Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
guardian.co.uk — · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war · Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
allowners- 1874 diggs
- digg it
- elasticsoul, on 02/23/2008, -18/+106The social consequences of the climate crisis will hit before the natural ones. As things start to go wrong, there are going to be some very angry people in this world....
- banmaster, on 02/23/2008, -16/+42All angry at America and its deliberate and blatant denying for the sake of the proits of the energy industry who bought the US government about the same time Bush stole the top job.
- chopenik, on 02/23/2008, -12/+23Damn dude, got your pitchfork and torch ready? Don't to forget to add China to the list of biggest polluters out there.
- blackb0x, on 02/23/2008, -7/+29China's got 4X the number of people. Per capita, the US pollutes the most by a fairly large margin.
- PorchSong, on 02/23/2008, -14/+10What exactly is this 'fairly large margin? Stop spewing your "best guesses, " facts, boy, facts are what we need. Stop crying "the sky is falling." Support your position not with ignorance, but with facts. Stop reacting emoitionally.
Already the radical green movement had to change their position from "global warming" to "climate change." Man made global warming is proving false, thus they have to generalize with 'climate change'. Well, I will let you in on a little secret--the climate changes daily, always has, always will. The climate changes yearly, the climate changes constantly.
The only three things guaranteed in life anymore are: Death, taxes, and climate change. If you are so worried about the warming of the planet, then explain how the Vikings cultivated crops in Greenland? Today, they could not be raise those same crops--too cold. This is evident in other places too.
Lastly, for all you alarmists out there: What is, or should be the 'proper' temperature of the planet? What is the utopia of temps out there? No answer on that one, huh? - DrivinWest, on 02/23/2008, -4/+6Actually, Australia and Canada are for worse polluters per capita than the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989. ... - sv650touring, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5DrivinWest, your link is dead, and I'm guessing that's why you're getting buried.
- vornan19, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Pffft, for now.
- LupeFiasco, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Well for one we consume more energy because our whole country(Canada) sees freezing temperatures. We need to heat our homes. And it gets pretty damn hot in the summer too, and people like their air conditioning.
- DrivinWest, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Actually, Australia and Canada are for worse polluters per capita than the US.
Link won't work for some reason. Google: "bbc australia worst emitters"
- PorchSong, on 02/23/2008, -14/+10What exactly is this 'fairly large margin? Stop spewing your "best guesses, " facts, boy, facts are what we need. Stop crying "the sky is falling." Support your position not with ignorance, but with facts. Stop reacting emoitionally.
- ICSU, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2And the products made in China are largely bought by ... yeah.
- sv650touring, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3...the rest of the world?
- Xchus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1o rly?
- madroneDorf, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Europe is China's largest export market, not the US.
Try again
- blackb0x, on 02/23/2008, -7/+29China's got 4X the number of people. Per capita, the US pollutes the most by a fairly large margin.
- madroneDorf, on 02/23/2008, -7/+0Good thing there is an ocean between us!
- LeeSoong, on 02/23/2008, -3/+15WHAT ?
I can't hear you - BOY this Hummer's Engine Purrs like a 3 ton Kitten !
Sorry,
Gotta go, takin' the family to watch NASCAR zoom zoom! - oxdeltaxo, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4Don't forget China, they produce pollution too.
- chopenik, on 02/23/2008, -12/+23Damn dude, got your pitchfork and torch ready? Don't to forget to add China to the list of biggest polluters out there.
- LukasSmith, on 02/23/2008, -30/+10Siberia? Where the hell do you tree huggers digg up this garbage? This article is total bull. Secret documents that are shared aren't secret. Besides there is no substantiating these documents actually exist and they sure as heck don't back any of it. Seriously total tree hugging bs.
- steeeeve, on 02/23/2008, -7/+2Either the document authors wanted to put global warming into a language, that even W understands, or the author of the article was a bit creative with it. Weakening of the Gulfstream and therefore cooling of Europe is one of the possible long term scenarios, but certainly not to this extent.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -6/+8While I disagree with your enthusiasm for the word "tree-hugger", as in someone who cares about the environment, as a bad thing, I would like to point out that this article is kinda *****. At worst temperatures will go up 6* in the next 50 years, now, that will cause a *****-ton of bad things to happen, but it wont make England "Siberian". It sure as hell will melt the arctic, though.
- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -10/+3Just as in the past.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -2/+9"It has never occurred before in the past," said NASA senior research scientist Josefino Comis.
I'm quoting CBS news here. This has never happened before, and even if it had, it most definitely wouldn't happen this rapidly. - lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4bluezinc: what are you talking about? The middle ages were colder than today. That is one of the reasons for the plague in Europe. It was colder than today. Death was rampant. And Greenland had settlements.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I know... I'm not sure why you're arguing the same point as I am...
Right now, judging by Earth's cycles as indicated by ice cores, we should be deep in an ice age. HOWEVER, man has been altering the climate for over 7,000 years, since the Chinese flooded the river valleys for agriculture and the resulting methane release slowed the temperature decline.
Humans kept the temperature decline at bay until the industrial revolution where it more or less leveled off until we hit the turn of the century and the age of the automobile. In the last century we've turned a declining temperature into a rapidly rising one. That's a big accomplishment. It's projected to spike and then drastically fall. If I'm around to see it, it's gonna be a hell of a ride considering we've just about passed the point of no return already.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -2/+9"It has never occurred before in the past," said NASA senior research scientist Josefino Comis.
- Boreras, on 02/23/2008, -8/+4the Arctic melting is really not that bad... Why do you think it _FLOATS_?
The Antarctic and Greenland and other land ice melting is worrying; the north pole melting, however, doesn't do *****. (I'm not actually implying you said that, but it is a common misconception)- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -3/+6I'm really not sure how you can say it won't do anything. The melting of the arctic ice cap will have some serious repercussions.
- laterallateral, on 02/23/2008, -4/+3Oh it will have serious repercussions, just maybe not ones of food shortage and temperature fluctuation on the scale implied by the article.
@Boreras You know there's a lot of ice sitting on top of landmasses, in the north, right? Check out Greenland. Youch.
- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -10/+3Just as in the past.
- Arrhenius, on 02/23/2008, -2/+11"Besides there is no substantiating these documents actually exist"
google: pentagon report climate change
second hit:
http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pd ...
Also:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4379905/
Yeah, really, really secret.
It actually was an independent report study commissioned by the Pentagon, not necessarily reflective of the Pentagon's views. It does show that the Pentagon thinks the issue is worth looking at. You don't have to be a [insert favorite insult term for liberal] to be concerned about climate change. - LukasSmith, on 02/23/2008, -4/+1Both of your sources seem like the were written by crack heads.
- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Are you seriously denying the existence of this report despite quotes from the authors themselves acknowledging them? You are one blind lost soul
- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Lukas, you're talking out of your ass again ... Each time you disregard information like this you reveal further evidence of your blind political affiliation.
This report has been acknowledged by the pentagon and the authors. Do some research before you are so quick to judge others.
The Pentagon authors do acknowledge the report but stated publicly it was based on a worst case scenario and that some of it was speculative. Climate change is not argued here. Even Bush now acknowledges global warming is a problem, but continues to assert there is ongoing debate about how much of it is man made.
sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/GlobalWarming/story?id=23 ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4379905/ - LukasSmith, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1Seriously you guys believe the Pentagon is a real authority of knowledge when it comes to the environment? ahahah. You liberals surprise me sometimes. They are a war machine not tree huggers. The evidence of global "Day after Tomorrow" is weak and extremely flimsy. At worst there will be a few small climate changes over time. But were talking time scales that wont matter because humanity can adapt to change. We have for thousands of years. I guess nobody noticed Europe has already been a Siberia of sorts only 3 or 4 hundred years ago.
- miketrin, on 02/23/2008, -6/+3This sounds just like the history channel's mega disasters.
- sleze, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Anyone notice that this is like 4 years old? I also have proof that JFK shouldn't have authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Not that I don't agree that climate change is a big deal but come on...this was probably posted on Digg in 2004. - wzelver, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Yes I did notice that. It makes me both scared and skeptical at the same time, as you may have noticed for some crazy reason all these breaking revolutionary news stories on digg only see the light of day once as they are in fact *****.
- sleze, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Anyone notice that this is like 4 years old? I also have proof that JFK shouldn't have authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -5/+6Bush says back, "... and climate change is....?"
- nihilite, on 02/23/2008, -3/+9This article was printed almost 4 year ago. I'm sure Bush has since been given talking points from Exxon that explain how insanely profitable it is to keep things the way they are. No need to worry folks, some of us are getting rich as we circle the drain.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -2/+3No, they briefed Cheney on the talking points. Bush just reads the teleprompter and mispronounces everything.
- gernblansted, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1"Bush just reads the teleprompter and mispronounces everything."
That even though they spell the words for him to read phonetically. Maybe that's why he sounds like he's reading things Fo-Net-Ik-Lee.- ElWizardo, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6Fo-Net-Ik-Lee is a great martial artist. I've seen all of his movie.
- avasol, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Then someone at the White House needs to change the phonetic spelling because it's new-kler not new-kuh-lar. (Among other things).
