribute to global warming:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
Don't forget this sentence, right in the second paragraph:
"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming." - MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -5/+27Here is the statement. Read it without the spin and see if you can find the part that says humans don't contribute to global warming:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
Don't forget this sentence, right in the second paragraph:
"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming." - beatle42, on 06/26/2009, -2/+22"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming."
That seems to be a bit of a difference from the claims here, don't you think? - inactive, on 06/26/2009, -2/+18Actually, the UN said that.
- beatle42, on 06/26/2009, -5/+21Well, since the dailykos article has quotes from the MIT team that did the study, perhaps you should listen to the actual people who's study is being reported no, not the spin from someone who is claiming it says things that do not square with the claims of those who did the study. "Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming."
Seems like even if you're trying to pick an authority to believe, you probably picked the wrong one anyway. - lindenwold, on 06/26/2009, -2/+16science doesn't stand a chance against political urgency.
- voyetra8, on 06/26/2009, -5/+18Can't wait to see all of the people who usually bash the scientific studies that say global warming is man-made come in here and praise THIS scientific study, because THIS study reaffirms their world view.
SCIENTISTS ARE MORONS, EXCEPT FOR THESE SCIENTISTS, BECAUSE THEY AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL BELIEF.
Oh and: http://digg.com/environment/Science_study_by_MIT_c ...
That's from 2008. Old news baby. - cambob76, on 06/26/2009, -6/+19FTA:"it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle" - NOT CONCLUSIVE
FTA:"Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at "alarming rates." -NOT CONCLUSIVE
FTA:"We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times" - NOT CONCLUSIVE
Title is misleading. - inactive, on 06/26/2009, -5/+18I say we stop sending billions of dollars to oil producing dictators and terrorists.
- beatle42, on 06/26/2009, -4/+16And the authors of the study being talked about here say that it is man-made as well. Go figure!
"Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming." - digghasnoethics, on 06/26/2009, -9/+21What kind of ***** headline and report is this?
Not only does the blog article not make any statement about human induced climate change, a simultaneous rise in methane around the world is FULLY in accordance with global warming. As temperatures rise, methane is released from bogs, melting tundra and increased decay rates. Worst case you start getting methyl hydrate releases. All of which are temperature dependent on a global scale, and if that temperature rise is manmade (which it is) then so is the methane.
Buried with extreme force. - subscriber, on 06/26/2009, -2/+14The headline of this digg submission is completely dishonest, as is the article to which it links. The original MIT article says nowhere that the MIT team concludes anything other than, "Methane levels rose uniformly across the globe." They even said it may be because of a drop in OH, rather than an increase in methane production.
Nowhere did they say they were "baffled," as the linked article stated. ("What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. ")
When people resort to lying in order to get the world to accept a belief, then they are probably pushing a false belief. - SandWraith, on 06/26/2009, -6/+18So global methane emissions are increasing worldwide. Global temperature is increasing. Huh. But I guess it's not like rises in methane levels could be a feedback from global warming, right? Global warming must be a lie!
- johnnysaucepn, on 06/26/2009, -2/+14Yes, and if you'll remember, it's the fox that provides the assurance that everything is going to be okay that ends up eating everyone.
- askantik, on 06/26/2009, -8/+19And the scientific community still overwhelmingly does.
- thebiznacho, on 06/26/2009, -4/+14I read the actual MIT article posted as a link on the bottom of the page: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
It doesn't make any claim about contradicting the idea that humans are the primary source of the increase in greenhouse gases. In fact it says otherwise, "Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming."
Now of course there are natural processes that produce methane. This article is simply stating that the most recent increase in global methane levels appears to be from such natural process. They propose that, "A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas."
The dailygalaxy.com article made conclusions that the scientist at MIT did not. If their only source is that which is linked at the bottom, then they're claim doesn't hold much water. - Taiyoryu, on 06/26/2009, -1/+11Summary: A group of researchers measure a simultaneous rise in methane across the globe. They theorize that the rise in the Northern hemisphere is due to increased methane production, and the rise in the Southern hemisphere is due to decreased methane destruction. Neither hypothesis has been validated. (There's nothing in the original source that contradicts that humans are one of the sources of greenhouse gas production. If anything, the original article is neutral.)
