What is Digg?134 Comments
- Jenadae, on 07/14/2008, -3/+77Whether or not global warming exists there is absolutely no reason why we should not focus on more eco-friendly technologies.
- rz8472, on 07/14/2008, -3/+50Get to da (electric, eco-friendly) choppa!
- Dumbledorito, on 07/14/2008, -4/+22"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!"
Hyuk-hyuk-hyuk, Georgie. - liljay2k, on 07/14/2008, -2/+17Wildfires, get down!
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+15Now everyone bust out your favorite Arnold sound panel...
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -2/+15Cannot believe that no one yet has used:
"COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE!" - steveoco, on 07/14/2008, -2/+14Bush is a girly man!
- urgeigh, on 07/14/2008, -5/+16Whatever happened to humans causing the hole in the ozone layer btw?
- Amplix, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11and the president can?
Personally I'd rather hear Arnie speak. - VinnieDaMac, on 07/14/2008, -4/+15Whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change, it's naive to think that humans have had NO impact at all on the environment.
- ADVIZR, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12Excellent point. It's like all these scientists -- and now the general public -- actually thinking the Earth isn't flat. Where the hell do they get off? CLEARLY, THE EARTH IS FLAT, GOD DAMMIT.
- ADVIZR, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9That petition piece has been thoroughly debunked and isn't even peer-reviewed, because it wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/ ...
Excerpt in reply:
[The "scientific" paper looks like any other reprint from a scientific journal. However, what the authors fail to mention is that this article was neither peer-reviewed nor previously published in any shape or form. To anyone not intimately familiar with scientific papers, this article would probably help to perpetuate the myth that there is still uncertainty about the warming of the earth. This paper, was in part, produced by employees of the George C. Marshall Institute. This organization, founded in 1980 to issue reports promoting President Reagan's "star wars" defense program, conducts no original research. Most recently, it has focused on issuing reports dismissing climate change (Gelbspan, 1997).]
It's unfortunate that there are so many people who actually buy into the notion that humans aren't greatly contributing to global warming and that it's some vast conspiracy. The type of pseudo-science you've referred to is the deadliest kind: it creates the appearance of validity and doubt where, in actuality, the real scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and increasing rapidly, directly because of man-made pollution. But thank you for a good example of the type of propaganda that global warming disbelievers are feeding from. - sniper241, on 07/14/2008, -5/+12Bush, you idiot! (add Shwarzeneggerian accent)
- nick111, on 07/14/2008, -4/+12Actually we have mountains of evidence that we're causing it.
- GamingFox, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9Stephanopoulos, Schwarzenegger?
- codyman, on 07/14/2008, -3/+10agreed, however, we all don't need to be sitting in tepees eating organic granola
we need to progress with technologies, not digress - Rapter09, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9"But that’s not how we put a man on the moon. We did not say let everyone else do the same thing, then we will do it. We said we want to be the pioneers, we want to be out there in front. … I think we have a good opportunity to do the same thing, also, with fighting global warming."
--
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. "
John F. Kennedy - September 12th 1962
Have to give credit to Arnie. That was a really excellent example. - apox24, on 07/14/2008, -2/+8Are you serious? ?? ???
The ozone layer is still there, and is repairing itself because we acted in time and vastly reduced the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone depleting chemicals. The reason why that was succesful, was that there were alternatives available and there wasn't such a huge industry attempting to subvert the science behind it, and we acted relatively quickly. Google the Montreal Protocol.
This climate change denial type thing seems much worse in the US for some reason, maybe it's the media or lack of science education, I don't know, I just don't think it's as bad elsewhere. Any insight anyone? - angryredplanet, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6@JimmySpazA
Measurements made in 1976 by the Viking landers and later with NASA's rovers established the composition of the atmosphere on Mars as 95.3% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, and 1.6% argon, with smaller amounts of oxygen (0.15%) and water vapor (0.03%). Mars has got an atmosphere that's conducive to a greenhouse-like climate.
The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on Earth and it has been established that it is not the primary cause of the current climate change.
As for this alledged finding that Mars is heating up, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change there. The only "evidence" out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows sublimation over a two year (~1 martian year) period.
To summarise:
On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.
One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting. - ADVIZR, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6@JimmySpaza
I just noticed one lone voice of reason in a sea of idiocy in the comments at your link, who has some more background info on that discredited paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
/yet another sigh @ the truth really being this "inconvenient" to so many people - nick111, on 07/14/2008, -6/+11We acted on reducing the causes and dramatically reduced the effect... because there wasn't an oil industry producing disinformation,for stupid gulliable ***** to mindlessly echo on the internet.
