What is Digg?183 Comments
- laplacian, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30ABC's title is completely misleading. He doesn't question global warming at all, at least as he was quoted in the article. What he does do is offer an opinion that climate change is not a problem which needs to be corrected:
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31Bizarre, isn't it, considering that NASA reported this just days ago: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531073748.htm
It's almost as if the top leadership of NASA are political hacks, appointed by Bush.
Naaah. Can't be. - siriusly, on 10/11/2007, -17/+41Griffin is an administrator appointed by GWB. He has repeatedly cut hard science programs in favor of spaceflight research in deference to GWB's obsession with going to Mars. Maybe there's oil there or something.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-04-03-nasa-budget-programs_x.htm
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2006_06_16/nasa_cutbacks_cause_uncertainty_among_space_researchers - Scruffydan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+30while administrators want to delay action on climate change, NASA scientists claim that even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet,"
who would you believe?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 - coit, on 10/11/2007, -20/+42I listened to this interview on NPR this morning, and the guy was answering questions as if he were on trial, pausing and carefully choosing his words. Not just on warming, but on other topics.
On the topic of global warming, he stated that it was his position that evidence exists of man-made global warming, with about 1 deg C over the past 50 years or so with 20% uncertainty. What he also said (implied/meant) was that it was too early to tell how severe man's impact on temperatures is, and that it isn't readily apparent that one temperature range is better than another.
He definitely isn't cut out for public speaking. - mcdavis941, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21He's a scientist. This is how scientists speak ... as if every word counts. And bless them for it.
- mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Whats interesting is that he believes global warming is happening, he just questions whether it is something we should prevent or not. So any of you folks out there who think global warming is a myth, I hope you realize that this guy disagrees with you.
FTA "I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." - ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -8/+25I would like to remind people....
Scandal at NASA - Censorship of Scientific Research by Bush Appointee
http://www.talkingtree.com/blog/index.cfm/2006/2/8/Censhorship-at-NASA - badken, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19@PJSPJS: NOT scientist. Political appointee.
- CrownSeven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14We may or may not be causing global warming, but don't you think it might be a good thing to take care of environment for once? Geez.....
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -16/+28Geez, he is just LOOKING OUT FOR AMERICA. We are overweight, right?!?! Add a couple of degrees and we sweat off the pounds more easily. Suddenly, the news is reporting "America slims down" and all is well!
Where do I get my " I lost 10 pounds due to global warming" t-shirt? - PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Even if global warming is not man made we should try to reduce the quantity of crap we throw to the atmosphere that can't be good.
- zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12"Keep your eyes peeled for Mr. Griffin suddenly losing his job... "
He was appointed by G.W. Bush... I'm pretty sure he's doing exactly as he was instructed. - zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11@ferrofluid
Up until a year or two ago, the NASA mission statement included the following phrase:
"to understand and protect our home planet"
I guess now they don't have to give a damn. But just for the record, Aeronautics & Space research is about much more than sending men into space. - danarama, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11You're right pollution is a much bigger issue than global warming. Air pollution and all the other varieties cause cancers and deseases and ruin the ecology beyond repair. You can't bring back the thousands of species that are extint specifically because of human activities.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -41/+50Boy, you conservatives have an over-active persecution complex. No one is going to be burned at any stakes. This is a part of free speech (remember that?) and scientific debate (ever heard of that?) -- people who have more understanding of the issues are repeatedly having to tell people who don't know much that they're full of *****. It gets tiring, and sometimes we get frustrated. But no one is going to kick anyone's ass over it. So either deal with it, study up on the facts, or don't say stupid things in public. Those are your basic options.
All seriousness aside, it's statements like Griffin's that make me wonder if the Reptilian-Alien-Invasion theory has some merit. "If we have global warming, is that so bad? People will just start moving faster--er, I mean, sweating more." - magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Folks wanting to read the full interview can find it here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499
- zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10"To me the whole "global warming" issue is fed to people using the same tactics that make things like snake oil and Noni juice so popular."
You mean a keen marketing and spin department that only cares about making money and screwing over as many people as possible? Wow, that sounds like a corporation... big oil? the big 3? Snake oil sales and Noni juice are sold, not based on science, but a silver tongue.
The whole global warming issue is based on science.
Have a read and then try to dispute any of the following facts:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 - brucerchapman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13A carbon tax is the most effective way of reducing emissions. Currently it is free to pollute because the air is what economists call a public good, because nobody owns or controls it. If you have to pay to pollute, you are going to seek alternative ways to do whatever you are doing, so you don't have to pay.
You just can't expect people to use non-polluting energy out of the goodness of their hearts. You must make it more expensive to use dirtier technology than clean technology. That will increase demand for clean technology and reduce demand for dirty technology.
