What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.527 Comments
- Jenga, on 10/30/2008, -36/+313The author is censoring comments on that page which point out that he does not cite the source of his quotes: a press release which contradicts the central theme of his article.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/mio ...
Also, please see the following FACTUAL article on the subject from an AP science reporter:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibwC_yqdCtXd24m ...
I'm sad to see that TGDaily has gone the way of Micheal Asher's misinformation stream at DailyTech. It's just a pathetic effort to get web traffic, because every conservative blog will link to a story like this. Sadly, it works, and these sites reap in ad money for misrepresenting the results of scientific papers. - stonewall123, on 10/30/2008, -35/+162I know that you deniers think you're onto something here but you're not. That TG Daily concoction is downright misleading and is a prime example of bad journalism. Read the statement directly from MIT. Nowhere does it say that these methane increases contradict global warming.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
or better yet the actual article:
M. Rigby, R. Prinn, P. Fraser, P. Simmonds, R. Langenfelds, J. Huang1, D. Cunnold, P. Steele, P. Krummel, R.Weiss, S. O'Doherty, P. Salameh, H. Wang, C. Harth, J. Mühle, L. Porter. Renewed growth of atmospheric methane. Geophysical Review Letters, 28 pages 2008 - monoa, on 10/31/2008, -14/+105Go to some sideshow blog, tgdaily in this case, if you want to be lied to, to be told what you *want* to hear.
Go direct to MIT if you're interested in truth: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ... - MarkusX, on 10/31/2008, -7/+87Even if it's true, that Global Warming isn't man made,...
That does NOT mean,
that I must run into the next Hummer dealership tomorrow or
get my 1986 FCKW-venting fridge back from the dump.
It doesn't hurt to watch out for mother Earth anyway. - greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -16/+80From the TG article, NOT from the actual research paper http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
TG, as usual, just made that ***** up. I think I prefer real science to Denier fictions, thank you very much http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ... - falstaff, on 10/30/2008, -18/+72Building just 100 new nuclear plants (the US has 104 already) to replace coal plants would save as much CO2 as is emitted by almost every car in the country.
Tell me what's not only cheaper, but also quicker AND more realistic:
A) Getting Americans to cut back on driving and getting more fuel efficient cars to the tune of cutting consumption by more than 50% (when gas prices approached $5/gallon, it only cut back consumption by - cheerio, on 10/30/2008, -14/+64Methane is largely a gas of life. You should take a gander at the wikipedia page if you think this proves global warming wrong. While you're there check out the largest sources of natural methane while you're there. Also the title is a misnomer, it didn't disprove global warming, even as is. It disproves that man is solely responsible for global warming.
Buried for sensationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane - Isidore, on 10/30/2008, -41/+87This misrepresents the MIT results.
If you wanted to get reliable information on a matter of medical FACT would you ask a blogger, economist, politician or a medical scientist? If you need surgery who would you trust and why?
If you want to know about climate science ask a climate scientist.
Debunking of skeptic myths - by climate scientists not journalists, economists, politicians, think-tanks or random bloggers
myths include mars warming, 800 year lag, solar variance, water vapor, west Antarctic ice growth
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ... UK Met Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/#faq3 UK Met Office
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 ... climate scientists at Real Climate
Overview of the scientific evidence that humans are now contributing to climate change
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Note to skeptics/deniers: your assertions would seems more like evidence if you quoted from climate scientists. - greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -10/+55Amen, and right from the source (MIT) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ...
- chewbie, on 10/30/2008, -35/+75can people make up their minds already? Are we victims of scaretactics or is the earth's temperature really controlled more by us (humans) and less by the Sun?
- bender240, on 10/31/2008, -3/+38Whoa, yeah after reading the actual MIT press release it does seem like TG Daily has misrepresented the findings of this research, or at least the researchers' understanding of the meaning of the findings:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ... - mtobis, on 10/31/2008, -21/+55I, Michael Tobis, Ph.D., am on record on sci.environment as far back as 1993, while I was still taking classes toward my doctorate in climatology. (This can all be found on groups.google.com if you're too green to remember usenet.) I haven't seen any reason to change my position especially. The first IPCC report had just come out. The position of the scientific community has been refined but not dramatically changed since then. Somebody is feeding you a line, st0ck.
It's pretty much a done deal at this point. You might as well take on gravity. (or do you favor "intelligent falling"?) - greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -3/+35I don't think the problem is the scientists.