- netant, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1@avasol
And that person should not be you. Its pronounced new-clee-er, not new-kler!
- nihilite, on 02/23/2008, -3/+9This article was printed almost 4 year ago. I'm sure Bush has since been given talking points from Exxon that explain how insanely profitable it is to keep things the way they are. No need to worry folks, some of us are getting rich as we circle the drain.
- tastypaste, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4Then I guess it's already happening. The world is full of angry people.
- rentmitchum, on 02/23/2008, -2/+6If you want to know how it turns out, play Advance Wars: Days of Ruin on Nintendo DS, now available! :D
/aw addict - 405994, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1Why is there struggle in the Middle East?
Because it's hot and there's no water.
//From some West Wing episode. - paker, on 02/23/2008, -7/+3Who makes up these BS stories?
- Pwelborn1, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Worrying about Global warming is like trying to patch the hole in the titanic, now years after it sank. There are so many thousands of things that could make a difference in someone's life immediately right now, by volunteering and giving resources. Instead it gives those who are Global Warming "Activists" an opportunity to try to get everyone else do do something rather than making an actual difference by giving of yourself. The terrible thing is, the rewards for one gives no satisfaction, the battle will never end, however the other begins to change one's perspective immediately on what is really important in life.
- banmaster, on 02/23/2008, -16/+42All angry at America and its deliberate and blatant denying for the sake of the proits of the energy industry who bought the US government about the same time Bush stole the top job.
- h4ckler, on 02/23/2008, -30/+198Terrorism is hardly a threat. It's an effect. Cause and effect.
- Dundasbro, on 02/23/2008, -5/+18Well I know what you are saying, but it is a threat anyway. But not nearly as much as a threat as it is made out to be.
- mikephimikephi, on 02/23/2008, -9/+2u stole that from matrix 3!
- AtheismFTW, on 02/23/2008, -7/+9So "threats" and "effects" are mutually exclusive concepts?
What a sophisticated view.- RogerCfromSD, on 02/23/2008, -5/+0Terrorism is not a threat? h4ckler, grow up. Unless you're one of the thousands of people who have been blown apart into bloody little shreds of flesh, you have absolutely no idea wht the hell you're talking about.
- LilBambi, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1Yes, and true or not, there are some who would play the public like a fiddle because of reports like this.
I wonder if those who think they know for sure one way or the other about the climate/global warming even stopped to think what powerful and greedy people might do with that knowledge.
If those powerful/greedy people thought that enough people believe in it -- so in their mind's eye, the 'threat' can now be capitalized upon -- then we could have a perceived 'real' terror, eh? - Herostratos, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1But it is most certainly not an effect of climate change, it has to do with political and social climate down in the middle east.
- laterallateral, on 02/23/2008, -6/+3Considering terrorism is the result of people being pissed off and rarely are people ever pissed off at nothing, I would say terrorism is an effect, yeah. A threatning one.
- Phatt138, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Of course, but OP was implying that terrorism is not an out-of-the-blue, unprovoked threat in the way that the Bush administration would have us believe that it is. Remember, the want to kill us because they hate puppies and smiles and pretty girls, not because they're born into a legacy of very legitimate gripes with the Western world.
- laterallateral, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2God, you are so right. How could I have been so blind to imply and defend my view that terrorism (in a general sense) stems from hatred for pretty girls and puppies.
- dustin32, on 02/23/2008, -5/+2Then could someone explain to me what Islamofacist terrorism's cause is?
- afloyd60, on 02/23/2008, -3/+9'islamofacist' terrorism's cause is a meddlesome foreign policy. all you have to do is read a little bit to see that. the u.s. has been meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations for a long, long time. that tends to piss people off. duh
- RogerCfromSD, on 02/23/2008, -5/+0As terrorism is not limited to the Middle East, and therefore NOT the result in those other places of foreign policy, the answer is clear: Terrorism is the tool for the advancement of the Radical Islamization of the world. You kids making uninformed and emotional arguments to the contrary really need to stay in class and learn rather than ditch and get off on protesting. You may actually learn "truth" rather than liberal pap.
- Knucklecallus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Right back at you, dick. Try not to see facts as 'liberal' or 'conservative', because facts tend to follow their own path.
- keyme, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Any effect can become a cause. It's a chain reaction, an infinite loop of cause and effect. Sometimes the loop is recursive, e.g. in a war (I attack you because you attack me, you attack me because I attack you).
- Knucklecallus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Oh, did I hear Israel-Palestinian Conflict?
- zzhiwen, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I dunno, man. Terrorism is a very odd phenomenon. Is it hatred? Is it religion? Is is cause or effect? I don't think it's so simple. You probably shouldn't generalize or try to explain terrorism. Frankly, I think they are a-holes, but they consider themselves heroes. Crazy
- Banangroda, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Why can't an effect be a threat?
- mrfunybuny, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1you use some interesting logic (and by interesting I mean completely incorrect) and, by the way, isn't climate change an effect too? cause: increase in greenhouse gases, effect: climate change..
- Grova, on 02/23/2008, -14/+8Dugg for being dubbed Yoda.
- yodaj007, on 02/23/2008, -12/+3You called?
- laterallateral, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1OO. Shiny.
- deskimo, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0Hmm, not sure what you mean, but I just imagined Yoda saying:
"Destroy us climate change will. Change our economy to biodiesel and ethanol we must. Perpetual warfare otherwise will we face."
I'm certain he would be in line with this thinking.
- rhedhead, on 02/23/2008, -24/+170'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon?
hmmm.
Let's look at some his brilliant decisions on the environment
1. Denies California the Clean Air Act waiver: In January 2008
2. Interferes with climate change science: In February 2006
3. Advocates for more nuclear power plants: During his second term
4. Dismantles the Roadless Rule: In 2005, the Bush administration formally repealed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which was issued by the U.S. Forest Service in January 2001 to protect the last remaining "wild lands" in our national forests.
5. Opens public land to oil and gas drilling
6. Declares carbon dioxide not a pollutant: In 2002, the Bush administration redefined carbon dioxide
7. Weakens regulations governing air pollution: In 2002 and 2003, the EPA eliminated new-source review regulations, exempting thousands of older power plants, oil refineries and factories from being required to install pollution controls when they replace equipment and make significant changes to their plants.
8. Rejects the Kyoto Protocol: On March 28, 2001, the Bush administration withdrew the United States from the global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that the treaty would hurt the U.S. economy- xirtap, on 02/23/2008, -5/+9I guess this begs the question. Why Bush?
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11because we tired too easily of trying to fight him and the supreme court when they declared him president.
- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -4/+6No, because we couldn't stand another Democrat like Clinton, but we were fooled. Twice.
- MacEnvy, on 02/23/2008, -2/+11"We" weren't fooled. "You" were fooled. The other 50% of us saw this ***** coming.
- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2MacEnvy: it would not have been any better with Gore or Kerry. And it won't be any better with the four front runners in either party. And no, I wasn't fooled. I say "we" meaning the country.
- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -4/+6No, because we couldn't stand another Democrat like Clinton, but we were fooled. Twice.
- laterallateral, on 02/23/2008, -3/+3Witch begs to question why no second amendment fueled second civil war.
To witch I propose: WE SUCK.- Bamborzled, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3"To witch I propose: WE SUCK."
That's some strange proposal you made to your witch, there. - bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2What are you talking about? Like... ball park it for me.
Also, I believe "which" is the word you're looking for. The other kind is a magical person who hates water and loves flying monkeys. - Lanlost, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0I've SERIOUSLY never seen anyone use 'witch' instead of 'which' before. Ever. I've seen it used by accident.. but here it was used twice.
Which is why I am so embarrassed to say that I have no idea what you are talking about.. =/
/Feeling less intelligent than the guy who used 'witch' =(
- Bamborzled, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3"To witch I propose: WE SUCK."
- carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11because we tired too easily of trying to fight him and the supreme court when they declared him president.
- LukasSmith, on 02/23/2008, -34/+16None of those things done seem particularly bad. Nuclear plants are good. Those hippies in California are easily ignorable. Kyoto? ahahh. That protocol is a joke few countries that signed it have managed to obey. I guess if it makes them feel good about themselves. Besides in America there is plenty of grassroot work going on. You people need to remember what John F. Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Because as much as you people seem oblivious the fact is pollution is your fault. No other country has so many cars and people so lazy they would rather drive then walk or ride a bike 1 mile. So high and mighty they would rather have as many cars per family rather then using city bus's that struggle to keep running because nobody uses them. So go plant trees, Start walking, and stop bitching.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -8/+23The Kyoto Protocol was signed only by "a few joke countries"?
...
I'm sorry, did you graduate the 5th grade? Where did this extreme jingoism come from??- iticu, on 02/23/2008, -11/+7Why are you getting dugg up, you obviously didn't read the comment or didn;t understand it.
Infact, I wouldn;t be surprised if you just scanned through it and thoguht; "Screw it, this guy doesn;t agree with me, lets make up some crap about the comment!"- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10You're right, I got the wording wrong and it was a different meaning than I took it. But the fact remains that he's belittling one of the only serious movements towards sustainability.
