What is Digg?291 Comments
- doctechnical, on 05/16/2008, -7/+43If the headline is true maybe we can find that human and beat the crap out of him.
- KMye, on 05/16/2008, -45/+79Incredibly inaccurate headline. (I know you got it from the link)
This study did nothing to pinpoint the human causes of global warming. It correlated changes in physical and ecological systems with the well-documented warming of the last 40 years, implicitly assumes the warming is human caused, and so assumes these observed changes are caused by AGW.
This is an important study, but that it's being shopped around on every green blog and even NASA.gov as confirmation that humans are warming the planet is either embarrassingly ignorant or intentionally deceptive, depending on the site. - marklad2020, on 05/16/2008, -15/+40Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you think that pumping billions of tons of a gas into the atmosphere can have NO discernible effect whatsoever then you people are strangely deluded..
- aussieNickuss, on 05/16/2008, -25/+44I find it amazing how many of you are still believing man has NOTHING to do with the state of our climate. Sure there are natural transformations in the earth's climate, it has been through many an ice age....but the rapid change in climate, only over the last 20-30 years has got to be unnatural.
- marklad2020, on 05/16/2008, -5/+21"THE EARTH IS AT IT'S COOLEST POINT EVER!"
Ok genius. Where did you get that pearl of wisdom from? - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -12/+23Prepare to be attacked by the Goracle's minions who will insist that every single one of the scientists that you referenced is either not a true scientist or was paid off by the oil industry.
So much for their open-mindedness... - Sornos, on 05/16/2008, -8/+19http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-docu ...
Most of those have been debunked and 44 of the people referenced in his book were TV weathermen whose only training is how to use the teleprompter.
If I may quote some of the people "quoted" in his book:
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I can copy and paste just as well as you can. - TJ11240, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12A billion times more CO2? Cite that *****
Also, if you compare volcanoes to temperature trends, they have a cooling effect due to the release of massive amounts of particulates that hang in the atmosphere and screen out some solar energy. - pintomp3, on 05/16/2008, -5/+16much like evolution deniers, no amount of evidence will change the mind global warming deniers.
- monoa, on 05/16/2008, -7/+17So scientists at NASA, along with thousands of others around the planet, have got it wrong? They've all made some massive mistake, a mistake that's been running for decades? And a handful of Diggers and contrarian scientists (congregated almost entirely in right wing, bible belt USA) have got it right?
Yeah, right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - youtellme8, on 05/16/2008, -41/+51Wow. I am consistently shocked with and disappointed in diggers when it comes to comments on global warming stories. Global climate change is not an issue, it is an all but universally accepted fact. It is very easy to list the few credible scientist who dissent, but they are insignificant next to the tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of equally credible scientists who accept global climate change as the fact it is.
I think diggers are often both accurate and forward thinking dissident thinkers but global climate change is not factually sound to challenge. I fully expect to be dug down for this, but diggers, I expected better from you. - BryanG412, on 05/16/2008, -7/+17Seriously if you don't believe that Global Warming exists, fine, but understand that any changes made to combat Global Warming (whether or not it exists) will benefit all of us. If you are against these changes you are an idiot.
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/16/2008, -5/+14"I think diggers are often both accurate and forward thinking dissident thinkers but global climate change is not factually sound to challenge. I fully expect to be dug down for this, but diggers, I expected better from you."
What exactly do you mean "not factually sound to challenge" ? That sentence seems meaningless. Especially considering that all science is challenged. They still run experiments to confirm Einsteins theories, and he hatched them 100 years ago. - BigManOnCampus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9We also didn't have a population of going on 7 billion the last time. A new ice age would literally kill billions of people from starvation.
- Logicexe, on 05/16/2008, -4/+12What is so hard for people to understand about the sun not being the major cause of climate change? How about we stop constructing strawmen that the sun can only either have no effect on our climate, or the only effect on our climate. If solar variability remains stable, with no upward trend correlating to climate change then it's obviously not the sun that is causing the change in climate. Either there's another source of energy, or we're simply trapping a greater percentage of the energy from the sun. All the evidence points to the latter being the case, and the same evidence points to the prime cause of this being CO2.
What the hell is so hard to understand about this? - BlakeEM, on 05/16/2008, -8/+16Since when was solar activity debunked? Last I checked the sun and earths relation to it has more to do with our climate of the earth then any other factor.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -15/+23That's weird, the study hasn't been published yet and you know its contents.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzwei ...
