What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
214 Comments
- atomheartmother, on 11/10/2009, -18/+46I know, I know... Now that we're no longer in a warming trend and we're scraping ice off of the windshields in Florida, suddenly climate and weather are two distinctly different animals. And speaking of animals, have you heard the good news?
"...of the 20 known polar bear populations, only two are decreasing, while 10 are stable, and two are actually increasing, it appears polar bears may not be on such thin ice, after all."
http://www.cfact.org/a/1493/Polar-bears-not-on-suc ... - merton42, on 11/10/2009, -23/+47UH OH, NOAA is in trouble now. That is probably an OOPS on somebody's part to let this slip. Sorry AL, Calm down, take an Aspirin.
- Trent1492, on 11/10/2009, -15/+38Ok boys and girls here are some facts to contemplate.
1. The U.S is not the globe. I know it is hard to believe but it is true.
2. A single month, year or even a decade do not make a GLOBAL CLIMATE. - Chahrlie5, on 11/10/2009, -13/+35I'm sure Al is doing fine sleeping on the piles of money he's making off the climate change scam he's gotten hundreds of millions/billions of lemmings to buy into.
- zelig, on 11/10/2009, -25/+45Third coldest October on record. Explain to me again how this proves global warming.
- Chahrlie5, on 11/10/2009, -19/+39Because it's not "global warming" anymore, it's "climate change", thereby allowing any unusually hot OR cold weather records to be attributed to man made reason they want.
- atomheartmother, on 11/10/2009, -13/+32So I guess to greenfyre it doesn't matter how cold October was, but when it's a warm month it's really ginificant. What a complete hypocrite:
greenfyre: "For those who missed it: 2009 was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record."
http://digg.com/environment/Ocean_Temperature_Warm ...
greenfyre: "God sends another near record month of heat every time someone tryies to make that joke NOAA: Second Warmest October for Global Temperatures"
http://digg.com/environment/An_Honest_Climate_Deba ...
greenfyre: "For the world as a whole, July was the 2nd-warmest ever recorded, the Southern Hemisphere had its 2nd-warmest month ever (compared to seasonal norms), and it was the 2nd-warmest month ever recorded in Antarctica"
http://digg.com/environment/It_s_not_just_the_evol ... - radicaldementia, on 11/10/2009, -13/+30The continental United States makes up about 1.5% of the Earth's surface area. Attempting to deduce any information about long-term trends for the entire planet from such a small sample, for only a single year, cannot give any meaningful results.
Maybe we should look at the NOAA's global report for 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&y ...
"The combined global land and ocean surface temperatures for September 2009 ranked as the second warmest September on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.62°C (1.12°F), falling only 0.04°C (0.07°F) short of tying the record set in 2005."
Here is a more complete analysis for global temperatures, updated for 2009 and uses the information from the NOAA's report, from NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
As can be seen, even though the US experienced an unusually cool summer, 2009 will be the 5th hottest year on record overall. - merton42, on 11/10/2009, -10/+23You got that right. Wait till Cap and Trade passes and watch Al make another 100 million or so.
- raggsat98, on 11/10/2009, -21/+34Greenlyre must be on vacation!
He hasn't spammed this submission with his ridiculous links ad nauseum. - Trent1492, on 11/10/2009, -5/+16Yes. We do indeed have "Global Climate Change" in fact it happens four times a year."
So ignoring the fact that you do not know the difference between seasons and climate. What do you do about the fact when in the Northern Hemisphere is in summer that the Northern Hemisphere is in winter? Yep that is some mighty ignorance you got there. - atomheartmother, on 11/10/2009, -10/+20greenie, you alarmists were touting the fact that the polar bear population was in deep decline. Now that another of your myths is debunked, you shift the argument to something completely different... IF the seal populations decline THEN the polar bear polulations will follow. Sad and pathetic.
And your advocacy blog ignores the population density of polar bears does not correlate with the population density of ringed seals or sea ice. Indeed, while the extent of Arctic sea ice has generally reduced over recent decades, the number of polar bears has increased. Polar bears hunt other species of seal not so dependent on sea ice, including spotted and bearded seals, and also walrus, beluga whales and short-legged reindeer. Polar bears have thrived during warmer climates because they are also omnivores just like their cousins the brown and black bears. - detcade, on 11/11/2009, -3/+13What's next?