So, I don't take it back. He's still an ass. - iticu, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1What I got from his comment is that people should stop being hypocrats and take preserving the planet into their own hands instead of using the government as a scapegoat, because how many people on Digg do you think showed up to the protests there were against these changes being made? If there were any at all, that is.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10You're right, I got the wording wrong and it was a different meaning than I took it. But the fact remains that he's belittling one of the only serious movements towards sustainability.
- iticu, on 02/23/2008, -11/+7Why are you getting dugg up, you obviously didn't read the comment or didn;t understand it.
- LukasSmith, on 02/23/2008, -17/+5IS A JOKE, FEW COUNTRIES THAT HAVE SIGNED.....
happy? Does a , Really make you happy?
Hell you actually didn't even quote what I said correctly. So you have nothing to say. Of course the moron treehuggers will not care much. they are too busy hugging trees.- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -6/+6and trying to usher in anarchy. But you are correct in your previous post. You'll not get to positive diggs here though. Leftists abound in Digg.
- eltrev, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I'm not a leftist - but "LukasSmith" is .. certainly and without doubt, not the brightest redneck in the woods.
- 471776, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1First comment: "So go plant trees"
Second comment: "the moron treehuggers"
Can you say 'self-contradictory'?- lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1No, 'cause trees can be cut down and burned for heat. The Treehuggers will tie themselves to the trees and you have to wait till they starve out to cut the tree down.
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -6/+4Lukas is right on--and in additon in case you diggidiots don't realize it, China's polluting the crap out of the whole world (in increasing amounts everyday) and there isn't a damn' thing anyone will be able to about it because there is nothing you buy in this country that isn't made there.
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -8/+23The Kyoto Protocol was signed only by "a few joke countries"?
- zyryx, on 02/23/2008, -3/+15and still the economy is circling the drain
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -11/+1oh boo hoo, our economy is struggling, stop whining--go to work, be more productive--geez!!
- Memitim, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Actually, productivity continues to grow ever more, even in the oft-bemoaned manufacturing sector (http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm). So we're more productive than ever and yet the economy is still tanking...
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -11/+1oh boo hoo, our economy is struggling, stop whining--go to work, be more productive--geez!!
- pingudownunder, on 02/23/2008, -5/+2Although it would be easy just to blame Bush, surely its the entire administration that came up with, and supported, these policies.
In any case being a Guardian (UK) article he probably doesn't give a rats. If there was a similar report showing the effect upon US cities (for example, Manhatten going under water) it would get a lot more mindshare in the world's biggest polluter.- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -5/+1China is going to pass us in the next five years and they have NO plans to reduce pollutant output--why aren't you getting on their case?
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1A) China consumes one third of the amount of oil that the US burns. In fact, the US burns close to what China and all of Europe do combined
B) China has signed the Kyoto protocol - the US has not (although granted this does not mean they are following it. At least it shows they admit to a problem)
C) We are urging third world countries and China alike to reduce emissions, whilst understanding that rapid growth without the availability of cheap alternate sources is limiting
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1A) China consumes one third of the amount of oil that the US burns. In fact, the US burns close to what China and all of Europe do combined
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -5/+1China is going to pass us in the next five years and they have NO plans to reduce pollutant output--why aren't you getting on their case?
- tian2992, on 02/23/2008, -0/+13I agree with most of what you say, but nuclear power plants are the easiest way to stop the petrol dependence for electricity. It's easier to build several nuclear power plants and use electrical cars than cover the country on solar panels and windmills.
In every thing else I agree with you- eltrev, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3I second this sentiment exactly.
- leandrotami, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0Absolutely. That is why we're living this 'nuclear Reinassance', as they call it. All the world. Including Iran.
- C3RV4NTE5, on 02/23/2008, -3/+0Bush like most presidents is just a puppet. The World is an scenario and people can't see the puppet-master. He does what he's said to.
- llbbl, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3"Advocates for more nuclear power plants: During his second term"
Isn't such a bad thing as long as they are the new, safer type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor - bobcat7407, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2The Kyoto treaty was rejected under the Clinton administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_accord - arplayer2k, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3This just in... Bush declares the Pentagon a terrorist organization and wages the war on terror at home.
- darkhorse85, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2advocating for more nuclear power plants is a great idea. Nuclear power is extremely clean.
- Joest23, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1They are extremely clean if they are run correctly. The disposable of nuclear material and the fear of a meltdown are legitimate reasons to not have them.
- Lanlost, on 02/24/2008, -1/+0You know.. I really think Bush thinks he is doing the right thing.
He defiantly has his own ideas and obviously has his own advisers that he listens to. He has (and has had) goals and plans that he wanted to accomplish. I REALLY doubt that he wants America to do this *****, which is how lots of people portray him.
That being said, it's his stubbornness to listen to actual science and facts that makes him such a bad President. When his advisers tell him something that doesn't coincide with his own goals.. they are just wrong and their ideas get buried.
Thats the main problem. We shouldn't have to ever have to worry about a President wanting to be a douchebag... they are elected to serve the people. He always talks about how it is "his" time to do stuff the way "he" wants... ugh.
I would LOVE to have an opportunity to sit down and talk to him one his term is over.. as would anyone on here I would guess. Just because I think hes a terrible, terrible, worthless, ***** president doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to talk to him personally.- leandrotami, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0Personally I believe that, if most Americans are so prone to compare themselves with the Roman Empire, then you should know that Bush may be your Nero.
- xirtap, on 02/23/2008, -5/+9I guess this begs the question. Why Bush?
- Grohl, on 02/23/2008, -13/+71Unless bush destroys us first...
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6He better get on that, he's only got a few hundred more days left. But, I guess that's the story of his life, never finishing anything he starts... unless it's cutting mesquite.
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -9/+0never finishing anything he starts?? what an idiot you are---do you see him quitting the Iraq war even though all you friggin liberals want to get out now?? You sir are an ill informed dork and should not be allowed to post you comments anywhere--now shut off your computer and go back to cleaning my toilet..
- Memitim, on 02/23/2008, -1/+7Great point. He started a war that he couldn't effectively manage and so will end up passing that on to other people to finish as well.
- Arramol, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Do you realize that in the midst of all your invective and ad hominem attacks, you actually proved his point for him? I expect the Iraq war, which as Memitim pointed out, Bush will be leaving unfinished when his successor takes over, is exactly what he was talking about.
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -9/+0never finishing anything he starts?? what an idiot you are---do you see him quitting the Iraq war even though all you friggin liberals want to get out now?? You sir are an ill informed dork and should not be allowed to post you comments anywhere--now shut off your computer and go back to cleaning my toilet..
- bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6He better get on that, he's only got a few hundred more days left. But, I guess that's the story of his life, never finishing anything he starts... unless it's cutting mesquite.
- Heysal, on 02/23/2008, -68/+12Bush's policies may destroy us? Was it Bush that told us to breed beyond the carrying capacity of any given location? That is what will kill us - C2O2 is not the deadly greenhouse gas - if it were, all planets would not be undergoing a change - C2O2 has been targeted for poitical reasons as well - because we produce it via fuel usage. If we lower levels of C2O2 during warming we could actually do masses of damage to planetary vegetation which is in actuality protected from heat by the gas. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas with much larger molecules. Gee maybe we should get all of the water out of the atmosphere, too.
We have got to quit aiming at government decisions as reasons for our climate change - the climate has undergone violent changes the whole history of its existance. The only reason this one is going to be different is it will kill off so many humans - who have allowed themselves to breed like rabbits beyond the carrying capacities and subsequently accelerated the process of desertification as we clear more and more land. Well surprise, it's clearing itself now and not in a way that will allow for crop growth.
If we are screwed its because we let our populations become an issue that has become so great that politicians have to deal with it at all. Now that was real smart. Have another baby while you are condemning Bush and lets see how many more we can feed during massive desertification. He might be a monkey - but if you are producing more than one or two babies, you're the jackasses - and deadly ones at that. What's wrong with adopting some of the overproduced kids that need homes instead of continuing to populate?- Eiknujrac, on 02/23/2008, -4/+44Wrong. Did you ever take a science class?
1) What is C202? Dicarbon-dioxide? I think you mean CO2, the by-product of any hydrocarbon combustion process (gasoline, natural gas, diesel, etc.).
2) It is a scientific fact, not an opinion, that C02 is a greenhouse gas. I'm not going to bother citing sources, because I consider this common sense, google it if you dare.
3) The amount of C02 in our atmosphere is way in excess of what plants need to survive. Plants were alive way before humans created the technology for hydrocarbon combustion. We have only exponentially increased the amount of C02 in our atmosphere since. And it could be argued, maybe not by me, that because of rampant deforestation that there are less plants today to scrub the atmosphere of this excess C02.
4) Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, and another by-product of combustion. Again, I'm not saying the C02 and water vapor are bad for the planet, as all living things need them to survive, but an over-abundance of these gasses in the atmosphere is what is causing the greenhouse effect. - flummoxed, on 02/23/2008, -2/+8You're a fool
- ArchangelZLT, on 02/23/2008, -3/+16Buried for C2O2.
- Vifken, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I would argue that one of the biggest reasons we have overpopulated our planet it BECAUSE of technology. Technology has allowed us to live lifestyles and collect resources in the last 200 years that would never have supported such large cities before. You might find the BBC series call "Connections" of interest as it explores how we have created our own "trap" by blindly relying on invention and technology in order to satisfy our greed and covetousness.
