What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
129 Comments
- redgiemental, on 11/26/2008, -11/+26If this so obviously happened without our influence why it so obtusely insulting for me to suggest we are no the primary cause of today's warming?
- Alexcarrier, on 11/27/2008, -6/+17Facts? Who needs those! I think global warming is a lie because my political views disagree with what to do about it!
Your input is unneeded fellow deniers, I have taken care of this petty thing they call science. - kivab4b, on 11/26/2008, -4/+15Add to this the report on the fact that the oceans are more acidic now than before.
- AmyVernon, on 11/26/2008, -11/+20Just because it would happen anyway doesn't mean that it's not happening a hell of a lot faster because of our influence.
- smotpoker, on 11/27/2008, -6/+15Deniers aren't obtuse for believing climates change naturely, they are obtuse for assuming it can't be influenced by humans at all and/or that it shouldn't be slowed as much as possible until technology/societies can compensate (especially when their primary justification is "I'll be dead anyway so who cares?" or "it's impossible to stop it entirely so why bother trying at all?")
- Jenga, on 11/27/2008, -3/+11Mathematically, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Gut feeling != math - WordsnCollision, on 11/26/2008, -4/+12True, the Earth has experienced a huge range of climate variations over its 4+ billion years of existence. The thing is, humans have evolved to thrive in the current climate. We'd be stupid to cause things to change now... and if things change now because of our activities, we are stupid.
- TheMoniker, on 11/27/2008, -1/+8Climate is the statistical average of atmospheric conditions (including extremes) over a significant period of time. Even if we have seen slight cooling over the past year or two, it wouldn't mean that the larger trend wasn't toward warming. That would be a bit like saying that the financial crisis is over/isn't happening because there was a rally and the Dow went up 247 points today.
- smotpoker, on 11/27/2008, -4/+11You deniers are apparently morons who are incapable of reading/comprehending the first sentence of this article (or the digg description, for that matter), let alone the rest of the content.
Description/First sentence:
"The first comprehensive reconstruction of an extreme warm period shows the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels as well as the strong influence of ocean temperatures, heat transport from equatorial regions, and greenhouse gases on Earth's temperature"
Do you morons have any idea how many thousands of tons of CO2 we pump out every year? Let alone the other greenhouse gasses?
FTA:
"Since CO2 levels during the mid-Pliocene were only slightly higher than today's levels, PRISM research suggests that a slight increase in our current CO2 level could have a large impact on temperature change. Research also shows warming of as much as 18°C, bringing temperatures from -2°C to 16°C, in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans during the mid-Pliocene. Warming in the Pacific, similar to a present day El Niño, was a characteristic of the mid-Pliocene."
Please, get a clue people. You guys see an article that shows millions of years ago a climate change occurred similar to ours and take it as evidence that we can't/don't have an influence? That is like saying millions of years ago dinosaurs went extinct so we cannot influence extinction today.
Every time you morons comment ignorantly like this it becomes more and more obvious why the world is falling apart. Please don't be ***** retarded and, if you *insist* on being ignorant by refusing to consider facts and jumping to conclusions, just keep it to yourselves so the people who actually give a ***** about trying to learn/understand don't have so much sewage to wade through. - freezerburn666, on 11/27/2008, -4/+10this reply does not contain any numbers.
- hiPpymIck, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6i guess
because it involves the human race having "MAYBE NO CHOICE" but to do something .. some will agree to do it .. others will say no - its turned into a bit of an argument .. and theres a bit of name-calling
it is potentially a very serious issue if you think about it - years ago it could have provoked a war
i spose we're fed up with ppl playing Devils Advocate in a situation where some real action might be necessary
the debate has moved beyond the stage of
'maybe it isnt true'
the problem is in the future we might be saying
'on noes.. it is true .. but we chose to ignore the warnings and did nothing'
i dont want to feel that much of an idiot
- malex, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6Bcronos, if there were really non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts that had irrefutable evidence against climate change, I'm fairly sure there would be a more legitimate source than "Ihatealgore.com"
- anonymous1986, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6I think that you are being played by right wing blogs, oil companies and anti-science fools.
- Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6bcronos
fossil fuel burning produces TWICE as much WATER VAPOR as CO2
eg CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O
yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas. When water vapor reaches saturation - it rains. It is self limiting for a particular temperature, but warming increases the amount of water vapor the air can hold - a positive feedback mechanism.
re CO2 lag. A glacial warming phase lasts about 5,000 years, for the first 800 years warming (probably due to orbital changes) releases CO2. The CO2 then makes the temperature rise for the next 4,200 years.
see UK Met office for debunking of your misapprehensions
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ... - Dweller99, on 11/27/2008, -0/+5yet 5 years ago the same people saying that AGW is BS were also saying that GW at all was BS. So which is it. Were you wrong then, or now?
As for "Al's house" he runs 2 companies out of it. More like Al's office building. All of the power his house consumes (and then some) comes from renewable sources. Also he has spent a considerable amount of money to retrofit for geothermal and solar and your "20 times" number (which is completely inaccurate, go figure huh?) came from the time DURING a lot of that construction. you know, when there were even more people there than just the staff of 2 companies.
Feel free to update your talking points at your earliest convenience. - smotpoker, on 11/27/2008, -0/+5You seem to be presuming that human evolution stopped before humanity began to leave Africa. In the thousands of years since our ancestors originally left height, body fat, melatonin and other characteristics have changed in many/most races since they left Africa and as a result people from many races are much less suited for higher temps than they were originally. Hell, I'm mulatto with primarily British ancestry on my white side and start sweating when temp gets > 75F just sitting around.
- Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+5NASA evidence for humans now changing the climate - but maybe they lied about the moon landings too /sarcasm
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/ - Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+5NASA evidence for human-caused climate change http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
maybe they know more than you do.
BTW I look to climate scientists (not politicians whether Gore or Inhofe) to tell me about climate science.
Benoldays, The answer is both.
Maybe you have never heard about the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) not IPGW. It began in 1988. Check their evidence http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm learn - Countess666, on 11/28/2008, -0/+5termites produce co2 yes... so do you.
the thing is, the termite's C for the CO2 comes from plant matter already in circulation.
plants later take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it in to C for plant matter and O2. which the termites then use again. a closed cycle where as much carbon goes in as comes out of the atmosphere. (didn't you get this stuff in highschool btw?, in the Netherlands its part of the curriculum)
the problem is by burning fosile files you are ADDING carbon to the cycle, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.
that carbon hasn't been in circulation since the dinosaurs when the earth had much thicker vegetation to trap more of the carbon in plant matter. the plant life of today cant offset all the extra carbon we are putting into it by growing more, even if it had the room to do it! - Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+5See UK Royal Society (the world's oldest non governmental academic society for a debunking of climate myths
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230
Fossil fuels produce TWO molecules of WATER VAPOR for every molecule of CO2
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O - smotpoker, on 11/27/2008, -0/+5@Beautyon
Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone with that term nor was I aware of any such implications (I never got around to finishing 1984 or even starting any of his other works). I only meant it to describe the people who deny it as if there was 0 evidence supporting climate change theories and seem to think any/all natural influences somehow prove definitively that human-influenced climate change is impossible. - anonymous1986, on 11/28/2008, -0/+4You seem to pull out "facts" from your ass faster than O'reilly imagines them into his head. Where do you come up with this *****?!
"First off, 98% of greenhouse gasses consist of water vapor. Termites produce 10 times more CO2 than all the fossil fuels burned. CO2 levels rise as ocean temperatures rise, not the other way around."
At least the termites one made me laugh.
Seriously, I'm concerned for your safety in real life if you are gullible enough to believe these "facts". - angryredplanet, on 11/28/2008, -0/+4"Skeptic" is for those who have assessed the science and have concerns or reservations that it may be incorrect, or that conclusions made are not properly based on results of observations and modeling.
"Denier" is apt for people who ignore the science, use public figureheads (Al Gore) as tools to discredit climate science, or otherwise put forward ridiculous notions that have been debunked multiple times but doggedly cling to their beliefs that just make no scientific sense. For example Al Gore is making money and has a mansion, therefore "man-made global warming" doesn't exist. Or the name has changed from Global Warming to Climate Change therefore it isn't real. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Advocates for anthropogenic climate change trust the opinions of the domain experts: the climate scientists. This is akin to cancer patients getting health and treatment advice from oncologists as opposed to, say, psychotherapists. Deniers can get their cancer treatments from their psychotherapist but they must realise their chance of survival is greatly reduced as a result.