The way I see it, even if greenhouse gas emissions are not totall responsible for global warming, it's not a bad idea to go towards renewable and clean enery sources anyway. Because most emitters of co2 are also emitters of other nasties. It would be a nice thing to see a city without a haze of dirty air hanging over it. - annonimality, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@ zelig
"Well, he IS on trial. By the MSM and IPCC scientists. And Al Gore, who would actually like to PUT GlobalWarming® "deniers" on trial"
Read the article, the guy's not a denier. Here is what he says in that regards - "I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists" . - badken, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
"Thirty years later, the concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been incorrect. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out." - danarama, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10http://digg.com/environment/The_Denial_Machine_4
Watch this doc. The independant science community totally knows what to think. They arn't debating the causes or reality of global warming only the general public are who get their information from corporate media that thrives on industry manipulation. The big emmision companies are using the same tactics tabocco companies were using when they denied smoking was related to lung cancer. It's "not proven" etc. - zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9@crazywarthog
I'll see your four articles from the 1970's media and raise you a dose of reality:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 - Qeveren, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7You're... joking, right? *uncomfortable laughter, edges away from dovesong*
- crazywarthog, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16Why would anyone lie about global warming ? Don't you care about your environment ?
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) - brucerchapman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12There's two things in the climate change media coverage that continually tick me off the most:
1. The continual and overarching use of cooling towers (either coal/nuclear) in news clips to do with climate change. People : Cooling towers emit water vapour, not co2! _get_it_right_ If those cooling towers are on a nuclear plant, the climate change effect is effectively nothing.
2. Calving glaciers. Glaciers *always* calve in the summer. It's what they do. If they didn't, then logically glaciers would circumnavigate the earth. Glaciers are not suddenly falling to pieces rapidly due to a 1deg rise in temperatures. Yes, it's true, most glaciers are retreating, but this is done slowly, drip by drip, not by massive amounts of calving with dramatic splashes and cracking ice. Besides, most glaciers end in a mountain stream, not a lake or the sea.
Media of the world : if you want dramatic footage : try a farting cow, a plane taking off, an idling diesel bus, a steel smelter, the exhaust stacks of a coal fired electricity plant. All these things emit greenhouse gases, not cooling towers. - adayoncedawned, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10To anyone watching this CBC global warming feature, I would encourage some further investigation.
The data that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon used to come to their conclusion was not their own data. They did no experiments of their own, they used other people's data, and numerous people that this data belongs to, the people who actually carried out the experiments, have pointed out several failures that Baliunas and Soon made in tabulating the data.
You can read more about it here, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/
One more thing. And this is perhaps some sort of desperate appeal to intelligence. I strongly encourage the people reading these sorts of articles on net to not merely look for the article which justifies your already held belief and then, satisfied, cease reading or investigating. Because if you truly want to justify your belief, you must be open to scientific debate. Read what multiple sources are saying. Inform yourself to the point where you are actually confident in your believe and in whichever explanation you have decided fits the information the best. - rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@capunomen,
May I ask you what is the basis for you choosing to believe this political appointee over scientists in his own department?
Surely someone like you you doesn't trust the government to tell you the truth about matters affecting your family's future?
I am curious as to how you go about deciding whether it is safe to cross the road - do you trust common sense, critical thinking and logic, and look both ways to see if there are cars coming, or do you tune in to see what the Bush Administration is telling you about the local traffic, then close your eyes, pray and run like hell?
It's a rhetorical question, it's pretty clear where you stand (or run). - zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@jcm267
"Honestly, though, if you look at Europe the times when population exploded were during times like the Midievil Warm Period, when global temperatures were warmer than today's."
I would really like to see you back that statement up. Here are a couple links that directly contradict your statement.
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644 - siriusly, on 10/11/2007, -14/+20Lest ye' think that this has nothing to do with BushCo and the wanton suppression of scientific truth -- as well as the subjugation of the quality of human life to corporate greed and profit -- consider this statement near the end of the article:
Last year, many NASA scientists were upset when reports surfaced that the agency had quietly deleted the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" from the NASA mission statement. The scientists believe research on issues like climate change will suffer as NASA shifts priorities toward exploration missions to the moon and Mars.
Yeah, who cares about a little climate change or protecting the Earth when WonderChimp is all excited about goin' to Mars? - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@mancat: OK, maybe I was too subtle: He *IS* a political hack appointed by Bush.
- stevetures, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14Umm hello he was APPOINTED BY BUSH IN 2005 and not promoted from within NASA.
duh... - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@danarama, they're even using the same PR companies as big tobacco used.