Right analysis, wrong group - Jenga, on 10/30/2008, -4/+34You bring up a point which many people seem to be confused about: the claim that 'the jury may still be out'. Your statement suggests that there will at some point be a yes-or-no answer which unambiguously answers the question. And yet the climate system is emphatically nonlinear, so that attributions to single causes are impossible (note, for example, that chaos theory was really developed around the exponential growth of certain types of perturbations in the atmosphere). The jury is only "still out" in the sense that nobody can ever say for certain that X causes Y in the climate system. As always, there are an uncountably infinite number of nonlinear feedbacks, and the best we can do is to say "without the influence of human-related greenhouse gases, we expect different climatological statistics." As it turns out, the statistics of increasing global temperature and climate variability that we see are those predicted with anthropogenic forcing included in our models (while models excluding increases in CO2 and other related forcing agents predict lower temperatures than we observe), so we can say with "near certainty" that anthropogenic forcing is significant.
- inactive, on 10/31/2008, -3/+33The actual article doesn't contract global climate change, it just calls into question the source of methane gas. Title is misleading, buried.
- casbboy, on 10/31/2008, -17/+47Why I love 'global warming': Because it makes many think green. Being good to the planet is GOOD.
Do I believe in the actual definition of global warming? No. Climate is one of the hardest things to study, and the fact that we had a "Global Cooling" scare in the late 70s early 80s doesn't help anything.
The planet goes in and out of ice ages naturally; look into it. We need to be good and clean to this planet, YES, but making humans responsible for all climate changes is kind of dumb.
*Oh, and the fact that many corps supporting global warming have more lawyers/accountants that actual scientists hurts the cause too.
Just my two cents. Don't get me wrong, I love alternate energy. Save ethanol, that's a waste of time. (research how much carbon is released when the crops are cut) - falstaff, on 10/31/2008, -3/+30...and I just noticed that half my comment got cut off :x Continuing:
less than 5%) or
B) Building just 1 new power plant in every state.
Either choice would cut the emissions by roughly the same amount. - obliviousfool, on 10/31/2008, -21/+48Not exactly. The worldwide methane spike is probably a direct result of global warming.
As temperatures rise, permafrost is thawing and frozen methane deposits in the ocean (see, clathrate) are being released. This is likely where the methane is coming from.
This will feed the cycle, causing more warming. This is what scientists are referring to when they talk about a "tipping point."
This poorly written headline, and skewed article deserve all the buries they get! - ZenMasterMojo, on 10/31/2008, -14/+40BURIED...
This story is crap. It totally distorts the actual conclusions of the study.
It does not address the FACT that the MOST LIKELY SOURCE of the increased methane is GLOBAL WARMING!
The releases of methaane may be natural, but the INCREASE IS DUE TO A WARMER PLANET.
This rapid increase in methane is very disturbing, because it shows that we may be passing a tipping point where global climate change will now accelerate! The increase has occurred in only the past couple years, but warming has been observed for decades.
So, to say that the increased methane is not due human activities is a TOTAL DISTORTION, because many many previous studies have shown a direct link between antropogenic releases of CO2 and observed warming. Thhough the methane is not being released by humans, this is very likely a feedback effect of human-induced warming.
This is either a case of really bad reporting (i.e. reporters not doing their homework or not understanding the science) or intentional distortion of new scientifc research on the part of reporter to serve political ends. I'm guessing the latter.
Sad to see politically-motivated reporters attempting to increase the public's ignorance of science by spreading half-truths in spun news stories. - pimpofpixels, on 10/31/2008, -2/+27We can argue about if global warming is real or not until the cows come home... or float away if that's the eventual reality, but either way, the oil is running out.
Alternative energies FTW! - manicleek, on 10/31/2008, -1/+25"Scientists at MIT"
"Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science" - Wakuko, on 10/31/2008, -10/+34Earth gets cold = ice age
Earth gets hot = global warming
rinse
repeat
and don't believe in fearmongerers with an agenda - drgmdp, on 10/31/2008, -13/+37buried for bad analysis of information. the study never denies man-made global warming, it just states that there are other causes.
- kinship, on 10/31/2008, -1/+24Regardless of what you say about Global Warming, new technologies reliant on non-destructive resources and friendly to the earth hurt no-one.
- pandaboy99, on 10/31/2008, -2/+23Either way i still want my electric car so i dont have to pay 3 dollars a gallon for gas
- ryan850, on 10/31/2008, -1/+21But creating a new economy with alternative fuels, improving auto sales, like toyota and honda, by increasing fuel efficiency, reducing our need for foreign oil, cleaner air and water... human caused global warming or not there are plenty of reasons to reduce the burning of fossil fuels
- LadyAmerica, on 10/30/2008, -78/+96From article:
"One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years."