"I got sick. OBAMACARE ISN'T WORKING" - Pretendo, on 11/10/2009, -13/+23So when Al Gore and his hippie-liberal-*****'s try to fight off global catastrophe, with a minor benefit of also improving our environment, you guys claim he's only in it for the money.
Yet, when Dick Cheney and his Toby Keith-loving band of brothers try to incite global catastrophe, with deep and obvious ties to profit in the military-industrial-complex, he's 'defending freedom.'
You give conservatives a bad name. All about taking a step back, from the status quo. - Trent1492, on 11/10/2009, -13/+23Genetic Fallacy of Reasoning. A phenomena can have more than one cause. You see no one argues that climate change has not happened in the past. What is a fact is that the CURRENT WARMING is anthropogenic in origins. Arguing that because climate has changed in the past that therefore the current warming can not be caused by humans is illogical. It is the same sort of illogic for the following arguments:
Lung cancer has happened in the past before cigarettes, so therefore cigarettes can not cause lung cancer.
Forest fires have happened in the past before human beings existed, therefore arson is impossible.
People have died of natural causes in the past, therefore the man laying in the street must have died of natural causes too.
All are of the same brand of fallacious reasoning. - 1stAmendFan, on 11/10/2009, -9/+18It's easy to refute it. I can sit here all day too and pull stories out of my ass to support my position, but I won't waste my time with such childishness. Statistics can be twisted to support any world view, so your wasting your time, Chicken Little. It's shmucks like you, with no street-smarts to speak of, that can't see the fact that "carbon credits" are just another Wall Street derivative scam.And as I said before, Al Gore and his buddies at Goldman-Sachs will be laughing all the way to the bank, getting rich off of your zealous idealism....
- radicaldementia, on 11/10/2009, -9/+16Yes, that is exactly what I am doing, because my argument is simply that a single year of cooling in a small region of the world is a very poor representation of the current state of the global climate. You only need to look 130 years back to show that the climate is steadily warming, despite year-to-year ups and downs. How long the Earth has existed is not relevant in this context.
The evidence I presented alone cannot show that this change is unprecedented, or that we are causing it, but that is not what I was arguing. There is other evidence in ample quantities that does address the state of the climate millions of years ago to back those claims. - Trent1492, on 11/10/2009, -5/+12Today's Word is GLOBAL.
- atomheartmother, on 11/10/2009, -10/+16The comments clearly illustrate your shameless hypocrisy.
- Trent1492, on 11/10/2009, -9/+15Correction. This sentence "People have died of natural causes in the past, therefore the man laying in the street must have died of natural causes too." Should read as, "People have died of natural causes in the past, therefore the man laying in the street with five bullet holes in him, must have died of natural causes too
- greenfyre, on 11/11/2009, -2/+8How come my "religion" is based on tens of thousands of scientific studies
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
while your "science" is based on faith and juvenile comments? - greenfyre, on 11/11/2009, -5/+10Thank you for that confirmation that you really have absolutely no clue.
The difference between climate and weather is taught to 7 yr olds
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/climateweath ...
While 12 yr olds know how to use a search engine to get the Answer to "We can’t predict the weather a week in advance. How can we do it 100 years in advance?" http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predi ... - greenfyre, on 11/10/2009, -16/+21Jayzus, the Deniers really have absolutely no clue of the scale and scope of climate science,
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-scie ...
obviously they've never even peeked at it, but they're certain it's wrong .... doh! - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/11/2009, -5/+10The issue isn't about denying science vs. accepting it. The issue is between liberty and tyranny. This scientific issue would not be politically charged if one or more sides were not vying to use the proxy of government to FORCE their views, their solutions, their value judgments, on the rest of society.
If you want global energy communism under a team of tree-hugging technocrats, JUST SAY IT and there can be a rational debate about it.
"The world will cook to death if we don't do it!" is not a valid argument. - Trent1492, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6Posting this again since you seem to have committed the unpardonable sin of posting out of thread.
"Ummm.... you still can't seem to comprehend the function of the reply button, Trent. It's in blue letters, to the bottom of the comment box and on the right."
I am using the reply button that is why this reply will show it is part of a thread.
"Trent, can you not even comprehend what the phase out of context means? What I quoted was a separate thought... "
A thought meant to deceive. Try again.