Bullet points:
* Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming.
* However, since early 2007 the balance has been upset, according to a paper on the new findings being published this week in Geophysical Review Letters.
* Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."
* One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe.
* A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas.
* However, a potential cause for an increase in Southern Hemispheric emissions is less clear. An alternative explanation for the rise may lie, at least in part, with a drop in the concentrations of the methane-destroying OH. - jonnyeuchre, on 06/26/2009, -3/+12Oy, that couldn't be more misguided. First of all, wealth comes at a cost, and that cost is paid for by the earth. That green green grass, chemicals; your golf course - a chemical dump; your huge ***** house - don't get me started.
The cleaner air is a direct result of government policy curbing excesses from capitalism. Do you think lead gas would have gone away all by itself. How about the Clean Air Act? A product of unfettered capitalism?
Capitalism is the name we give to the system we use to feed our people. Unfortunately capitalism ass ***** mother nature at ever opportunity, and it's only public policy that makes it keep it in it's pants. - EtherGnat, on 06/26/2009, -6/+15Anybody commenting on this article needs to read the source link first. The Digg submission in wildly biased and totally inaccurate. It's fine to have a healthy debate on global warming, but do we have to resort to outright lying?
Despite the fact that nobody at MIT said anything like what this article implies they said, I'm sure when I turn on Rush Limbaugh this afternoon he'll be repeating it shamelessly. It makes me sick. - hauntedchippy, on 06/26/2009, -10/+19Hello Wingnuts! Nice to see you selectively quoting an article from 2008, the authors of which all agree that anthropogenic climate change is real!
- osci99, on 06/26/2009, -1/+10Step 1: Find study that states climate change is affected by man's meddling with the earth... "Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries,"
Step 2: Publish article stating global warming has a direct correlation to man's activities
Step 3: Place opposite conclusion in title
Step 4: ??????????? (count # of retards that A. don't read articles and B. make bold political statements having only read the title)
Step 5: Profit!! - WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2009, -2/+11You're saying that wealthy people inherently want to clean up their environment. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long while.
Ever think that maybe the reason we've got a cleaner environment is because the environmentalists worked hard to enforce cleaner emissions? Factory owners don't implement cleaner practices because they've got more money- they do it because they're REQUIRED to by law.
By the way, more wealth in the system does NOT mean everyone is automatically wealthier. It just means that there's more wealth in the hands of the wealthy. - rilus, on 06/26/2009, -3/+12Why is greenfyre being buried? Are people not reading the original article from MIT?! It doesn't say anything about natural cycle. In fact, MIT has concluded that our methane emissions have more than tripled since pre-industrial times.
Look, don't believe KoS or greenfyre's blog. But also ignore the spin from the dailygalaxy blog. Just read the damn original MIT article at:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ... - WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2009, -5/+14You might try reading the actual paper, rather than the spun version. It basically says we ARE responsible.
- MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -3/+12Are you saying we shouldn't regulate CO2 emissions, because that will grow wealth and result in a cleaner earth? I'm really not sure I follow you.
I think you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't "wealth." It doesn't take that much money to fill your basic needs for shelter and security. And if wealth in this country were more evenly distributed, then more of those basic needs would be met and the place would be cleaner. So maybe rather than more "wealth," what we really need is a more just economic system. - hackiavelli, on 06/26/2009, -0/+8Also:
"A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas."