- laterallateral, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Woah, woah... hold on now, "technology" ? That's a pretty broad term to be pointing the finger at, man. You realize using two rocks to crack open a nut is technology, right? Technology is the very vector of civilization. Our reason for being AND the sole purpose of our carrying on. Surely the documentary targets specific avenues of technology as having ill effect but I doubt that it proposes a "***** technology" solution. If anything, we'll resolve these issues with, you guessed it, MORE ***** TECHNOLOGY. Saying technology is the only reason we have all these problems is not false but it's like saying dying is the leading cause of death.
- Sinns, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3Is that you Sally?
- waspbr, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5"the climate has undergone violent changes the whole history of its existance"
It is true that climate change has occurred before, but over thousands or even millions of years , not decades- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -8/+0how do you know, we only started keeping accurate records a little over 100 years ago
- muchachoburacho, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Drilled ice cores that are hundreds of thousands of years old from Argentina. Glacial Ice will trap air pockets, and these can be analyzed to give fairly accurate depictions of the Earth's Climate at that time.
- Sidzilla, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2The climate is changing, that is undeniable. Where the question lies is how much man has to do with that. The climate is rising on Mars to the exact degree that the climate on Earth is. I have even read that all the planets of the solar system are experiencing this phenomenon, and that the sun's current cycle is the culprit. That is the only argument I have ever heard against the role of man in global warming that I have never heard refuted to any degree, except by '***** you, moron' which hardly changes my mind.
- flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -8/+0how do you know, we only started keeping accurate records a little over 100 years ago
- eltrev, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4Heysal - you represent the potential downfall of our species. Stupidity kills.
- jakefloyd, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Heysal, you are going to try to disprove the studies, experiments, and conclusions of thousands of scientists and thinkers across the world with a digg comment?
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2You've probably never even read one report produced by these "thousands of scientists." Your just stating this because you hear it over and over and you think it must be true. There is well respected scientists on each side of the debate. A couple of very prominent ones at Harvard that claim we are jumping to the conclusion that climate change is the result of humans too fast.
- Eiknujrac, on 02/23/2008, -4/+44Wrong. Did you ever take a science class?
- JimmySpaza, on 02/23/2008, -28/+16Uh, I think that the UK Guardian went a little overboard this time.
Please! "Secret report"?!? Does the Guardian still have people who believe what they read in it?- ManoWar, on 02/23/2008, -6/+5No doubt the Brits seem rather stupid sometimes. Global warming is returning to being called an Ice age just like the 70's. Now in 20 years when there hasn't been an Ice age for London. All the hype will started over again. Warming then Cooling. Pattern of the crazy and godless.
# The Observer,
# Sunday February 22 2004
RETARDS!- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1You might want to include Bush in that group. After all he now admits global warming is a "serious problem". Now he is trying to assert there is debate over whether global warming is man made.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/GlobalWarming/story?id=23 ...
- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1You might want to include Bush in that group. After all he now admits global warming is a "serious problem". Now he is trying to assert there is debate over whether global warming is man made.
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I stopped believing anything the guardian said about four years ago. I think some Americans don't realize that its the equivalent of the Chicago Sun or some other ***** paper over here.
- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Jimmy this report has long been verified by the Pentagon authors. So to answer your question. Yes. People, including the Pentagon authors who publicly acknowledged the report, still believe what the Guardian writes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4379905/
- ManoWar, on 02/23/2008, -6/+5No doubt the Brits seem rather stupid sometimes. Global warming is returning to being called an Ice age just like the 70's. Now in 20 years when there hasn't been an Ice age for London. All the hype will started over again. Warming then Cooling. Pattern of the crazy and godless.
- theDunedan, on 02/23/2008, -5/+68In 2002 Colin Powell (as Secretary of State) warned Bush that an invasion of Iraq was liable to have unintended consequences and was over all a bad idea. Bush had no trouble ignoring that, so maybe he can bring himself to ignore the the Pentagon as well. (Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under GHW Bush, so he kind of used to _be_ the Pentagon.)
- CarStan, on 02/23/2008, -0/+9the article is 4 years old, so yeah, he infact did ignore it
- donavan, on 02/23/2008, -30/+13First off this article was written 4 years ago, which means that it is based on the very least false data. You may not be aware of this but it was reported recently (within the last year or so) that all of the measurements that NASA and the likes have been using to measure the temp. were wrong. According to the GW alarmist this past decade has been the warmest on record. This is simply not true it was actually more like 80 years ago. Second even if the Earth is getting warmer it is not caused by man it is cause by the sun. Compare sun cycles to temp. change and you will see a correlation. Third CO2 has not been the cause of increased temperatures it is an effect of it. Forth if you believe in this global warming problem, the only thing you are doing is letting yourself be convinced its a good idea to get taxed more. This GW push is nothing more than propaganda designed to convince you that a tax on carbon is a good idea, everybody uses carbon what better way to fleece the population than to tax the very thing that they are made of. Sixth there are more Scientists that don't agree with human caused global warming than ones that do.
Sure folk the planet might get warmer but that doesn't mean we caused it or can do a damn thing about it. Sure we need less pollution and more efficient use of the energy we have, but shouldn't we use critical thinking rather than fear mongering to accomplish this goal.- allowners, on 02/23/2008, -2/+14Sources, links?
- fixty, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10Sources? Given his obsession with taxation being a greater threat to the planet than the cataclysmic consequences that will result from the continued unchecked and easily measurable increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere I say he's sourced entirely by Rush Limbaugh and his fellow corporate shills/sycophants.
- fixty, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10Sources? Given his obsession with taxation being a greater threat to the planet than the cataclysmic consequences that will result from the continued unchecked and easily measurable increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere I say he's sourced entirely by Rush Limbaugh and his fellow corporate shills/sycophants.
- fixty, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10"You may not be aware of this but it was reported recently (within the last year or so) that all of the measurements that NASA and the likes have been using to measure the temp. were wrong."
I suppose world-wide ice core sample data correlating the history of greenhouse gas levels to glacial-interglacial cycles is wrong too?- Sidzilla, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin ...
The entire solar system is warming. How many core samples do we have from Pluto? And Nasa did admit it's figures were in error. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/a ... figures were used extensively by global change activists to prove their point. The refigured numbers showed that 5 of the top 10 warmest years were pre 1945. These were US figures, and the global warming advocates denied they had any relevance.- Sidzilla, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2More data?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 ...
I still want someone to refute this evidence. I think we should reduce our output of greenhouse gasses, but only to further reduce our dependence on oil. I have already changed all the lights in my house over to fluorescent bulbs, and I have given up driving on the weekends. I live 22 miles from work, so I have to drive to and from, but I do my little part. I would love to see the real issues addressed instead of creating a boogyman to frighten us in to doing the right thing. - ManoWar, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2Stop telling the truth don't want to upset the plan.
- Sidzilla, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2More data?
- Sidzilla, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin ...
- jdepp, on 02/23/2008, -1/+10global warming or running out of fossil fuels, one or the other is going to get us.
- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3dugg for pointing out the age of the article...i totally missed that. i really am a band wagon jumping conspiracy machine sometimes.
- allowners, on 02/23/2008, -2/+14Sources, links?
- webaddict, on 02/23/2008, -2/+152I think it would have been nice if it was made clear this article was from 2004 upfront.
- banmaster, on 02/23/2008, -4/+9That certainly doesn't mean it has no merrit though. All of the key points are still accurate.
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Except none of the forecasts came true
- CarStan, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Yeah, i nearly finished reading, when i read: "The democratic frontrunner John Kerry"
- nakani, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1That's why you must always check the date before reading at all
- tastypaste, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11Yeah. I don't recall this happening in 2005 or any year since then:
"As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."- mrhaines, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Although flooding is already beginning to cover many island sin the southwest pacific.
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Where are the millions in upheaval?
- mrhaines, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Although flooding is already beginning to cover many island sin the southwest pacific.
- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1agreed but its still funny to see everyone denying the existence of the report even though its been acknowledged for years hah
- banmaster, on 02/23/2008, -4/+9That certainly doesn't mean it has no merrit though. All of the key points are still accurate.
- beauley, on 02/23/2008, -19/+1hese are my guidelines to the real issues... http://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/Al-Gores-Decre ... http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environment/Is-Globa ... Is Global Warming, or Global Pollution the Issue? http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environment/Is-Globa ...
- beauley, on 02/23/2008, -17/+1Here are my personal views on that...
http://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/Al-Gores-Decre ...
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environment/Is-Globa ...
Is Global Warming, or Global Pollution the Issue?
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environment/Is-Globa ... - an0nymous, on 02/23/2008, -5/+71This is dated 2004?
- blankoboy, on 02/23/2008, -6/+4Yeah, I was kind of surprised when I noticed this but it doesn't make it any less relevant/frightening.
- Spottswood, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6Really? Even when its saying stuff like "As early as next year [2005] widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."
I dont disbelieve climate change, but sometimes looking back on the predictions of old reports is like watching old sci-fi movies predict what the future will be like - onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Did you read the article?
