What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
5 Questions with Seth Godin view!
openforum.com - Seth Godin is the leading voice of marketing for this generation
170 Comments
- rilus, on 09/17/2009, -19/+43Waiting for 50 people to tell us how global warming is ***** because their summer has been really mild.
- greenfyre, on 09/17/2009, -16/+32because:
"global" = northern US
"climate" = last week
"reality" = personal ideologies? - boardthis, on 09/17/2009, -2/+17burried for inaccuracy. no ***** map.
- joculator, on 09/17/2009, -5/+15Al Gore made the whole thing up just to impress the Swedes.
- acknotSW, on 09/17/2009, -0/+10Science is as cut throat and brutal as business or politics. Look into some of the biggest scientific rivalries in history and you will individual men and women and teams of scientists trying to destroy each other’s careers, often at the expense of advances in research.
- carbonetc, on 09/17/2009, -7/+16Yes, the melted ice will stay magically suspended in the air around Greenland in order not to inconvenience us Americans.
- radicaldementia, on 09/17/2009, -7/+16Any scientific evidence for your claims?
In fact, the evidence suggests we are in an interglacial period, which is a period of warming within an ice age. However this period started 10,000 years ago, so that fact alone cannot account for anthropogenic warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial - rocknog, on 09/17/2009, -4/+12Statistically speaking, one data point does not represent a trend.
- carbonetc, on 09/17/2009, -2/+10Read her other comments. She's either a troll or she's functionally retarded. No sarcasm here.
- MacBandit, on 09/17/2009, -1/+8They mapped it but didn't produce a map or graph or anything visual?
- greenfyre, on 09/17/2009, -13/+20FTA "... they show that the ice sheet is very sensitive to the temperature."
That's not good news. It's consistent with a lot of other work
"Two degree rise could spark Greenland ice sheet meltdown"
http://www.physorg.com/news147001400.html
"Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003, rate of Greenland summer ice loss triples 2007 record"
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/18/greenland-an ...
There is enough ice on Greenland to raise sea level 7 m ... very not good - fulibs, on 09/17/2009, -11/+18The ice is melting?
BTW, Greenland was once a fertile farm land with lush rain forests. - NiftyG, on 09/17/2009, -5/+12Did anyone stop to think that -- even if a natural ice age is ending, pumping greenhouse gases into the air will just make that natural warming even worse?
- Rudegar, on 09/17/2009, -2/+8also a lot of co2 stored in the permafrost there
- trashymac, on 09/17/2009, -0/+6*click, scroll, no map, unamused, bury*
- WasabiBomb, on 09/17/2009, -7/+13And this affects the millions of people worldwide who would be displaced by rising water... how?
- radicaldementia, on 09/17/2009, -6/+12"Greenland was once a fertile farm land with lush rain forests"
Yes that's certainly true, same goes for Antarctica and the Sahara desert. But that's really beside the whole point of concerns over global warming.
There's little doubt that if the Earth continues to warm at it's present rate, one day the Earth will again be covered in tropics. However, when this happens naturally it occurs over millions of years and even then there is usually a mass extinction beforehand. The current anthropogenic warming is much faster, so there will undoubtedly be a mass extinction (which we are already witnessing in rain-forests and coral reefs) which will take eons or longer to recover. In the mean time, we'll be stuck with an ecosystem lacking much of the diversity it once had. - mfcjon, on 09/17/2009, -2/+7Hmmm... whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of your argument, ad hominem is not always a fallacy. For example, if you are engaged in an argument with an individual who lacks the necessary conceptualization of reality, or ontology if you are into big words, and you certainly are (check out that AD HOMINEM slam!), it is not a fallacy to suggest that their argument is not valid because it is from a person who lacks the capacity to present a reasoned argument.
I'm not saying you aren't capable of making an argument on this subject, just that it's occasionally tiresome to hear people use Latin words for fallacies in making an argument when their definition is not exactly correct. Just say, "Personal insults are not constructive in an ideological dialog." Nobody speaks Latin any more! Especially on digg!
The most ironic element is that DavidNiven uses an ad hominem attack on the submitter ("unless he has a hidden agenda") in his reply post! - wrathchilde, on 09/17/2009, -2/+7So was Antarctica. And most of the central plains of N America were a shallow sea.