There is a plethora of studies concluding that human ecological damage and fossil fuel use are major contributors to the currently observed rapid warming climate. There are a lot of us humans on this planet and we need to look after it better than we are. The current path we're on is unsustainable and to continue on it will ensure we're a civilisation in very real danger of destroying itself.
@Beautyon
Science never proves anything as "incontrovertible fact" - proof is a property of mathematics. In science there are always degrees of error. In the case of anthropogenic climate change, we know that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. We know that atmospheric concentration of CO2 IS increasing. We also know that every day more and more coal, oil and gas are burned creating more CO2 - it's cumulative. Then there are the mountains of observational evidence, which I will omit for brevity.
The theory of anthropogenic climate change is as good as "incontrovertible fact". There's no scientific justification to position yourself as a non-believer and you're ignoring the science that demonstrates that this opinion is very likely wrong. That is denial. - Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4bcronos
burning fossil fuels produces TWICE as much WATER VAPOR as CO2
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O
See the Royal Society of England's debunking of your climate myths http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230
The Royal Society is the world's oldest learned society. It now consists of the academic elite, tenured, non-government. They know who the real climate scientists are and what they have found. They are not ignorant as you claim. - Jenga, on 11/27/2008, -2/+6Last I checked, you're the whacko. Weather != climate.
PS: Troll - TheMoniker, on 11/27/2008, -2/+6You're just plain wrong. We have a (combined global land and marine surface temperature) record from 1850 to 2008 (last month). The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record*, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001. From the looks of things, 2008 is going to be up there as well. There's reason to believe that we'll see a slight pause or dip in sea surface temperature due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, but this isn't news to anyone who knows the first thing about climate science.
But don't take my word for it, go look at the data yourself, you can download the new set each month:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq - Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4A "denier" is someone who denies a proposition.
eg a Global Warming Denier is someone who denies that the earth is warming
eg an AGW denier is someone who denies human-caused global warming.
A skeptic is unconvinced/unsure of a proposition.
The perjorativeness is to do with the quality of the science and arguments used by deniers eg anti-Gore ad hominem - barius, on 11/27/2008, -1/+4Of course, because *you* are clearly more capable of analyzing the data than all those PHD's working on this project.
/sarcasm - rustintable, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3He is probably being paid to do this.
It is spam. - Isidore, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3See NASA evidence for human caused climate change
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ - smotpoker, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3Please do. Bear in mind that my argument is the previous responders to this submission who seem to think it somehow validates claims that humans can't influence global warming because it happened without people in the past are ignorant morons.
Claiming that a natural occurrence definitively disproves the possibility of it occurring unnaturally is the very definition of stupidity. - Jacare, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3From 1960 - present, the global average temperature has increased by about 0.5°C, by definition that is "Global Warming"
here's some graphs for you to look at (remember to read the numbers on the side!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempe ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temper ... - anonymous1986, on 11/28/2008, -1/+4I don't think they teach that stuff in the united states, they still teach creationism in some states after all. It's pointless arguing with global warming deniers, their views are based on politics, not science.
- bobbi21, on 11/28/2008, -0/+3some people have to do some research...
"Wait, are you saying there used to be ice ages? Pff that nuclear winter stuff must be false then. Let's nuke everybody! It won't do anything to change our climate since we had ice ages before! Oh? and there was a time where there wasn't any ozone layer? Let's start pumping some more CFC's into the atmosphere. It'll be fine" - bobbi21, on 11/28/2008, -0/+3but the temperatures on other planets don't correlate. I've explained the temperature change on Mars too many times already. Spend 5 mins looking it up. It'll be good to look up other sides to arguments.
- wunksta, on 11/28/2008, -0/+2the ice age predictions were sensationalized by news sources, and there were several articles during the 70's talking about future temperature increases.
the dip was more caused by our own emissions than anything else. you should fact check what he posted though, its all ***** and deceptive. - Gardimus, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3I don't think you getting buried proves Digg is socialists as much as it proves your post is obnoxious and stupid.