There are three possible causes to climate change:
Humans
Solar activity
Natural heating cycle
Two have been debunked. This is what this study is about. - Logicexe, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Interesting book AllyOfReason. I wonder though, have you done any research on either of the authors?
Avery holds a degree in Agricultural Economics, nothing to do with climatology. He seems to know a lot about industrial farming and is a cheerleader for genetically modified foods and an opponent to organic foods. I've always been a supporter of GMO, as long as it's developed with the consumer safety as it's top priority. However, he has no formal training in any scientific field, while that doesn't rule out the possibility that he's right it certainly doesn't give him much credibility when discussing complex scientific issues.
As for Fred Singer the second author, he actually is educated in science, but not climatology, so that's a half point for him. However, some research into his activities reveal some somewhat strange results. He denies the link between smoking and lung cancer, he denies the link between UV radiation and skin cancer, he denies the link between CFC and the ozone hole. He is however highly decorated and has done some truly great things. The reason I point out some of his bizarre denialist beliefs is because they're both completely out of his field. This is what usually happens when experts from one field start behaving as if they were experts in another field, they come up with bizarre conclusions. On top of that, his studies are published by the Heartland Institute (which share his opinions about tobacco and the environment). He's accepted money on behalf of big oil executives and writes papers for an organization that is funded by and employs big oil executives.
Now of course, none of this means that they are wrong, but the fact that they are making claims that benefit their financiers, have a history of this sort of activity and contradict the vast majority of the scientific community leave a lot of doubts in my mind about their credibility. - wazzu07, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9GO PLANET!
- mavicyp, on 05/16/2008, -4/+11wow, it's a good thing you mentioned those guys. I was going to end up going with the 10,000 scientists who do believe in global warming but i think now i'll go with the 44 that you pulled out of your ass, half of whom aren't deniers
- Wacer, on 05/16/2008, -4/+11Visually looking out the window and saying how the weather is for the particular year is an automatic fail. All the people who even understand this, whether for or against, will take your comment as holding no weight. This is not a seasonal thing. The study will be scrutinized by both camps but one thing is for sure, it's impressive on how much data they pulled together to make this study possible. Very painstaking work.
- br0ck, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7There were merely 7 peer review articles about global cooling in the 70s. There was no real science behind it. It was a media driven concept and only the media thought there was any real possibility of global cooling. No scientific body endorsed the concept. Note that there were 45 peer review global warming articles in the 70s, and now almost every important scientific body has endorsed anthropogenic global warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-prediction ...
- da_bradler, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8lol really? a billion times as much? I love how that is the defense for polluting "VOLCANOS DO IT TOOOO!" even though when you look back in time there is a lot of evidence that volcanos going off have themselves caused massive die offs of animal life.
The oceans can only absorb so much carbon from the atmosphere, it normally takes decades for the atmosphere to recover from large eruptions. meanwhile the human race has been like a hundred volcanos going off for the last 50 years straight.
simple fact is if we dump more carbon into the atmosphere then can be naturally taken out, then it's just going to keep on building up until species start dying off. it's not that hard to understand. - Bukowsky, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8What does Al Gore have to do with this article? Gore (or his Documentary) is not mentioned once in this article. Gore had ZERO involvement or input with the multiple teams of scientists that were involved in this study.
Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe something NASA tells me, before I believe something Al Gore tells me... - wazzu07, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8bong resin or paint fumes im assuming
- aussieNickuss, on 05/16/2008, -4/+10Global warming doesn't mean the entire planet is getting hotter. The climate isn't digital....it's not hot or cold. It is a very complex system. One area gets hotter......other areas get colder because of the change in dynamics. That's why you hear "climate change" more than you hear "global warming" nowadays.
- psiege, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Will you be saying that in 20 years? My only point is that you are all so quick to judge that it's human caused, even tho, we really have no clue what's causing it. How many stories were submitted to Digg last year about evidence to the contrary of human caused global warming. Oh wait, you wouldn't have seen those because the Digg community doesn't know how to investigate for themselves and make their own opinions. They simply follow the liberal MSM and Obama like sheep, bahhing "Yes, yes, whatever you say".