So basically human-caused global warming may be neutralizing natural methane sinks and making the process even worse. - askantik, on 06/26/2009, -9/+17A million studies say we caused, and now one or two say we didn't, and the skeptics are satisfied. I'll gladly bow out in shame if more and more studies are done that come up with this conclusion, but until then, the odds are still in favor AGW. It is still the most common position held by the majority of the scientific community. And FYI, this study only looked at methane. Meanwhile, the FAO did a study showing our methane production was a significant problem. This hasn't been the only study on methane. (Oh, but I'm sure the FAO just wants you to be AFRAID!!! -_-)
- GovernmentsGun, on 06/26/2009, -24/+32Very interesting. I've withheld my judgment of global warming for years because I've seen a lot of bias and froth coming from both sides. It's good to see a voice that I trust now begin to speak out.
But, they say it merits more study to come to a conclusion. So these findings are interesting, but don't yet conclude the discussion. - radicaldementia, on 06/26/2009, -5/+13First of all, this report clearly says that the increase in methane levels began in 2007. Clearly this cannot account at all the for the observed warming that's occurred over the last century.
Second, it should be no surprise that there are natural fluctuations in the global levels of various greenhouse gases. However, as so many studies have confirmed, the global levels of CO2 have skyrocketed since the beginning of the industrial revolution and analysis of C14 radiometric dating proves that most of this increase has come from burning of fossil fuels. This is the primary evidence of man's direct impact on the global environment. Can you please point out precisely in this MIT article where this evidence is refuted? - drallo, on 06/26/2009, -2/+10It clearly doesn't make you think, because then you'd be using your brain to learn facts instead of being indoctrinated by people who do not study science.
- SpinningHead, on 06/26/2009, -2/+10Reading is for elitists.
- funkeepickle, on 06/26/2009, -1/+9Reading? Psh, reading's for losers. I don't need to look at research and get educated on an important issue to form a closely held opinion based on my political views and start shouting at the other side!
- BalancingAct, on 06/26/2009, -23/+31"Why is it that the supposed "skeptics" are so freaking gullible?"
Maybe because it's better than being a clueless and fanatical environmentalists who refuses to believe any science that disagrees with his AGW religion, and calls people "gullible" who are far more objective than he.
Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? - hfactor, on 06/26/2009, -2/+9The funny part is that it's almost only politicized in the US. The rest of the civilized world has long accepted man-made global warming on the basis of a broad scientific consensus. What you believe to be a "debate" is just a ridiculous little charade driven by short-sighted corporate interests.
- MalarkeyPN, on 06/26/2009, -2/+9Ooops. Try this one?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ... - KnightMareInc, on 06/26/2009, -1/+8buried for inaccurate headline
- temsi, on 06/26/2009, -2/+9"...is kind of a big deal."
So is reading the ACTUAL REPORT. - radicaldementia, on 06/26/2009, -4/+11@drmangrum
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. The relative effectiveness of methane vs CO2 is completely meaningless in this context without knowing their concentrations in the atmosphere. Methane, by volume, may be a more "potent" greenhouse gas than CO2, but because it is much more scarce in the atmosphere, it accounts for about 1/4 as much of the greenhouse effect as CO2. While a global increase in the amount of methane would have a more profound effect than an increase of the same amount of CO2, our observations have shown that increases in CO2 have been far, far more dramatic than methane.
Therefore, CO2 has undoubtedly played a much larger role in global warming than methane. - WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2009, -3/+10So because everyone argues about it and some people have chosen sides, we should just ignore the problem and hope it goes away? Is that really what you just said?
- spfldnet, on 06/26/2009, -2/+9This site is called "The Great Discoveries Channel" and is in no way associated with the real "Discovery Channel." Typical Neocon Tactic.
- beatle42, on 06/26/2009, -10/+17Which science is it that disagrees with man-made global warming? Hint: it's not the one talked about here. Quote from the authors: "Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming."
Doesn't sound like they really doubt that there's a "human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming" does it? - greenfyre, on 06/26/2009, -4/+11What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what ...
Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do ...
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co ...
A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/di ...
Calculating the greenhouse effect http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ... - SpinningHead, on 06/26/2009, -5/+11So you ignore countless studies and consensus that runs counter to your position, but cling on for dear life once an outlier study can be twisted to support your own? I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article either.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 363 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is