- Spottswood, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6Really? Even when its saying stuff like "As early as next year [2005] widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."
- 298th_Scat, on 02/23/2008, -7/+4Well it states "predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge" You don't have to be the pentagon to predicts that. It's kinda of a no ***** comment. It has nothing to do with Bush other then the fact that this was a election year and it was some meritted BS to pull up.
Guess what dude there was nothing we can do to stop the next ice age. But don't worry a meteorite will kill us all before then so all you conspiracy theory ***** can be wrong.. HAHAAHA - songfire, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Exactly. I had heard about this before. Anyway, not to belittle climate change, but from what I recall about this document: it is a 'what if?' report.
- skrapinov, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah, when they said the report was going to help Kerry's campaign I was like uhhh?
- Math, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Since this article was published the Bush administration has agreed with the rest of world's consensus that Global Warming is mainly caused by human activity (At G8 in 2005):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/09/g8_global_ ...
- blankoboy, on 02/23/2008, -6/+4Yeah, I was kind of surprised when I noticed this but it doesn't make it any less relevant/frightening.
- jonnasi, on 02/23/2008, -4/+36Even though global warming is a controversial subject still, isn't it just common sense to get to pollution down since: pollution = not good, no matter which way you look at it?
- nirav72, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5According to some , we might be too late for any reversal efforts to make an impact.
- nobody7, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4Stupid rationalizations, would you rather have bad or really really bad http://www.missclasses.com/manpollo/
- ikepigott, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1Actually, pollution is just the product of human commerce. We all waste as we consume.
The issue is how smart we are about it, and whether the amount of pollution is worth the end good.
Not pointed at you, but blanket statements like "pollution is never good no matter what" lead to some very twisted thinking. For every whack-job who is praying for the Apocalypse and the Rapture there is a granola-nut wishing for a meteorite strike to knock out 5.5-billion people, because "the Earth would be healthier without all those polluting humans."
Again -- I don't automatically count you among that camp, but blanket statements lead to blanket thinking.- mattxb, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2so according to you we shouldn't claim pollution is bad because then environmentalists will want to wipe out the human race?????? "twisted thinking" indeed
- fierylungs, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0Did you not read what he wrote about blanket statements?
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1There are certainly some people who want the population reduced dramatically by any means, but I disagree with your assessment of the ratio of those nutcases to the rapture ready crowd...
- mattxb, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2so according to you we shouldn't claim pollution is bad because then environmentalists will want to wipe out the human race?????? "twisted thinking" indeed
- Herostratos, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4Pollution is often the effect of burning fossil fuels. The effect of fossil fuels is massive wealth creation: It is quite simply the most efficient way of producing energy. So no, it is not always a good thing to reduce pollution, if the effect is the creation of less wealth. In particular the developing countries will be hurt by this.
Ironically, if we pollute - and create wealth - now, the developing countries may come into the phase where they have less children, and this may bring pollution to a lower level in the future than it otherwise woudl have been.- jonnasi, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Pollution/ global warming is irreversible in some cases, wealth is not. Which do you think our children prefer, wealth or clean air and water?
- mattxb, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3I agree with you jonnasi. Personally I think its destructive for the environmental movement to have global warming (or any single issue) as its flagship because it creates a situation where any blow against global warming theories does damage to the environmental movement as a whole.
- Dugout21, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1It's not controversial. 98% of all scientists in the world agree that global warming is a serious problem caused by CO2. That's not controversy.
- nirav72, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5According to some , we might be too late for any reversal efforts to make an impact.
- nastronomical, on 02/23/2008, -61/+68Dated 2004? So i am guessing the UK only has 16 more years of ***** up weather before it gets more ***** up?
***Repost for accuracy***
First off this article was written 4 years ago, which means that it is based on the very least false data. You may not be aware of this but it was reported recently (within the last year or so) that all of the measurements that NASA and the likes have been using to measure the temp. were wrong. According to the GW alarmist this past decade has been the warmest on record. This is simply not true it was actually more like 80 years ago. Second even if the Earth is getting warmer it is not caused by man it is cause by the sun. Compare sun cycles to temp. change and you will see a correlation. Third CO2 has not been the cause of increased temperatures it is an effect of it. Forth if you believe in this global warming problem, the only thing you are doing is letting yourself be convinced its a good idea to get taxed more. This GW push is nothing more than propaganda designed to convince you that a tax on carbon is a good idea, everybody uses carbon what better way to fleece the population than to tax the very thing that they are made of. Sixth there are more Scientists that don't agree with human caused global warming than ones that do.
Sure folk the planet might get warmer but that doesn't mean we caused it or can do a damn thing about it. Sure we need less pollution and more efficient use of the energy we have, but shouldn't we use critical thinking rather than fear mongering to accomplish this goal.- Mothity, on 02/23/2008, -12/+5But does it really matter that its 4 years old? There's no point in continuing to trash the planet by filling the atmosphere with CO2 and burning all the fossil fuels. Not many realise, but in order to make medicine we need oil because medicines are simply variants of hydrocarbons. If we go burning all the fuel, there will be no medicine to cure the sick. The planet will fall into a state of war and disease will be everywhere. We need to conserve the fuel anyway, even if there are people who think global warming isnt real.
- nastronomical, on 02/23/2008, -6/+4Blah blah blah...so what you are saying is GW isnt happening but lets still pretend it is and act like idiots?
"Not many realise, but in order to make medicine we need oil because medicines are simply variants of hydrocarbons. If we go burning all the fuel, there will be no medicine to cure the sick. " are you ***** high? That made no ***** sense!!- Mothity, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2you mean you didn't know that the hydrocarbons that make up oil are actually needed in order to make medicine? well that is why i said that not many people realise it. your clearly not one of the people that knew this. and actually, i do think global warming is occurring but there are people who still think its fake; i reckon nuclear power is the way forward, we don't need to burn coal and oil for fuel as its just a waste.
- nastronomical, on 02/23/2008, -6/+4Blah blah blah...so what you are saying is GW isnt happening but lets still pretend it is and act like idiots?
- steeeeve, on 02/23/2008, -5/+13Nope. The effect of the correction is just big enough to shuffle around the order of the record years. The overall trend is unaffected.
Yes, the sun has cycles and they influence temperature and every climate scientist knows that.
More scientists don't agree with global warming? I doubt that.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is a fact. Roughly 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been found to be of human origin.- Dunnix, on 02/23/2008, -5/+31/3? How could you calculate that? Last I recall there wasn't a huge difference in c02 levels before the industrial revolution and now... No drastic change that wasn't seen before in climate change. Its hard to state a FACT about our climate when we don't know exactly what causes it to change.
C02 is a "greenhouse" gas... ok so then why when the temperature goes up c02 level go up afterwards... when temperature goes down, c02 levels go down. Greenhouse is a human term used to describe something that we don't understand.
Climate Change is Natural!!! - KnightofCydonia, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Please try to keep in mind that CO2 is considering a variable gas with regards the composition of our atmosphere. It varies between 2% and 4% depending on the time of year and hemisphere. The greater percentages occur in the Fall when plants are dying off which is where most of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from. I'm not saying we don't help put stuff up there but its a natural cycle that we can only hurt.
That being said there is no likely "fix" to what is going on BUT we can make efforts to make things as natural as possible. I wish people would understand that it is not out fault the climate is changing. The Earth is an oiled machine and there is no way with our technology that we could even begin to change it - mtekk, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1And CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas. There is a ton of it frozen in a precipitate on the bottom of the sea floor. A single Earthquake could release this, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.
- Dunnix, on 02/23/2008, -5/+31/3? How could you calculate that? Last I recall there wasn't a huge difference in c02 levels before the industrial revolution and now... No drastic change that wasn't seen before in climate change. Its hard to state a FACT about our climate when we don't know exactly what causes it to change.
- SharkyTech, on 02/23/2008, -8/+3Why is this getting dugg down? The post just pointed out that this article is 4 years old, which IS relevant.
- rolf, on 02/23/2008, -2/+11Can we really pretend not to affect the planet while at the same time admiring the extensive landscaping we have done that turned forests into suburbs and that we long since conquered every continent and are the dominant ruling species?
It's not if we affect the planet, but how much? And with more and more people, it's stupid to keep assuming it's absolutely minimal.- 298th_Scat, on 02/23/2008, -6/+2Were going to die by a meteorite 400 years before global warming kills us. So give it a rest.
- ManoWar, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2Go look at the world with Google earth. The world does not look like your home town.
you have only seen less than 1% of the earth.
- RationalCenter, on 02/23/2008, -2/+16"You may not be aware of this but it was reported recently (within the last year or so) that all of the measurements that NASA and the likes have been using to measure the temp. were wrong." This is untrue. What NASA figured out was they had made some errors in the average temps for North America, and that one measure only. All the rest of the data (worldwide temps, ocean temperatures, atmospheric temperatures) was not affected, and still show an inexorable rise in temperature.
- DrWho520, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1I wish when people made a point, they would cite a reference or, at the very least, provide a link to where I can find a reference. And when people made a counterpoint, I wish they would do the same. I can take neither nastronomical nor RationalCenter seriously because I have no idea what information they are citing. Without information, you are just arguing on the internet.
http://www.lostlegends.de/album_page.php?pic_id=61 ...