- Countess666, on 11/28/2008, -0/+2are you still spamming this stuff? i've allready proved you wrong in another thread.
you keep posting this non-scientific oil and cool industrial propaganda (so how much are they paying you do say this crap?) that takes advantage of peoples ignorance of basic cientific facts and tried to disprove global warming or climate change by saying that co2 is non-toxic and therefor hardmess, it is non-toxic but the EXTRA amount of co2 is not harmless.
NON of your facts are true, or are taking completely out of context or have in fact nothing to do with climate change. - Gardimus, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3Because the increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution is almost exactly the same as the amount of CO2 humans have been responsible for releasing. I suppose that is why its obtusely insulting.
- Jenga, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2The earth has almost always been teeming with life -- even during severe glaciation. It's just as hard to live in a desert as in an arctic desert.
- andreegal, on 11/28/2008, -0/+2you know what the problem is with the whole global warming thing.....people on both sides believe what they want to believe period. there is simply not enough evidence nor conclusive. If you're honest and dispassionate about the research you read on the subject, you'll find contradicting evidence everywhere!....people who claim to have the absolute answer on this has an agenda.
- wunksta, on 11/28/2008, -0/+2they made an error which was corrected
- Countess666, on 11/28/2008, -0/+2i think you mean, drive a SUV sponsor terrorists with you fuel-bill?
- dbzssj44676, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2So 7 of 11 or 63% people on Digg are socialists. I would like a larger sample for my study but, this seems accurate enough.
- anonymous1986, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2How much did the rich oil companies pay to you say that so that they can continue to sell you overpriced fossil fuels?
- rustintable, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2Only someone who was paid to say that would say that.
You sir are spam.
BTW this is kind of interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvCm7rixdZk&feature ... - wunksta, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1@We have climatologists who use only ice core data from the last 10,000 years
dead wrong
"By the time Alley and the GISP2 project finished in the early 1990s, they had pulled a nearly 2-mile-long core (3,053.44 meters) from the Greenland ice sheet, providing a record of at least the past 110,000 years. Even older records going back about 750,000 years have come out of Antarctica. "
"The ice cores can provide an annual record of temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and wind patterns. "
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleocli ... - bobbi21, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1Uh.. unless you're currently living in africa or something then yes you kinda did cause their poverty in exactly the same way you're causing global warming. The gluttony of the US and other developed countries and their exploitation of the developing countries was a prime cause of their problems and as a member of that society and that gluttony we are contributing to it. We contribute to a million stuff to be guilty of. Everyone who voted for bush should feel guilty about a million more stuff.
In general you are correct, ppl do like the whole we caused some impending disaster thing and want to feel good about stopping it. But things are different when we get a thing called science. Our own gut feelings can't change the scientific evidence and the greed of oil companies trumps any vague innate desire for guilt and redemption.
Sure global climate is complex but you can still make predictions. A lot of climate research was to rule out the other factors causing current climate change. As was said in another thread, just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
People rarely even need logical stuff to feel guilty about. Look at all the ppl against vaccines. Same guilt & self importance deal but with no evidence for it yet it's hugely popular. Science always has the final say, and science, for now, is in favour of global warming. - angryredplanet, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1@Beautyon
I don't think the word "denier" is derived from "holocaust deniers". It appears to me that it's a personal connotation that you (and perhaps others) attribute to the term. If you didn't mention the world "holocaust", Nazi Germany in WW2 wouldn't have even blipped on my radar. Really there is no correlation between the two other than the level of stubborn ignorance and/or self serving motives in both instances.
Any name-calling is inappropriate for a civilised, rational discussion of anything. However, a quick parse through the comments in most topics dealing with climate change immediately removes that civilised rationality. I am in no doubt there will be some examples of this on this page. People that ignore the science, ignore the reasons why their opinions are flawed yet continue to stoically believe they are correct can only be described as deniers.
I have no problem with skeptics as they keep science moving and self-correcting. I do have problems with deniers who help nothing and nobody. I feel the two are entirely separate classes of people. - MWeather, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1"If this so obviously happened without our influence why it so obtusely insulting for me to suggest we are no the primary cause of today's warming?"
Because we can explain the previous warming without factoring in human causes. We can't say that about today's warming. Anyone with even a cursory grasp of climate science could tell you that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