Which isn't to say that the ozone hole hasn't caused damage - children in New Zealand are now prone to coming down with bone diseases because they don't get the requisite vitamin D, because they're not allowed out in the sun because there's a burn time of less than 15 minutes. - WATYF, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Actually, there are plenty of people asking that we all "digress" and go backwards in terms of convenience and lifestyle and comfort and what not (of course, those doing the asking commonly exempt themselves from the digression... but I digress).
I'm all for renewable energy... as long as it means going *forward*. My electric car should be *faster* and longer-running than my gas car... not vastly inferior. Solar for my home should be *cheaper* and more available than grid power, not more than twice as expensive with obscene up-front costs. (etc, etc, etc) - dvsbastard, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6I remain undecided, and open to all sides of the global warming debate, but one thing I agree on is that the research and development of eco friendly technologies is extremely beneficial to us, and thus should be a high priority...
- LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Arnold, What is greatest in life?
"To crush and recycle your enemies,
see their hybrid vehicles driven before you,
and to hear the lamentation
of their organic hemp wearing women!" - sporg, on 07/14/2008, -8/+12Global warming, keeping the proles minds occupied even better than global cooling did.
- johnnick, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4When I do that I end up sounding like Ren.
- rukeypoo, on 07/14/2008, -3/+7Arnold is letting off some steam.
Bennet. - monoa, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4The weight of scientific evidence is so overwhelming, even genius George recognises it. And he also recognises that if he continues denying it, his precious legacy will be further destroyed (if that's possible).
- Jamesx6, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Bush is economically responsible? LMAO
- LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4You do realize certain groups of people not only understand global warming, but are banking on it.
There are huge profits to be made when the heat hits the fan... - doublejay1973, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3easy to do this now, with bush on the way out, isn't it ? why not 5 , 6, 7 years ago ? oh thats right, you were trying to enter politics
- publiclurker, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3And Bush.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -3/+6People, you DO NOT want global warming. It means just more and more unnecessary taxes for you.
- sporg, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4I did say that and its still a very entertaining thought. Feel free to bring up any of my previous comments that you like. I'm sure there are ones in there that would make me look a lot worse than silly little joke.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Terminated.
- nick111, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4And other celebrity gossip.
- nevpayne, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3That film does seem very against Arnie... chopping down massive trees, 100s of massive explosions... not very eco-friendly.
- DestroyFascism, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3He is a coward.
- publiclurker, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3We are also the home of Creationism.
- notoneofus, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2How do you deport a US citizen? He's been one for 25 years.
- gsadamb, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Sure. Call, global warming a hoax. Blame it on some insidious Al Gore underground organization out to make money. Fine.
But I cannot stand by while you call Bush the smartest guy in the room. Hell, he'd barely qualify for that even if he were the only one in the room. - spankaccount, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Bush on Global Warming: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20 ...
- liuite, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2scientists have known for decades that planet Venus is extremely hot due to greenhouse gases (CO2). if we allow the greenhouse gases to heat up the planet, there is no guarantee that it will be reversible. if Dubya thinks that it is not man-made, where does he think all the C02 emission go? only a moron will believe that CO2 will not contribute to global warming.
- atmenterprises, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5With all you Diggers crying fascism over Bush's administration, there was a recent proposal in California to have the state control YOUR home's thermostat so that the government could shut off your heat or air conditioner at will to save power.
- bosssmiley, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Accuse him of being a Turrurist. I understand human rights and civil liberties don't apply in those matters.
- Vic333, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2See, even Arnold makes fun of Bush's intelligence.
- JaredClayton, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2What have i to comment about this? Well..Nothing really, because whatever anybody says or does..Global warming is still going to occur, day and age doesn't matter..
- angryredplanet, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5Solar irradiance has changed minimally since measurement of it began back in 1978. While this plays some part, it cannot be the attributed to the current rate of warming. F.Y.I. the difference in solar irradiance over the last 30 years has been only 2 W/m^2.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d ...
Every "natural cycle" proponent, needs to identify just what this alledged natural mechanism is because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause. They'll also need to come up with some explanation for how a 30% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not itself affect the global temperature.
There is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing, so where is the sceptic model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature and where is the evidence of some other mysterious climate forcing from within the natural cycle you speak of? - angryredplanet, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2"But to be honest, this is all because of the green/environmental lobby (which are far too powerful)"
Far too powerful for who, Big Oil, Coal and Gas?? Come on, seriously? That may be the case in the US, but what about in Canada, the UK, Australia? Do they wield the same amount of power and if so, how do they moderate it across borders?
You misalign others for being one dimensional thinkers but can't seem to see past the one dimensional dot you exist on.
"If only people put this much effort into solving malaria, HIV/AIDS, poverty and malnutrition. But no, those are old and boring issues, we need something new to show we care....."
Human population is out of control and is directly the reason we are having this debate. Humans cannot keep overbreeding the way we have over the last 200 years. The last thing this planet and the process of our natural evolution needs are cures. -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 