Next thing you know, they'll develop something called "safe oil" that "doesn't pollute." With cigarettes, the trick they pulled was to observe that the testing machine didn't grasp the butt of the cigarette like a human did. So they put holes there to pull in more air and dilute the test, though the average smoker saw no improvement. That's what we're dealing with. - Qeveren, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yeah, it's certainly not like our science improves over time or anything. I mean, we're still using exactly the same computers we were using in the 70's too, right?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -19/+25@mikesbaker, I seem to recall you've said this "gore invented..." crap before, and I think we've rightly slammed you for it.
If you want to debate it like an adult, here's a good place to start: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Why_We_Owe_Al_Gore_For_The_Internet
Otherwise, everyone knows you're a shill and a liar. Give it a rest. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Yeah, it's almost as if, after that report came out, someone powerful phoned Griffin to say "shut that scientist up!" And Griffin said, "I can't without getting slammed (remember the USA firings?). But I can put out a bunch of BS that'll confuse people. How about that?" And George said, "yeah, yeah, go ahead." And so ended another day in Washington.
- nigel40, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I'm just waiting for Bush to step in and say "Great job Griffey."
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8I think that is something we can all agree on.
- rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+61.) The denialist claim you are parroting has been debunked many times. Here is one reputable source of information:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659
Since I know you will not bother to read the article, let me summarize the key points for others in the audience:
A) No climate scientist makes the claim that CO2 was the precipitator of global warming after previous ice ages; nor does the evidence (actual contemporary measurements) suggest that we are currently in the normal period of CO2 rise at the end of the last ice age.
B) Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is based on physics, not correlations with past temperatures. What the geohistorical record tells us is that CO2 and temp track closely, and that, while the initial spurt of CO2 levels at the end of an ice age was the result of warming, the roughly 4,000 years of warming that follows is, in turn caused by raised CO2 levels.
There is further explanation in the article about how the CO2-temp-CO2 cycle is understood, if you care to read.
2.) Interesting that you choose not to include the extension of that very same chart in slide 10 of that very same presentation, which includes more recent data, showing CO2 levels rising off the charts.. Perhaps you'd like to put that up for the audience? Thanks. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -25/+30@Merced, I have yet to see any scientist canned or banned for providing evidence that disputes global warming. If anyone has been canned, it's been for ignoring evidence, not generating their own. If anyone has been banned, it's for doing bad science. If you have any counter examples, feel free to offer them.
As far as "the debate" goes, the existence of global warming (climate change) was proven a long time ago, as was the link between CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect, and the rising trend in CO2. That ship has pretty much sailed.
The more recent debate was over whether it was more man-made or more natural. However, whichever it is, it's something we have to deal with or it will cost us tremendously. That issue is mainly important to understand how we can fix things. And as it happens, current debate is over what to do about it. There is no firm consensus yet on that. - zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6He is a Bush appointee who is just doing as his puppet masters tell him. He'll probably be given the Presidental Medal of Freedom or equivalent by Bush himself.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Not that it changes the story any, but now do you know those are nuclear and not just steam-turbine power plants using any other power source?
- zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@geoffg
From your article:
"Mr Bush added that the process was aimed at preparing the ground for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol – which Washington never ratified – when it expires in 2012."
Nothing like stalling the process for another 5 years. And somehow Fox News spins this story to try and make Bush look like he's saving the world. - danarama, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8You can gauge the temperates back thousands of years with all sorts of methods. the temperature graph would have a pattern up and down until about 50 years ago when it spikes big time. the temperatures they are predicting, accurately predicting, are not natural temperatures.
- zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -9/+14Griffin is an administrator appointed by GWB.
'nuff said. - danarama, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Well the cockroaches are going to win out in the end then I guess.
- zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Damn, wrong thread above...
@jcm267
I did a little search on that book but I'll could find were a bunch of blog posts trying to sell this book, pointing to it as if the discussion is over (internet marketing at its finest). Looks more like a small group of people grasping at straws and hoping that a catchy title on a book will lend credibility to there argument.
So then I decided to look at the author's credentials:
Fred Singer
Here we have a guy with ties to the oil and tobacco industries saying, get this, second hand smoke is safe and global warming isn't happening. Oh, and he is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between UV-B radiation and melanoma. Give this guy enough money and he'll say anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1
And the guys at CBC discuss him:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&q=science+documentary+duration%3Along - Stevethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Maybe it has to do with that I'm not a native speaker. Sometimes I write down the sentences in the way I think about them (in my own language), which of course doesn't always connect for native speakers like most Digg users.
- chuckdubdubdub, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Except that ice cores show a lot more than that. The ice core record goes back over half a million years and shows a complete correlation between global temps and CO2 presence.
I know it hurts to think of life style change (the horror!), but we can't be fat american pigs forever. There is a price to pay for driving our slovenly asses to the mall and back home in off road four wheel drive vehicles. There is a price to pay for cheap coal-driven electrical plants. Wake up -- here we are! -
Show 51 - 100 of 182 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 