- TreeTops8, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8Shindell refers only to the 11-year cycles in his quote about "...not a major cause of global warming." It is not a global judgement about all aspects of solar activity.
- fezzen, on 05/16/2008, -5/+10And stop with this ***** about "natural cycles." Scientists are well aware of them too. The thing they've been pointing out is warming RELATIVE TO THESE CYCLES.
Your argument, thus, completely falls apart.
Go find another rock of ignorance to hide under, this one's full. - 0Degrees, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8Funny how thedzigner gets dugg down for being correct.
In the eyes of a digger, if MSM didn't say it, it ain't true. - Orion1004, on 05/16/2008, -14/+19How anyone can ignore the probability of significant human impact on the planet's climate and environment is beyond belief. Even John McCain understands this. You don't pump CO2 emissions into the atmosphere at the increasing rate that the advanced nations have been doing without serious consequences. Human impact accelerates and alters the natural cycle -it doesn't replace it.
- thanakar, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Nice cut and paste job, do you put this comment in every thread about global warming?
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -17/+22It is a proof of the concept:
"Anything that is remotely climatic will be published as human caused climate change leads to bad result for us all."
The study doesn't prove a link between human activities and changes in the climate. No, no, it doesn't. Nope. Doesn't matter what you say or feel or how many people of science feel that as well, it just isn't there.
The study does assume a link, which is not a very scientific way to go about things. Leads one to ask the question, "Why wouldn't a study that simply identified that climate change from 70's has had some sort of impact on environment suffice?" Why was there any need to mention the human caused bit? It is of little to no scientific value. - trollick, on 05/16/2008, -10/+15So... to prove that A causes B, you simply presuppose that A causes B...
- chipsngravy, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Don't try to talk tough suzywang, that doesn't impress anyone.
- inactive, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4But it does demonstrate that the description and reporting of this paper as "pinpointing" the link between CO2/man and climate change is propaganda.
- kabronkline, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6For the first time, a true statement regarding climate change on Digg... rejoice!
- TJ11240, on 05/16/2008, -5/+9Well stated. Its curious how everyone on Digg loves the articles about solar, wind, and nuclear technologies- but when global climate change gets discussed, suddenly everybody gets argumentative.
- apetrie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Funny how you get dugg down for your statement, but no one is willing to answer your questions.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Definitely. If all the money spent on trying to proving the AGW is true were spent on research for more energy efficient homes, cars, etc., we would be a lot better off right now.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4A shuttle launch burns a combined volume of 500,000 gallons of LH2 and LO2. The result is water vapor which (OMG) is a greenhouse gas. The SRB's consume about 2 million lbs of Ammonium Perchlorate, Aluminum power, and Polybutadiene. They emit nasty salt compounds, but produce nice lighting effects with the setting sun.
- NapalmNewt, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Ice ages are caused by the milankovich cycles of the earth's orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles - fgonza226, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I agree, but I'm curious as to the basis of their resistance. It's easy to see why evolution might panic particular religions. But why stall on this issue? It's almost like they are being told that the very essence of their future prosperity is on the line.
It would be nice to know what fears they have to raise so much hell on this one issue. - Botanicus, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7I dont disagree that man is PARTLY responsible. I disagree that man is PRIMARILY (or entirely) responsible.
- fgonza226, on 05/16/2008, -5/+8There is a larger body of evidence to support anthropogenic climate change than the theory of relativity, yet the skeptics continue to stonewall on the issue. Why so much resistance? For what specific purpose do the deniers reject this particular scientific consensus? And why is this group concentrated amongst the right, and mostly in the US?
- Zomar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3unfortunately, because it is NOT a political issue.
You can not really have an opinion about science, that's like me saying "I don't believe in gravity." It's stupid, you can try to disprove the theory of gravity but unless you are credible, please stop voicing your views. Climate change is not about faith or personal beliefs, it is about science and how humanity is or is not affecting our environment. - Modestexcuse, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I'm sure we'll be dugg down soon enough. Oh well, it's merely my opinion.
- chipsngravy, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Are you attempting to state that the La Nina currently underway in the pacific ocean only has anecdotal evidence to support it? Or what?
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Actually, you might be surprised to know it's not just your opinion but also the opinion of many distinguished scientists... some who admit it and others who are coerced by money not to.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -5/+8Idiots:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_On ...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/solar-activ ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/ ...
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_sola ...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sun ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 292 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