What is Digg?144 Comments
- batmanz, on 07/05/2008, -16/+44Save us Al Gore! Turn off your house.
- DCJoeDogaswell, on 07/04/2008, -9/+32as much as I want this problem taken care of I know what will happen in seven years, the deadline occurs and then a new one will magically appear...of coursed based on new data on research done recently in the south pole or some such nonsense
- a1cd, on 07/05/2008, -5/+22Dont worry, we will already be dead in seven years from some combination of avian flu, Scientology and McCain
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -7/+22Computer models and prediction software is what they go by. That is why they fail. That is why ground zero isn't underwater like Al Gores computer model showed. That is why islands aren't being swallowed up by the oceans. It's garbage in garbage out...
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -2/+16Too bad humans only emit 2% of all greenhouse gases and even then the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is insignificant. Wake up, think for yourself. Remember when all the scientists were saying that the year after Katrina the hurricanes would only get worse? Well did they?
- phrenzy, on 07/05/2008, -3/+16I really wish some scientists would say: "Based on all evidence, by year X - A, B and C negative consequences WILL happen, and if they DO NOT happen, we will admit we aren't able to predict the effects or timing of man-made climate change in any meaningful way"
Even as somebody who thinks it's common sense that mans introduction to unprecedented foreign material into the atmosphere would cause some shifting in the natural balance of the earth, I believe many scientists have 'cried wolf' to be listened to by the majority of Americans going about their day-to-day life. - blackcloud333, on 07/05/2008, -0/+11Based on absolutely nothing, I'd say we missed the deadline about 7 1/2 years ago.
- funkyjunk3, on 07/05/2008, -3/+13This is going to have to be a market-driven solution.
"green" technology industries are here, to STAY. The only issue is things like subsidies for old technologies that should be phased out anyways. With combination of tax breaks, reducing over-regulation of promising sustainable technologies and DARPA-style competitions, not to mention the clamoring of the American public to find economical, sustainable solutions, we can have a foreseeable solution here in the US.
I just hope China and India have similar market spurring beyond solar window dressing. - curtisag, on 07/05/2008, -1/+10Do you realize how arrogant these scientists are when they claim they can put an arbitrary date on when we must be at a such and such level of CO2 output, otherwise it will be too late? That's pure sensationalism. The climate is far too complex for any computer model developed by our limited understanding of the way weather works to ever make such bold conclusions. We can't even predict the weather reliably with computer models beyond a few days in advance. A computer model is just a rough guesstimate, with lots of margin for error that increases exponentially as you push further into the future. That's not science, it's pure guess-work.
And then these scientists make even more bold claims stretching 100 years into the future with dire predictions of devastation and environmental collapse caused solely by CO2, which is just 1 among many drivers of the greenhouse effect. They really shoot themselves in the foot with the boldness of their claims. But if their claims are not bold, and they are more reserved in their approach, then people will shrug the problem off as minor. Al Gore admitted this himself when he said that it's ok to stretch the truth in trying to convince people. - biogears, on 07/05/2008, -8/+16That's weird, Ted Danson said we only had 10 years left back around 1990.
Hmm, whom do I follow, Ted Danson, or the UN.......That's a tough one :) - GidsR, on 07/05/2008, -8/+16Whenever the target is we're unlikely to make it!
Too much money is being made creating the problem but maybe things might get a little better after Bush departs and the US can start doing it's bit to help. - funkyjunk3, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7America will ***** itself bigtime if it doesn't get early into the "green" revolution. Car manufacturers like Ford, GM, etc. will be newspaper sob stories if they don't get efficient cars on the market, fast. Demands are higher than ever for renewable energy. There's always people who've called mainstream sustainable technologies vaporware, and they were correct.
However, where public demand goes money follows and public demand for sustainable energy is higher than its ever been as best I can tell. It is *hip* to have a solar panel on your house, to drive a Prius, to use biodiesel in your truck. This is how this revolution is starting, with cultural awareness and money flooding sustainable markets. - norman619, on 07/05/2008, -1/+8When are you going to look at ALL the data instead of just the stuff they spoon feed you?
- Stevanoski, on 07/05/2008, -8/+15Since the earth is currently in a cooling phase good thing we are going to miss the targets. Wonder why the earth didn't warm up in prehistory, when animals outnumber man one billion to one. They had all those methane belches and flatulence. Oh, because it is only Capitalism that causes greenhouse. Otherwise we would make China and India join before we tried to tame greenhouse gas.
- greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7I'll take that as an err on the side of safety suggestion ...
- sgtpppr, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Analogy officially out of control.
- biogears, on 07/05/2008, -6/+12And maybe reduce some of the hot air coming from him.....
- sarge96, on 07/05/2008, -1/+7Lets go over some facts, stupid.
#1: Carbon dioxide retains heat in the atmosphere.
#2: More CO2 = warmer atmosphere
#3: We add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day.