"it wasn't related to whether or not their finding were correct, rather their admission that the data isn't necessarily reliable. Do you often have trouble with such simple concepts?"
Try this concept the WWF get's its findings from the PBSG. Contrary to your claim the do not contradict each other. We can plainly see that is the truth by looking at how extensively they use PBSG for inforamtion. Get over it.
"The original email expressly stated why Taylor was uninvited."
You have never shown that this E-Mail contains truth. You have also never explained the following:
A. Dr. Taylor is RETIRED and is thus INELIGIBLE to participate on the board.
B. Dr. Derocher was never the student of Dr. Taylor
C. Dr. Taylor was never the supervior of Dr. Derocher.
" What part of "it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition" can you not grasp?"
Which part of once he retired he was disqualified do fail to understand? Whatever Dr. Taylor's opinions he could not be a past of the group because he was RETIRED. Dr. Taylor is not speaking the truth. Do you understand that? You have to be active professioinally in the field to participate. Do you understand that?
"You don't make clear what reality "it" is"
That would be the other half of the sentence where it says "a reality and the they recognize the threat to the animal they study." You fail at being a grammar Nazi.
It is a reality that reading comprehension is not your strong point.
It is a reality that Dr. Taylor is not telling the truth.
It is a reality that Dr. Taylor is retired.
It is a reality that PBSG only allows active professionals to participate in the group.
It is a reality that the WWF uses the PBSG as its main source of information.
"In any case, the WWF numbers do contradict those of the PBSG in terms of which Polar Bear populations are increasing or decreasing. Your rant about Hudson Bay is irrelevant. Focus Trent, focus."
Why do you think that any one would take such an unsubstantiated assertion seriously? It has now been pointed out to you that the WWF uses the PBSG for its information. It is also undeniable that you are using the 2002 WWF report (that relies on PBSG) to contradict the findings of 2009. You seem to be unaware of the concept of time passage. Your gullibility is stunning.
"The WWF may rely on the PBSG for some of it's data but they're separate organizations, and WWF doesn't rely on the PBSG exclusively for its misinformation."
Go ahead and point out the other sources of information that the WWF uses. I also want you to make sure it is more recent than say 2005. Go ahead do it.
"That's the actual email that was sent to Taylor."
No, That is the E-Mail that you have been told about. Go ahead and reveal your sources. I showed mine.
Trent: Logic fail. It does not follow that if you have an interests in something that you are not objective."
Logic absent. Objectivity consists of not being influenced by personal feelings,...
No. You can be passionate about something and still be objective. I am sorry but scientist are not heartless automatons that you seem to think them. It is perfectly logical to be passionate about something and be right and separate your feeling from professional conduct.
"The rest of your drivel basically consists of calling Taylor a liar. That's pretty sophomoric, Trent."
Actually it is true. Disagree? Then tell me, is Dr. Taylor retried from his profession? Does the PBSG board rules say that only active professionals? Come on now, this your chance. It is pretty hard to be part of group if you fail to qualify. - Trent1492, on 11/11/2009, -6/+11How many times has it been explained to you the difference between weather and climate?
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/11/2009, -7/+12"Florida was the only state to have an above normal temperature average in October. It was the sixth consecutive month that the Florida's temperature was above normal, resulting in the third warmest such period (May-October). "
It's happening people. Keep sticking your heads in the sand, one unnaturally active month with cold fronts doesn't dispute previous mounds and mounds of data. - prakash1234, on 11/10/2009, -7/+12greenfyre holds of those 'green jobs' created by our tax money. Has algore on linkedin as friend :)
- angryredplanet, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6@lead2thehead
Your point is irrelevant. The fact is we have been measuring, and some measurement is better than none. The measurements taken at that time would not have been inaccurate by orders of magnitude, so this is moot. As time has progressed, so too has the precision of measurement. - detcade, on 11/11/2009, -8/+13This NATIONAL overview refutes GLOBAL warming! My logic is infallible! /s
- greenfyre, on 11/11/2009, -3/+8Thankfully we now have science demonstrating the reality of things like climate change
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-scie ...
and don't have to be hysterically ignorant like the climate change Deniers. - Trent1492, on 11/11/2009, -5/+9"Algore getting belly fat on american tax paper money.
its like bush's haliburton and blackwater
this time its algore and his cronies taxing the population for breating"
This message brought to you by: Exxon-Mobil - Trent1492, on 11/11/2009, -7/+11"third coldest October on record. Explain to me again how this proves global warming."