- DrWho520, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1I wish when people made a point, they would cite a reference or, at the very least, provide a link to where I can find a reference. And when people made a counterpoint, I wish they would do the same. I can take neither nastronomical nor RationalCenter seriously because I have no idea what information they are citing. Without information, you are just arguing on the internet.
- Zique, on 02/23/2008, -4/+4Right, and Iraq did 9/11 and had WMD's but moved them to Iran and Syria right before the attack. Get a grip.
- bradtacs, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6re: "You may not be aware of this but it was reported recently (within the last year or so) that all of the measurements that NASA and the likes have been using to measure the temp. were wrong."
This is not true, Honestly take a second to read this, please.
http://tinyurl.com/2h99vz - StusGhost, on 02/23/2008, -3/+3What's truly chilling despite the credibility of the facts in the report is the Bush administration's complete denial and unwillingness to acknowledge the report. Short term thinking. Lets face it though, something's happening. Even Bush (of all people) admitted in his state of the union that we need to stop using so much fossil fuels. Eureka, Bush! It's incredibly frustrating.
- Beery, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Actually, as RationalCenter and Bradtacks point out, NASA's calculations only applied to North American temperatures. The climate IS warming, but US temperatures aren't warming as much as NASA reported. I agree that the article is sensationalist nonsense, but your response is misleading too.
- daxdefranco, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1Do you really believe global warming isn't anthropogenic? go to youtube and search for "how it all ends."
- Icebath, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Your statements are not supported by the facts.
- biotch, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Nastro, you need to post sources. Others have posted sources refuting your claims so your claims have lost all merit.
- Mothity, on 02/23/2008, -12/+5But does it really matter that its 4 years old? There's no point in continuing to trash the planet by filling the atmosphere with CO2 and burning all the fossil fuels. Not many realise, but in order to make medicine we need oil because medicines are simply variants of hydrocarbons. If we go burning all the fuel, there will be no medicine to cure the sick. The planet will fall into a state of war and disease will be everywhere. We need to conserve the fuel anyway, even if there are people who think global warming isnt real.
- nastronomical, on 02/23/2008, -29/+9Oh and a Secret report? LOL
If it was a story about a secret report outlining "Islamic Facism growing influencing among Liberal Facist" you would be screaming it down. Gimmie a break libtards. Go back to your wanna be Elitist circle jerks and keep trying harder.- hbcumber, on 02/23/2008, -0/+9Who exactly are you talking to? The Guardian?
- vulminiha, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6'Facism'? Is that discriminating against ugly people? What does that have to do with Islam and liberals? "Hey you with the harelip, you get to be the martyr next week, but first let's discuss the benefits of socialized medicine."
I like to re-read things I write before I hit submit, and ask myself "Does this make any sense at all?" You should try it some time chief. - KingWilson, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1"elitist circle jerk".........just wondering how long you've been using that one. I started saying "liberal circle jerk (LCJ)" like a month ago whenever i read discussions like this. Just wondering if you beat me.
- mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -10/+23"We're going away. Pack your *****, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance"
-G C-- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3i should know this quote but i don't
- mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3http://my.erinet.com/~orb/gcarlin.htm
- NoobSaibot, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0thanks for that link; really thought-provoking stuff. reminds me a lot of bill hicks!
- mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I google this; "pack your ***** folks carlin," I got that.
- mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I google this; "pack your ***** folks carlin," I got that.
- NoobSaibot, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0thanks for that link; really thought-provoking stuff. reminds me a lot of bill hicks!
- mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3http://my.erinet.com/~orb/gcarlin.htm
- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3i should know this quote but i don't
- jdepp, on 02/23/2008, -6/+17Whether or not you believe in global warming, we're going to run out of fossil fuels and that will trigger a shed-load of problems and wars.
- Prosequi, on 02/23/2008, -0/+7Yes, the end of mass use of fossil fuels may be a problem but clearly it is also an opportunity, one that will require new resources, technology, solutions, behavior, etc. I look forward to a new group of innovators to take us past the fossil fuels and don't believe it has to be all gloom and doom. We've all been through this before and it will happen again - bronze to iron, sail to steam to coal, mail to email, fossil fuel to nuclear fission to solar to nuclear fusion, etc. etc. etc. Bring it on!
- DesertDude, on 02/23/2008, -8/+59The climate hates Americans for their freedom.
- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -2/+16climate hates America for their SUV's
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -6/+1Yeah, we need to start driving more expensive hybrids! Hybrids that can still fail emmissions tests.
- pirloui, on 02/23/2008, -2/+12I think nature hates america for general arrogance towards it...
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1What are you ***** talking about. The U.S. has great environmental standards. Much better than most of the world.
- Archer007, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11I'll show that damn climate! (burns tree).
- bunit03057, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2What does it hate China for then?
- Wizardneck, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2For making a huge percentage of the cheap goods bought by Americans?
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I wonder why the Chinese take all that time to make ***** for us to buy.
- Wizardneck, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2For making a huge percentage of the cheap goods bought by Americans?
- nanoware, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0the climate is a terrorist, we must make a preemptive strike and disable climate from attacking the American people!
- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -2/+16climate hates America for their SUV's
- chopenik, on 02/23/2008, -14/+2What's the climate have to do with the Pentagon? Is climate with the terrorists now? Did I miss something?
- nirav72, on 02/23/2008, -1/+10OK.let me explain- Climate change has everything to do with the Pentagon. The DoD is responsible for our defence. Climate change will most likely cause a breakdown in the supply of necessary resources. Example: Food and Water. That being the case, chances are there will be conflicts over these finite resources. Therefore, the military has an interest. Plus, the pentagon has already done some simulations on the global political and economic impact of climate change. I believe it was called the "climate wars" and some information was published regarding this a few years ago. Google for it.
- Mothity, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1thank you! someone who actually realises the problem!
- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4RTFA
- Mothity, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Take it seriously you idiot. You may be surprised to find out that actually, it is a real threat.
- nirav72, on 02/23/2008, -1/+10OK.let me explain- Climate change has everything to do with the Pentagon. The DoD is responsible for our defence. Climate change will most likely cause a breakdown in the supply of necessary resources. Example: Food and Water. That being the case, chances are there will be conflicts over these finite resources. Therefore, the military has an interest. Plus, the pentagon has already done some simulations on the global political and economic impact of climate change. I believe it was called the "climate wars" and some information was published regarding this a few years ago. Google for it.
- eclectro, on 02/23/2008, -6/+22I am burying this not because the report doesn't imply this, but because the article summary is sensationalist and misleading. This report represents a *very* worst case scenario, which it's the Pentegons job to provide with all things. While global warming may be scientific fact and require quick remedy, the fact is there are equally if not more important issues. Like healthcare and corporate lobbyists, and the twin deficits, that might get us into trouble quicker than global warming.
This digg story does not paint a complete picture and is more of cheap shot to get to the front page. Buried as inaccurate.- Joopje, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4If we don't act soon, there won't be lobbyists to scold or health to care for any more.
It's about setting priorities now. - radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Electro: Health care and lobbyists are a country's own problems to fix or ignore themselves. Climate change is the whole world's problems. "Your" action or inaction may result in the deaths of people who have no say in what "you" do. I agree there are problems in your country and my own that need to be addressed with urgency, but just because there is more than one problem is no excuse for not addressing one of them that has such dire consequences for life on this planet.
By the way - life will survive even if the most drastic predictions eventuate. It just won't be life as we know it now.
- Joopje, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4If we don't act soon, there won't be lobbyists to scold or health to care for any more.
- 6ixStringJack, on 02/23/2008, -9/+2Goddamn Mother Nature is a terrorist!!! I knew it. I thought I was crazy, but you Science Fictionalists take the fruitcake.
- spearce, on 02/23/2008, -6/+4AWESOME!!! I knew all those hours spent playing Battlefield 2142 were not in vain! omg so ***** pwnd. Battlewalker conquers all!!Juan!
- Enderic, on 02/23/2008, -2/+3about freaking time...
- Radical5, on 02/23/2008, -5/+2This is really strange for them to start trash talking the climate now, what do they have to gain?
I think they're trying to use that "fear and control" ***** technique they've been so good at using in the past to regain American trust.- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0Great point. Now instead of fearing terrorists, we need to fear the end of the world!!! Give us more money and more power and we'll protect you!
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1No. It is a stupid point. The article is from 2004.
IPCC is a international group and they concur that climate change is a clear risk to nations around the world. The fact that the Pentagon thrust this information under your governments nose does not a conspiracy make.
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1No. It is a stupid point. The article is from 2004.
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0Great point. Now instead of fearing terrorists, we need to fear the end of the world!!! Give us more money and more power and we'll protect you!
- Mothity, on 02/23/2008, -3/+13well this ridiculous case of 'its not real' has got to stop. we only have one planet, and im not some greenpeace nut. i dont want life for everyone i know to become absolutely ***** and filled with nuclear threats over food and water. we shouldn't have to worry about surviving in this day and age. i mean, 2020 is no time at all, we have to act now and by now everyone should know that global warming and climate change are incredibly dangerous and threatening. so what if the pentagon's paper is for a worst case scenario - once everyone starts to take notice it'll be too late unless we all contribute to protecting the planet. it cant be ignored for much longer
- tgc1, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling in 2020 we'll be saying the same thing. Sorry mate, but the future has been purchased by big oil. They're the ones you have to convince. Not the everyday man. The everyday man can do nothing to stem the issue. It's industry that needs to change.