It really is that simple. Anyone who disagrees is probably making too much money to think otherwise.
"You know it's accurate because I used math!" ---> DUH X 100000000000000000000000 - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5Absolute *safety* says "stay away from it." Someone has got to eventually touch it, though.
- mcottier, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5What the hell are you guys talking about a live wire for?
- funkyjunk3, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6Whether you believe global warming is man made or a global conspiracy, sustainable energy technologies benefit ALL Americans. Solar, Wind, Tidal, Algae grown on American soil for biofuels... they have really cool economic, social and non-climate environmental benefits:
1)Since they're getting energy from HERE in America, money STAYS in America. No shipping hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign markets. This would employ hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans. Hell, we could even export these technologies if we develop a big enough market. America could use some good exporting right now.
2) More money can be spent in making more plants, and less on things like digging or drilling for fossil fuel plants. The energy that is being harnessed in Geothermal, Solar,etc. is already in raw form, ready to be converted to electricity. Sustainable energy plants are placed right at the source, and the only cost is in making the plant itself. With coal or gas plants, the energy source has to be extracted from the ground, shipped hundreds/thousands of miles and stored before it can finally reach the plant. Simplifying the process with sustainable energy means more money can be put in making more energy plants. With biofuels you'd still need an infrastructure, I agree. That is why I think an electric transportation system would be better.
3)With solar in particular, you can have a decentralized energy grid. If solar panels came standard with most houses in the Southwest, I would imagine blackouts would be almost a thing of the past for most everyone who lived there. Also reduces potential terrorist targets and in general makes our energy backbone that much stronger.
4)Sustainable energy is just that, sustainable. Sure, there's coal for hundreds of years. But why not monopolize on the current public's demands for clean, environmentally friendly energy sources? We can make the switch now, and have a hell of a market and industry open up here in the US. This is a MULTI-BILLION dollar market to capitalize on. The first company with mass market capability to come out with a long distance, family and freeway friendly car will dominate the market in no time flat. The public is itching for change, they just need affordable technologies. Where there's money to be had, companies will find it. - superkendall, on 07/05/2008, -3/+8You don't think the U.S. is gaga over environmental support right now? You don't think U.S. citizens already recycle like mad, support many green causes, and are trying to protect as much wild land as they can?
The U.S. is already doing it's part. If you want to look to places with issues, try China or Russia. - 1longtime, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7Yeah! Those dumb scientists with their studies and stuff.
- greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -3/+7The best data says that a high voltage wire is live, although there is uncertainty and they are still testing ... and you think we should go over and pick it up?
- bruce86, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4"It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.
Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.
In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.
Quite simply, there is no comparison. "
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/ ...
p.s.
you suck *****. - solid12345, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4More than likely these are due to the effects of La Nina than C02 emissions.
- danharlow, on 07/05/2008, -2/+5Anyone here who thinks science is the act of delivering exact predictions is a moron. We are still learning about gravity and the molecular structure of water. What makes anyone think science can accurately predict this?
How about we just stop screwing up the planet? - greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Ice age consensus myth debunked http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/ ...
- tatinthehat, on 07/05/2008, -2/+5So basically you're proposing we do nothing at all? Because by your logic, some research in the future will set some further deadline we'll have to worry about, but then there will be some other deadline much further in the future set by some more research etc, etc...
It's a simple cost benefit analysis. The cost is major climate change and possible loss of life in many areas around the world. If we act sooner rather than later, it's also possible to reduce the impact of warming. Which would you rather choose? - FrankDrebbin, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Most likely they are caused by a combination of events. La Nina is in the pacific however, and Burma was hit by a typhoon (Atlantic hurricane).
- etx313, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Danson. Duh!
- FrankDrebbin, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3CO2 can be one of MANY factors that heat or cool temperatures around the earth. Whether or not CO2 production is capable of warming the earth is an entirely different argument then whether or not CO2 is the only factor involved. There vary well may be a reason why temperatures dropped in 2008 that still leads us to the conclusion CO2 causes global warming. I am arguing that suggesting damage done by CO2 has been undone because temperatures in 2008 are cooler is a illogical leap. Nor does one year qualify as a climate trend. It is not semantics, I am addressing your argument, not the words you used.
- FrankDrebbin, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4You should check out these two blogs. They analyzed the statement "–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”. The don't address you water vapor question, but they graph the temperatures, and show why a comment about "erasing" the damage is fallacious and incorrect
- bruce86, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357 ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/ ...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005" - cjstone, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Spot on Frank, like I said in another thread...
...His (Gore's) huge house might make him a hypocrite to some, but in the big picture, what he does by driving his social and political policies vastly outweighs any harm he does by flying around in jets to advocate them.
Seems, to me that folks just want things easy and like to look for an excuse to not do anything. It's either "look at the idiot recycling, as if it makes a difference", or "Why believe in global warming, when Gore's got a big house!" - FrankDrebbin, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4I forgot to post an address, my bad here they are
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ja ...