- - - - - - -
Quick, get Al Gore... Al? Al? Where's Al? Al? Al?..... - xqpnoted, on 10/31/2008, -3/+21So.... let's bury and report as inaccurate?
- Gandalff, on 10/30/2008, -49/+66Boo !!! The first one. Don't be a victim. Still love mother earth but don't buy into the notion that we the people of the earth are the ones causing it to be so darn cold in the middle of October, and warm in the middle of June.
I am in NC and it was 29 degrees last night. We could use some warming about now. It typically does not get that cold until Dec. We are more than a month and a week ahead of schedule by my calc.
The snow drifts in Alaska increased more than 25 feet this year but all you read was about the polar bears stranded and later found out they were playing in the water and it was a staged photo. You have to apply some common sense t this along with science data and every time it goes against the global warming alarmist. Just like the 3,000 scientific robots set up all across the world in and that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That confirms the same data these MIT scientist just announced.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/0 ...
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/766 ...
Here is what kills me though. Last paragraph in this small article is "overwhelming consensus" is that global warming is occurring. Why because it is on our TV, news papers, magazines, internet, radio 24/7 telling us it is. The Government Schools are ramming it into our children's heads that Al Gore told the truth? Then they said this right after stating their talking point. Only 30% of people trust the scientist telling them meaning 70% do not. Meaning the Majority as usual being dictated to by the minority.
"But despite the overwhelming consensus that global warming is indeed occurring, doubt over the science behind the issue is still lingers strongly in people's minds. Only 30 percent of ABC News respondents said they trust what scientists have to say about the environment "completely" or "a lot," with 39 percent saying they trust them "a moderate amount" and 30 percent saying they do not trust them. On top of that, nearly 60 percent of respondents said there is "a lot of disagreement" within the scientific community as to how dangerous climate change is."
Full article below:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/pn_2008081 ...
Sorry so long hope this information helps...=) - wh3873, on 10/31/2008, -0/+17I'm not a treehugger, and I approve this message.
We have the tools to provide enough energy without relying on oil lets do it. You can take the environmental argument out of the picture and just look at from a selfish standpoint. This will drive down the cost of power and free up oil for things like plastics and chewing gum. Nuclear, it gives going (ugh) "green" a whole new meaning. - earlevel, on 10/31/2008, -17/+33>This misrepresents the MIT results.
In what way? We already knew there was a peculiar leveling off of methane for nearly 10 years that seemed to defy conventional wisdom (man has increased output of methane over that time, but it wasn't rising globally).
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/otheratg/blake/methan ...
This new information points to an increase that occurred simultaneously at all measurement points, in both hemispheres. Again this defies expectations, since most of the sources are in the northern hemi.
What is misrepresented? - Mujokan, on 10/31/2008, -3/+19The person who wrote this article is really overreaching. Just putting their own spin on the the research, which just says there is a spike in methane that we don't really understand.
If you accept AGW, then the causes that they do suggest as possible candidates mean that this methane spike is also anthropogenic. The TG Daily writer doesn't offer any foundation for his guess that it's *just* a natural cycle. They don't know what's going on in the Southern Hempisphere. If this guy has some information that MIT doesn't know about, he should let them know.
There aren't really purely "natural" cycles any more when it comes to the climate, oceans and ecosystem. We affect just about everything. Feedback means that things can get out of balance quickly. How far any change will go, we can't tell. - twomeyw23334, on 10/31/2008, -2/+18You have the opportunity to convert a retard denier (I'm sure your thrilled).
I know CO2 is a green house gas and it causes warming so I'm not totally denying man has any effect on the earth's climate, I just don't buy the catastrophic warming fed to us by the (continually wrong and inaccurate) computer models using 4-6x the positive feedback loops.
This is my main beef and from my own research have not found any solid physical justifications for these feedback loops. Can you provide a good site/article/study that explains/demonstrates the physics behind these loops, or even better, verifies their existence through historical evidence or physical testing. Without them, from my understanding, CO2 warming by itself is relatively small.
Many are saying the next 10 years will see cooling, which again, goes against the current models, but the alarmists simply point out that without MMGW it would actually be getting even colder over the next 10 years. It seems they have the arguement rigged so they cannot be wrong no matter what the temperature does, even if it cools. All I'm saying is it doesn't appear to be a black or white situation where it will either be a global catastrophe or there will be absolutely no change due to man and if you can provide information I would be interested in researching it. - Lewie, on 10/31/2008, -2/+17I'm a treehugger, and I approve this message.