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -4/+0You're a ***** if you believe that's the oil lobby. Do you know how much money big oil is making off of scarcity of product? Also, do you know how much oil it would take to run the engines that make alternative fuels? But you don't think about things like that eh? It's just OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!
- Mothity, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I know. Its a sorry case unfortunately to know there's nothing that regular people can do. The power and influence is in the industry, hence the governments of the world being owned by oil and fear of change.
- 298th_Scat, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Would you be pissed if you planted all those trees just to die when the sun explodes?
- bradtacs, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0Hell why do ANYTHING if the sun is just going to blow us up before we do it?
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Latest projections for a solar death is 7.2 billion years. Even if we could stop climate change right now, humans will not be around by then. Why even get up in the morning? /snark
- bradtacs, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0Hell why do ANYTHING if the sun is just going to blow us up before we do it?
- raeshao, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2We can all start by rejecting the use of capital letters!
- Mothity, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2lol yes!
- tgc1, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling in 2020 we'll be saying the same thing. Sorry mate, but the future has been purchased by big oil. They're the ones you have to convince. Not the everyday man. The everyday man can do nothing to stem the issue. It's industry that needs to change.
- penmanship, on 02/23/2008, -7/+9This story is 3 years old. The fact that this never even surfaced in the mainstream news is proof which powerhouse won: the oil lobby.
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -8/+1You're a ***** if you believe that's the oil lobby. Do you know how much money big oil is making off of scarcity of product? Also, do you know how much oil it would take to run the engines that make alternative fuels? But you don't think about things like that eh? It's just OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!
- penmanship, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1God you're a tool, what a hyperbole extrapolation. I've been following the dev of hydrogen fuel cells for a decade now. If you think you require fossil fuel oils are required run hydrogen isolation machines then you're an even bigger idiot than you displayed with this comment. That's the whole reason scientists across the globe are working on these problems.
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Or it didn't surface because it was a ***** article. Guardian stories are usually ignored because they aren't worth a damn.
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -8/+1You're a ***** if you believe that's the oil lobby. Do you know how much money big oil is making off of scarcity of product? Also, do you know how much oil it would take to run the engines that make alternative fuels? But you don't think about things like that eh? It's just OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!
- kaptainsteve, on 02/23/2008, -10/+3this is *****.
- gonadsftw, on 02/23/2008, -10/+5Article is from 2004...
- TBerrigan, on 02/23/2008, -9/+13"As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."
Dated 2004. Buried as sensationalist *****.- minoss, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1If this isn't the perfect example of the climate change alarmist ***** I don't know what is.
- Makurosu, on 02/23/2008, -5/+19Well, hopefully democratic frontrunner John Kerry will do something about it if he is elected president in 2004. WTF is with posting a four year old article?
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4KERRY / EDWARDS 2004!
- EPICFAILURE, on 02/23/2008, -6/+19"As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."
EVERYBODY PANIC (IF YOU'RE STILL IN 2005)- UKsHaDoW, on 02/23/2008, -2/+7well obvously you've been to england lately, there's massive amounts of flooding the past few years.
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/articles/2007 ...
The great flood of 1607
Four hundred years ago, in the reign of James I of England, a disaster hit the south west of the country, as a huge surge of water coursed up the Bristol Channel - covering 200 square miles of land with water and killing 2,000 people...
http://books.google.com/books?id=hBnw0NwdzKcC&pg=P ...- Spottswood, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3global warming can travel through time!!!!!!!!! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2NOOOOOO!!!! Dammit Global Warming!!!! I NEED TO GIVE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT!!!! THAT'LL SAVE THE EARTH!!!!
- Herostratos, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2The world is ***** huge, you'd be hard pressed to find a year in which there was *not* a large flood somewhere. But 2005 was not characterized as a "flood-year", and the floods did certainly not cause upheavl for millions, so we can all bury this article as inaccurate.
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Yeah, flooding never happened before.
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/articles/2007 ...
- UKsHaDoW, on 02/23/2008, -2/+7well obvously you've been to england lately, there's massive amounts of flooding the past few years.
- nastronomical, on 02/23/2008, -16/+6Wriiten by morons for morons.
- SharkyTech, on 02/23/2008, -5/+7Time to start stockpiling canned peaches. Oh, and bananas, we'll need those for when the radiation turns us all into monkeys.
- tgc1, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2We're already monkeys. Look in the mirror.
- RichStradler, on 02/23/2008, -6/+3This "secret" alarmist report really helped the "Democratic front runner Kerry" back then too didn't it?
- amathenia, on 02/23/2008, -7/+2I find the lack of "tin-foil hat" comments on articles related to global warming interesting.
- LostAngeles, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Well it was obviously the government, maaaaan.
- joshtj, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5That thumbnail reminds me of how much I want to play with big glass balls like David Bowie in Labyrinth.
- naldwell, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Those are actually David Bowie's real balls, you can see them in his tights throughout the movie.
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1I know a Chinese girl that puts on red shoes and dances the night away...
- sdellboy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Jareth: You remind me of the babe.
Goblin: What babe?
Jareth: The babe with the power.
Goblin: What power?
Jareth: The power of voodoo.
Goblin: Who do?
Jareth: You do.
Goblin: Do what?
Jareth: Remind me of the babe.
Some of Bowie's finest work.
- naldwell, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Those are actually David Bowie's real balls, you can see them in his tights throughout the movie.
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -4/+23Article Date: Sunday February 22, 2004
" As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."
LOL Date: Saturday February 23, 2008 - zippy757, on 02/23/2008, -4/+13..I'm starting to get worried..with Bush gone in less than a year, who will we blame for all things wrong on the planet next February...
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6It won't be Obama...It could be the Jews, Capitalist hold overs from the Bush administration, Scientologists, SUV's...there is a list you can choose from...
- Knucklecallus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3We may have to grow up and start to blame ourselves
- gotigertom, on 02/23/2008, -9/+4DEAR republicans and dems that have their head in the sand and side with BUSH on climate change.
Check out the facts about the North West passage opening up. When cruise ships and tankers start to flow through and area of the world that use to CLOSE DOWN FOR THE WINTER, you might want to consider we may actually be in deep *%$# in the not so long run.
So why do people blow this off and say, "another hollywood movie! Fear mongering! Scientific pontification!"
I get the sense people find such a future too hard to imagine or they are simply too comfortable to accept the notion that this generation needs to radically alter its expectations about an infinite supply of fossil fuels and its impact on the environment. Its too uncomfortable to visualize rioting, famine, neighboring countries going to war over fresh water and arable land.
Another reason? We as North Americans, are pretty fat, happy and resistant to change. Why lift a finger and curb our use of SUVs, push for BETTER public transit or perhaps most important, join in on the conversation and FORCE politicians and mainstream media to make this the number one issue in all debates and agendas.
I have closely watched the presidential debates, news releases and issues being discussed. This topic is NOT under consideration. Its our own fault. At a local level, I watched my city completely pooch an opportunity to invest the required millions to build out a mass transit system that would brings millions of riders in and out of the downtown core. It would have unclogged the roads and most importantly, significantly reduced auto emissions.
Its really up to us. Get involved and don't wait for the next George Bush or CNN to tell you what to do. Its pretty certain, CNN is only going to report future riots, floods, failed crops or water skiing junkets across the North West Passage.
Will Barack Obama rise to the challenge? Will he bring this up at his nomination speech and be bold enough to set this agenda publicly and take on John McCain on this issue? The two side of the debate would be fascinating - one side pushing for a hundred year war and the other side pushing for a complete retraction from aggression and focusing on what is ultimately going to kill us in the long run.- nastronomical, on 02/23/2008, -4/+1Garbage
- RyFo18, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2I'm kinda happy the Northwest passge is open all year. This should be good for the economy :)
- onefinalstep, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Hell yeah.
- muchachoburacho, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Hey, CFC's were good for the economy too!
- Number23, on 02/23/2008, -18/+12More leftist fear mongering
Buried- renski13, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0I agree, this article is just ridiculous. Even if it was true it's outdated. Buried for inacurracy
- govsucks, on 02/23/2008, -13/+5Great, just what we need. The Government wasting trillions of dollars on "the war on climate". I love how leftists have no shame...first it was Global cooling in the 70s then it was Global warming and now its "Climate change". What did you guys have a meeting and decide that you need more ambiguous fear mongering so nobody could call you out when things didn't warm or cool as you predicted? Now you guys will always be right, if anything changes "GASP Climate change!" I mean, this is really pathetic, show me the person who has gone a single day without seeing the climate change.... new "Climate Change" fear mongering = dumbest excuse for global socialism ever. The Sun is going to rise, we need a global illumination tax now!
- theAlice, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4It's global warming and cooling. As the earth seeks to restore the natural balance of forces, parts of the earth will become extremely hot and extremely cold. Heat that's trapped isn't going to disappear, but relocate.