It does not and neither would it "prove" global warming if it was the warmest. Especially since a single month does not a climate make and the U.S temperature record is NOT synonymous with the ENTIRE freaken GLOBE. - PeppermintPig, on 11/10/2009, -10/+14Why does your religion believe it's acceptable or even viable to forcefully make people change their lives to suit every crisis du jour that arises??
- Trent1492, on 11/11/2009, -5/+9We of the Fossil Fuels Industry want to think you for your mindless support of our product regardless of the environment, health and security issues that are detrimental to our nation. Thank You.
- vikingcoder, on 11/10/2009, -9/+13Natural climate change does not disprove anthropogenic climate change anymore than the preponderance of natural death can be used to disprove homicide. The same scientific knowledge that informs us about historical climate change also tells us that the current episode is anthropogenic.
No amount of belief overturns science.
No amount of scientific knowledge overturns belief. - radicaldementia, on 11/10/2009, -7/+11@ChoosyMother
That's a very good question. Who has ever said the climate isn't supposed to change?
Maybe you're confused by the phrase "fighting climate change", but that's only referring to dramatic changes directly caused by human activity, notably our skyrocketing CO2 emissions. Nobody actually wants to stop the climate from changing altogether, that would be devastating to the environment.
No natural law (aside from basic physics) says the climate is or is not "supposed" to change, but It does change, and it has been constantly changing since the Earth first formed 4 billion years ago. Humans have been changing the climate ever since we starting large-scale farming thousands of years ago, and that has (mostly) never been a problem. The whole problem with global warming is the rate of change, both for wildlife who cannot evolve quickly enough, and for humans who directly or indirectly depend on that wildlife. - merton42, on 11/10/2009, -13/+17NA, just seeing that HYPOCRITE make millions off of it. After all it is a Religious experience now. Without India and China on board all this banter is wasted motion and breath anyway.
- bluto36, on 11/10/2009, -12/+16it doesn't, but in America we have freedom of religion.
- greenfyre, on 11/11/2009, -4/+8And that idiocy is supposed to refute scientific facts
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
how exactly? - greenfyre, on 11/11/2009, -3/+7"The earth has been "
and you imagine the scientists don't know this and it isn't part of the science ... why?
Turns out your imagination is wrong:
Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a ... - rthakidn, on 11/10/2009, -10/+13Citing your own work. That's persuasive.
- magibeg, on 11/11/2009, -2/+5People sometimes get confused when it comes to certain things. Take for example USA and GLOBAL.
A colder than usual October in the USA certainly means the entire globe is cooling since 1998.
This of course, was sarcasm. - zelig, on 11/10/2009, -14/+17"A 5 yr old can see the "no warming" line is Denier BS"
You can never find a 5-year-old around when you need one. - lead2thehead, on 11/11/2009, -8/+11Greenfyre, have you ever wondered why every comment you post gets buried? If you think somebody is incorrect, explain to them why you think so politely and maturely. If you immediately resort to name calling and insulting people's intelligence, nobody is going to care what you have to say.
- lead2thehead, on 11/11/2009, -5/+8Looks like you spoke too soon.
- angryredplanet, on 11/11/2009, -4/+7@merton42
So you're just gonna sit back, watch the action pass you by and bitch about it?
If you're so concerned about people making money on the back of a green economy, turn off your computer, get off your ass and do something proactive about it! You know where industry is heading - there is no future in burning fossils and if we need to then we need to lessen the impact. Make an educated decision and follow it up.
Deniers and conspiracy theorists with tall poppy syndrome are allowed to make capitalistic career decisions too you know, even if it disturbs their dogma. - Chahrlie5, on 11/10/2009, -11/+14Nobody said that climate change "facts" came from Al Gore, just that he's profiting from it and denies that he is, and flies around on his private jet, ***** hypocrite.
- 1stAmendFan, on 11/10/2009, -16/+19To all the suckers of the ChickenLittle Society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Gaia is laughing at you ;-) - greenfyre, on 11/10/2009, -8/+11Hey brucefrench, do you understand what an intelligent discussion is? you know, something adults would do?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is