- nuketrap, on 09/17/2009, -0/+5Oh I will, it will be the muddiest mud field ever... i'll have girls from the local area Wrestling each other in bikinis and broadcasted it back to the states to buy more mud...
- boardthis, on 09/17/2009, -0/+4106 in seattle this year. no mild summer here.
- inactive, on 09/17/2009, -2/+6Erm...what? I am a bit surprised by your angry and patronizing reaction. What conspiracy? to simplify, I said this: Scientists admit good science.
For example, gravity itself has been radically transformed by recent developments in physics, such as string theory and M-Theory, where the puzzling strength of gravity is explained by there being 11 possible dimensions. That's an example of good science, which has changed our understanding despite contradicting or correcting Newton and even Einstein.
So, if a scientist refuted gravity or global warming or the existence of the mind using solid science, the scientific community would find it very interesting. They might mock it, but they'd look at it, because they have respect for the scientific method. Then they would work to refute it, but they'd respect good science. Cuz science is not about what is "commonly accepted" it's about the search for what IS. - kellydehn, on 02/07/2010, -3/+7Yes, soon we can farm in Greenland once again as they did 500 years ago, before people had to leave, because they got iced out. The 'Viking Daily Times' used to refer to it as Global Cooling' and called on Odin, for the gods to change their evil ways.
- smitas, on 09/17/2009, -10/+14Let's map, what we can do to prevent about it also.
- bigbenorr, on 09/17/2009, -1/+5assuming that ice in the arctic ocean is also melting at the same rate, you could see some reduction in global ocean volumes, since ice occupies more volume than liquid water, but granted, if alot of ice melts from a continent, clearly there would be a rise in sea level. I don't really know what the numbers are but I think you could argue that the subject at least merits some analysis to determine how much ice is floating, and how much is on land.
- ozydingo, on 09/17/2009, -1/+5@carbonetc
I know, Poe's laws yaddi yadda...and yes, i read some of her other comments...but there is simply no way this is not sarcasm. It's simply not possible. No way. Can't be. No. - rocknog, on 09/17/2009, -3/+7DavidNiven, once again you prove to the world that you simply don't have any grasp of science whatsoever. Even if global warming is completely wrong, you utterly failed to provide any sort of evidence or rational argument to support your claim. And even when you do put forth an argument, you invariably end up demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic research of the field at hand. I'm not sure you even have background necessary to even read and comprehend scientific journal articles.
Just please, quit commenting on digg science stories. Or, if you do, at least acknowledge your own ignorance and inexperience with the matters at hand. You don't see me posting long diatribes about quantum mechanics, for example - because I know enough to know that I have a limited understanding of the field, so I keep my damn mouth shut. You apparently don't even know enough to realize that you don't know what you're talking about. - rocknog, on 09/17/2009, -2/+6There have been far greater scientific controversies than the subject of global warming, and time and time again, no matter how shocking or controversial, the stance with the more solid evidence always triumphs. The heliocentric theory, for example, was much more controversial because it clashed with Church teachings, but in the end, scientific reasoning prevailed, and eventually the Church simply could not stand up against the weight of evidence.
- Mujokan, on 09/17/2009, -1/+5It's the first sentence.
- Mujokan, on 09/17/2009, -0/+4Not much, but: http://www.isogklima.nbi.ku.dk/nyhedsfolder/uk_wit ...
- WasabiBomb, on 09/17/2009, -4/+8What the hell, @diggit83? Point out the holes in my argument, or shut up. Insulting people you disagree with is just childish.
- carbonetc, on 09/17/2009, -4/+8@DavidNiven
I watch people debate with you about climate and evolution over and over and over. There's never any sign that their rebuttals have actually sunken in, or that you've even read them. If you were genuinely interested in debate you'd be interested to know whether or not you might be wrong about something. But you aren't. There's nothing left to do but be amused by you.
I'm sure you think this is all because your position is so solid that it can't possibly be undermined by their meager arguments, but if that were the case you'd actually have knock-down responses to them. Instead your opponents are met with silence from you, and later you just repeat the same old arguments in another thread. - darthvalium, on 09/17/2009, -5/+8this is obviously sarcasm. but since you forgot /s i'll bury you anyway because most people wouldn't get it.
- Alabaster1234, on 09/17/2009, -0/+3mrjhmm -
Please RTFA. It quotes an article from a scientific journal suggesting that the ice sheet's are melting. (note: not collapsing) You're science from "wattsupwiththat" does not compete, as one is a reputable science journal and one is a junk web page that immediately starts out with a bias in the very first words of the article. That however, is not the point I was trying to make.