L2science please.- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -2/+0Oh, more scientists believe in man-made global warming than global cooling, so THAT makes it true? What about all the scientists who DON'T believe in man-made global warming? Are they just like the doctors who believe in natural healing over prescribing a ***** of drugs? *even though we know natural healing is more effective for most ailments* They don't follow the crowd, so they're wrong!!! Don't listen to them!!!!
- govsucks, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1Well Mr. Science, then we are perfectly fine because current temperatures are well below the hottest the earth has been and well above the coldest it has been. The earth and most of the species on its surface have survived both colder and warmer temps in the past. Greenland was at one time green, if it happens again should we attempt to stop it? Liberals have been unable to save human beings, despite their best efforts for centuries poverty still exists so I have no faith in you fools saving the climate of our planet nor do I have any faith in your theories about environmental change on this planet. The LAST thing we need is a bunch of tree swinging socialists that have known the universe for 30-80 years ***** with a billion year old climate structure. You guys think you know everything, I think I don't know enough about the climate of the earth to be telling people what to do with their lives or money. Whos the pushy know it all ***** again? Must be nice to be so sure of yourselves, does your ***** stink?
- RationalCenter, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6Govsucks, there was never widespread concern about global cooling. A few scientists brought up the idea thirty-five years ago. Get over it. Global warming has been an issue scientists have expressed concern over since the early 1980s. (Good lord, there are Calvin and Hobbes cartoons on the subject - that's how long we've been discussing this!) "Climate change" is a word that the Republicans came up with, not liberals, because it sounded less threatening. I'm sure global warming doesn't make sense to someone that keeps their head firmly lodged in the lower colon, but the rest of us live in the exterior world where global warming very real, and we aren't going to pay attention to the mindless blatherings of willfully ignorant people.
- govsucks, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2"us live in the exterior world where global warming very real" REALLY, in what way has your life changed because of "Global warming"....other than hysteria?
- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -2/+0No, ignorant people are the ones that listen to a guy who flies on private jets, rides in limos and lives in mansions telling you you need to pay money, ride your bike and YOU need to conserve electricity. It's usually the global warming people that down on christians, not realizing you're not better than them.
- Typhoon2009, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I don't care if there "really is" man-made climate change. Shouldn't we still research new methods? Nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, (yeah I know they're not new, but better versions). Cheaper LED lights. Green homes. It's all for the greater benefit either way.
- govsucks, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Well sure, I have no problem with free people developing newer and more efficient technologies. What I do have a problem with is people stealing the efforts of others "for their own good" I don't have much appreciation for people who are so arrogant that they think their only job in life is to tell others what to do because they know best. They don't produce, refine or create, they just sit around and wring their hands with their big useless noses stuck firmly in someones business. They love freedom, unless it interferes with what they know is best, and then freedom be damned. If society waas left to these people we would be living in hives.
- Winston84, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Nice to see that some people still have their head firmly buried in the dirt, keeping the ostriches with company .
This is one of the problems facing people who distrust everything any Government says : Sometimes governments are actually
telling "the truth" straight to your face. They do this when they can use "the truth" to serve their purpose but that doesn't make what they are saying untrue .- govsucks, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Really, you believe it so government MUST be telling the truth. Couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the increase in capital they stand to take from the lemmings huh. Someplace on earth right now a politician is salivating and the though of having your fool ass for lunch.
- theAlice, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4It's global warming and cooling. As the earth seeks to restore the natural balance of forces, parts of the earth will become extremely hot and extremely cold. Heat that's trapped isn't going to disappear, but relocate.
- champ2486, on 02/23/2008, -6/+9This is strange... An article 4 years old claiming England to become Siberian-like in 20 years. So whats the temp doing since the article was posted? Well according to the BBC the climate there is becoming wetter and WARMER (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2330553.stm). Why not every digger try and do 1 min of research on this stuff, and actually sort out the b.s. like this article, or just let the internet fill up with so much ***** that we are buried under false information. Speaking of buried, this article just was
- champ2486, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3haha, i just went against my own suggestion and referenced an article from 2002. I'll try to find more up to date info...
- champ2486, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ - UK average yearly temp: 9.5C from 02-05, was 9.7C in 06, and 9.6C in 07. So far no conclusive evidence of approaching Siberian like conditions.
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1The (dated) report takes the worst case scenario which is what the Pentagon is charged to do.
The worst case scenario has since been updated by the IPCC and guess what. It is even more nasty. But both of the scenarios are based on a tipping point being reached so your application of gradualism as a counter argument is moot.- champ2486, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'm just using some common sense with this. We are almost 1/3 through the time the "report" says that in the worst case scenario of Siberian-like conditions in the UK would take place, and the average yearly temp has risen. How short a time period would this tipping point take effect and disruption of the ocean currents causing mass climate change. I'm sorry but I laughed my ass off at the Day After Tomorrow after the global climate ***** up in a matter of weeks. I can understand that human activity affects the climate but I view scenarios like those in the movie and what I can tell from this article as pure sensationalism.
- radix2, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1The (dated) report takes the worst case scenario which is what the Pentagon is charged to do.
- champ2486, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ - UK average yearly temp: 9.5C from 02-05, was 9.7C in 06, and 9.6C in 07. So far no conclusive evidence of approaching Siberian like conditions.
- champ2486, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3haha, i just went against my own suggestion and referenced an article from 2002. I'll try to find more up to date info...
- Goldbricker, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5Even the most crazed global warming enthusiast would scoff at the suggestion that GB will be Siberianized by 2020. It's a more gradual process than that.
- DestroyFascism, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2It won't be.
The weather is growing in intensity, simple reason> The oceans are warming, Hadly cells have nearly doubled in size since 1970 and with that, trade winds have begun fluctuating where they used to be constant. The weather patterns will be emphasized more and more, Intense Colds, Intense Heatwaves. What you are seeing now is but a taste of what will come, The green belt of the USA will see prolonged droughts, then massive ice storms and blizzard dumps. Only the strongest survivors will prevail. Timber housing and light structures will be blown off their footings and Aeriel power lines become a health hazard and far to expensive to maintain. Northern Australia has just had a 15 year drought and now its flooded and has been for 6 months. This was Australia's food bowl. Now its almost bankrupt or bankrupted.- gofalcons, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2My god, you sound like a fundamentalist christian. You global warming people don't realize how close you actually are to them. TEH WORLD IS GONNA END!!!!111 unless you drive hybrids and recycle and pay a global carbon tax.
- stacker2, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0Fully agree with Goldbricker. I've heard 2050 at the earliest, and that's for things like increased hurricanes, not a Siberia-ized UK. There is just no way that the Earth's climate is going to shift that drastically in 12 years. Forty years? Most likely, and we're f'd if we don't start to take steps to deal with this. But saying this is around the corner is just nuts. And why is this article from 2004? Oddly enough they were somewhat right about "next year" having massive storms: Katrina was in 2005.
- DestroyFascism, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2It won't be.
- coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -13/+16During the Roman occupation of Britain, it was much warmer than today. I'm tired of people trying to grab my cash just to prove they hate Bush.
- DewCrew88, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3Tip of the hat to you.
Hope that you also buried it as inaccurate. - flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2good comment
- Ganja420, on 02/23/2008, -2/+3The vikings used to have cows in Greenland too...
- atthepool65, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1how do you know that? is that true?
- mrhaines, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5The IPCC report is based upon an understanding of both natural and anthropogenic forcing and the climate response to both. Paleoclimatic records clearly demonstrate that the last century has been warmer in many areas than for several millennia, and that this warming followed one of the coldest periods of the late Holocene (The Little Ice Age). Thus the rate of temperature change to which ecosystems and society have been subjected over the last 150 years has had no analog for thousands of years.
Through proxy data such as oxygen isotopes, tree rings, and lake sediment, we can paint a picture of climate variation in many areas of the world for thousands of years. Localized temperature increase in one place does not tell us anything about climate change patterns. No one doubts that at points in the earths history, the planet has been a lot warmer than it is today. It is the rate of change we are seeing today as a result of anthropogenic causes rather than natural ones that is the worry. At no point in the planets history have we been able to see GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at levels we see today. So, add the effects of human released GHG to the already occurring natural causes of climate change (such as the Milankovitch cycles) and you have a significantly unpredictable climate future.
- DewCrew88, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3Tip of the hat to you.
- theAlice, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Holy *****, the Pentagon just held an emergency press conference: http://youtube.com/watch?v=S2JJ6EM2fLk
- raakesh123, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1omg, up until now, i was like meh climate change it will be slow not a worry, but 20 years, holy crap!
- Gndoab, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2there is no source named, just that "High level defense" people are trying to "keep it out of the hands of" other people.
Buried for lack of a credible source.
and p.s. having the name of a person who commissioned the report, and having no names for who is trying to keep it secret, who wrote what in it, and any number of other things makes this bunk. - doyoulikeworms, on 02/23/2008, -4/+5Propaganda regularly makes the Digg front page, but 4 year old propaganda? Digg has reached yet another new low.
- Ne007, on 02/23/2008, -4/+1We must act now by creating a world tax and tax everybody that farts. LOL.
Oh...that's what they want to do. ugh. -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