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-global-temperat ... - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4Baby Boomers have completely screwed up the environment and the U.S. economy. Thanks Boomers - the most selfish, self-involved generation.
- greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Have you ever even seen a University or Institute with a science faculty? You clearly have never been near one if you think that is how funding works.
Science funding: You get grants to do research. You must account for every penny and it must all be spent on research. You get the money whatever your research results are. You also get your salary no matter what the results are.
In fact the only risky thing is falsifying the research, because if you are caught your career is over. The smartest thing to do is good research as best you can regardless of the answers because then you keep your job and get more research grants.
Denier funding: The money goes straight into your pocket and no one ever asks what happened to it. You only get the funding if you slander climate change. The funders don't care if what you say is true, distortions, or outragous lies, as longs as it confuses people about climate science. You will never get any more funding if you don't say climate change is hoax.
See the difference? Given these situations, what would a scientist do? What would a Denier do? - greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Except that handful is composed largely of industry paid hacks who do no actual research: 92% of "neutral" Eco-skeptics turn out to be industry shills, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ ...
Who funds them? http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37379 and http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war ...
and of the few left the quality of their science is much mroe controversial than climate change ever was
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/22/104417/ ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptic-christy-extols-b ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/08/12/3/index ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-science-by-lette ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/singers-deniers-misrepre ... - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2It sounds like someone feels they will need to be holed up in house #2 for a while. Where is Janet Reno when you really need her?
- greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2And if your chemistry professor was an actual scientists s/he would have published this insight in a scientific journal, but since s/he is apparently a hack they have to load this BS on gullible undergrads.
- funkyjunk3, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3I do not condone "fear mongering" or panic decisions. However, I see enough evidence (see below) to warrant concern about human impacts on global temperature rise.
"how temps can drop so drastically and the supposed driver of that change has not dropped at all?"
Mt. Pinatubo is a case example: Lowered the world's temp one year almost 1 degree C when it erupted in 1992: http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandiss ...
CO2 is a scientifically proven greenhouse gas, and long-term correlations between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 are very well documented: http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_ch ...
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography- ...
Year or decade fluctuations are inevitable with any long term trend, and there may be short periods of cooling (see Pinatubo example). But when I see statistically significant changes in atmospheric CO2 levels resulting from humans as seen in the first graph r, I have reason to concern about future global temperatures.
The Arctic is melting at historic rates. Of course, global climate change has natural reasons. But combining the effect of ocean rise accompanied with Arctic melting and the correlation between CO2 and global temperatures (see above graph), i am very worried how much of an impact humans are probably going to have in the future. - greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Maybe if you looked at the time line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_war ... to see when that is expectd to happen instead of spouting off ... no one said it had already happened. Al you have proven is that you weren't paying attention if you even watched Gores movie.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2yeah man, my intelligent design teacher...
- greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2and when the algorithim adnd data is 99.9%? 90%? 80%?
Nah, you're right, science has never worked, the space program didn't happen, there are no computers, we live in huts and use stone tools. - greenfyre, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2@ Norman619
1) CO2 lag 'proof' debunked
2) And by that logic it can be "replaced" 10 fold in 1 yr. The climaqte change is the gas concentrations, not one years irrlevant variation
3) We're not talking an on/off light swtich here.
How a given golf player plays depends on many factors, physical condition, training, health that day, weather, etc - but Tiger Woods is still Tiger Woods and even though his day to day play may vary the fact that he has one bad day does not negate his skill.
Applying your logic he should always score the same, or be improving at a steady predictable rate - the world isn't put together that way.
Many factors influence climate and it always fluctuates, but those fluctuations do not negate the background trend.
"People are demanding "
People maybe, but not scientists nor environmentalists. We are demanding solutions that are just and equitable. - tatinthehat, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3You can blame the media for this one. They portray this (and everything else) as a black and white issue, when it really isn't.
Not all scientists believe that Global Warming is occuring, small group of them yes, but they're there. That's where the real nitty gritty arguments of this happens.
What about the times where scientific consensus HAS been proven to be right? Let's not be hasty, these climatologists are doing real research here. Their not pulling things out of their asses, as much as the media portrays them doing that. - xedd, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Probably only after he stops going to church...
- minigig, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2I loled at the bottom comment.
Posted by nilbud 19 hours ago
Rank: 3.4/5 after 5 votes
The notion that pumping tons of pollution into the water and atmosphere will have no effect because you are a republican is so incredibly stupid, is it any wonder the rest of the world looks down on america as a bunch of uneducated savages.
Posted by gmurphy 7 hours ago
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
uneducated wealthy savages with guns, the best kind of savages, not like those stupid poor savages with sticks. - leakus, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2If you know what they are doing wrong, you should also pass that information to the guys from Tuvalu, they bizarrely have the same problem more than 7000 miles away.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 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 