The point I was trying to make is that DavidNiven is suggesting that localized weather doesn't matter, however in this particular case it does. Notice also how I said IF they were to collapse, which implies that they have not, and even might not, but on the possibility that they did, that would have a global effect. I actually suggested they were shrinking, which regardless of whether you believe in man made climate change is true. The ice shelf is shrinking whether by natural causes or by man made causes. - inactive, on 09/17/2009, -1/+4Medieval Warm Period:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O112-MedievalWarm ...
Global Warming Alarmists don't like it because it doesn't fit their computer models.
Climate realists accept that there was a Medieval Warm Period:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/woods-hole-e ...
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/mediev ... - inactive, on 09/17/2009, -0/+3That's okay. Thanks for being honest and apologizing. I understand the depth of feeling behind it.
- KMye, on 09/18/2009, -0/+3@GF
Lil' help? (pretty-please)
http://digg.com/environment/Mapping_the_Greenland_ ... - carbonetc, on 09/17/2009, -2/+5We didn't really need Boston and NYC and DC and Miami and Houston and LA and San Francisco and Seattle for anything anyway.
- DrSnugglebunny, on 09/17/2009, -3/+6Scary for much of humanity, but exciting for paleontologists- there are cool fossils in Greenland, mostly buried under that ice! Ditto Antarctica; there have been some cool finds there lately too. (no frozen aliens/neanderthals/dinos just yet, sorry)
- mickstephenson, on 09/17/2009, -2/+5"The bare rock underlying Greenland will be ready for agriculture in ... 20,000 to 30,000 years? give or take"
Also I'm gonna pull you up on this ***** "fact". Given that prior to 10000 years ago Scotland and Northern England was heavily glaciated I suppose that means it will be another 10,000 - 20,000 years before we're ready to farm again.
When glaciers melt they leave behind something called boulder clay not just bare rock. - carbonetc, on 09/17/2009, -1/+4It takes a little while to grow a jungle. Enjoy your mud field.
- Mujokan, on 09/17/2009, -4/+7Jess has been lifting her game lately.
- greenfyre, on 09/18/2009, -1/+4If you are talking about meaningless short term variability, then it's been cooling for a couple of years
If you are talking about climate, then it hasn't
To detect climate trends requires a minimum 30 yr data sequence
What cooling trend?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/wh ...
How to decide climate trends
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/12/ho ...
Results on deciding trends
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/re ...
otherwise all you are looking at is short term fluctuations in weather. - greenfyre, on 09/17/2009, -5/+81) rtfa
2) Stop believing wingnut sites
3) re: vikings
"Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock""
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
Climate Myths: Medieval Warm Period http://www.thegaiaproject.ca/science/climate-myths ...
Myth Used as Evidence Against Global Warming http://digg.com/environment/Myth_Used_as_Evidence_ ...
The "Medieval Warm Period" http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie ...
4) No ice at the time? You're joking ... please tell me that you're joking, no one can be that clueless.
5) "where that water is coming from ? "
Melting ice becomes what? and before you claim that floating ice does not displace more volume, try and think why they call it GreenLAND. Take your time, it's not that hard ... - wrathchilde, on 09/17/2009, -1/+4Geez, I swear that said 70m... I need new glasses.
- nicc, on 09/17/2009, -1/+4they don't? you might want to mention that to most of the Meteorologists I see on TV...
- Trent1492, on 09/17/2009, -0/+3What?
- inactive, on 09/17/2009, -1/+4Hey, climate change deniers. Wassup homes? Hows the weather? That's cool. That's so cool it's hot.
I got something maybe a bit less refutable for you to ponder. There are ice and snow deposits in for example, Antarctica. These have been accumulating ever since it first got cold there ( a very long time ago. Fun fact - it was once a tropical place ) and are remarkably pure and indicative of atmosphere, and to a certain extent, temperature, at the time of deposit. Take a core sample. Test it. What do you find? Oh - you don't know? Why don't you know, since you are the climate expert? You think we only have 150 years worth of snow in Antarctica? - L0NER, on 09/17/2009, -12/+15but fox news told me it was getting colder
- Crimeodial, on 09/17/2009, -4/+6You're an idiot, David. That is all.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