Not to say we can't do both. It would probably be wise to increase our electric infrastructure first, to support electric vehicles in the future. - Lula87, on 10/31/2008, -4/+19Buried for lack of citation and inaccurate title.
- Jenga, on 10/31/2008, -4/+19And the first thing you learn in dynamic meteorology is that despite the unpredictability of localized features, one can make very accurate predictions about longer-term climate statistics from stochastically forced models. In fact, medium range forecasts manage to pull off 'garbage in, useful statistics out'. Consider the fact that in WWII, the Nazis found it worthwhile to risk a submarine to place a single meteorological station in north america. Models can't do everything, but they can certainly do more than you suggest.
- greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -15/+30No, this ***** came from tgdaily
Look at what came from MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029. ... - draculthemad, on 10/31/2008, -3/+17Before anyone posts anything, please check out the links to the actual study already posted.
Its already been pointed out that this article massively misrepresented the study they are basing this on, and took one line out of context to make it seem like the entire article from MIT was somehow refuting global warming as man-made.
It doesnt.
Here are some more balanced articles referencing the same study but reporting the actual gist of the conclusions. Links found by Jenga previously.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/mio ...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibwC_yqdCtXd24m ... - tkocf821, on 10/31/2008, -1/+15Increasing Nuclear power=increasing infrastructure
- cheerio, on 10/30/2008, -2/+16And even at that, it doesn't disprove it, just suggest what scientists have known since earlier this year. Methane is far more worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2.
- SarahC, on 10/31/2008, -7/+21lol, on the front page right now...
http://digg.com/environment/Scientists_Confirm_Pol ... - muffcakes, on 10/31/2008, -5/+18This article is retarded - even the wording (science doesn't have a mind). Also I hope it is not true about the methane release. I recall reading something about methane hydrate under the ocean being released once the oceans have warmed to a point. This is one of those tipping points that get real nasty once you hit them.
If this sudden methane release is true then that will help quickly heat the planet, finishing off the arctic sea ice so that oceans absorb more heat, increasing warming more,drying out the amazon rain forests which will in turn burn releasing the carbon they have been storing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Like dominoes we get a scary surprise.
I sound like a doomsday nutter. But I'm not. - collution, on 10/31/2008, -7/+20Here's what our geology teacher told us:
"Uhhhhh... it's a little bit of both however since the earth has been revolving closer to the sun lately and the fact that there is more carbon in the atmosphere, one can argue that it's either us or nature. However, when you look at the output of carbon from humans, it's not exactly small. And as a geologist I know when there's more carbon to oxygen ration increases it's always going to get hotter, the same is true vice versa. You can decide if you want to pick sides, i'm not here to make that decision but I will say that this isn't a black and white issue, both are definitely a factor. And one more thing, the glaciers.... when they melt, they add more oxygen back into the atmosphere. This goes back to the ratio thing I was saying earlier. Keep that in mind."
I recorded that, to be honest, it just seems like a lot of factors go into this. It's not really one or the other though. - LordStryker, on 10/31/2008, -12/+24Anthropogenic global warming claims are based on bad science and poor assumptions. The IPCC even states in their report it is impossible to model or predict future climate (meteorologists have a hard enough time predicting 3 days into the future). Everybody cries we didn't accept the Kyoto protocol, but why risk billions of dollars on a claim that has 400% error (warming, oceans rising, etc.) especially when the proposed plan only changes greenhouse gas output by 3%?
Global warming scare = false. - bulletstorm, on 10/31/2008, -0/+12Actual news on this, without the unqualified interpretation.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUK ... - jollyspaniard, on 10/31/2008, -0/+12Buried for misrepresenting the source.
- logicalfallacy, on 10/31/2008, -6/+17Yes that evil, capitalist, money-hungry green lobby has been fooling us all trying to steal our money, thank god we have those benevolent, charitable oil companies to save us all.
- r0g3r, on 10/31/2008, -6/+17Title of the story is misleading and biased. Study only deals with one greenhouse gas, methane.
- hauntedchippy, on 10/31/2008, -0/+11He's right! Science is worthless, back to the trees!
- arjie, on 10/31/2008, -14/+24VillageIdiot: Most research in the last century predicting future climate trends predicted warming. If you have any issues with the links on greenfyre's comment, you should attack the science, no? If you've discovered that all those scientists are duping us hard-working people, then you must have done that through a rational examination of their research. Surely you would want to share that?
Otherwise, I certainly hope you're joking because you've reached that stage where you're indistinguishable from a parody of yourself. -
Show 51 - 100 of 538 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is