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.
93 Comments
- mcnees287, on 01/04/2009, -1/+103There are more important things to worry about if a nuclear device goes off.
- SemiSarcastic, on 01/05/2009, -2/+26Nuclear Wars: it may kill people, but increasing your carbon foot print? That's worse.
- votewhig, on 01/05/2009, -0/+20Well, that tears it. I'm against nuclear war now.
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+18Well shoot, seemed like such a good idea before, but if nukes are gonna hurt the polar bears then I'm totaly against it. We need to start working on low emission weapons, maybe like a hybrid nuke
- hallera420, on 01/04/2009, -1/+18Thats assuming that there is anyone left to measure the global temperature. I guess nuclear winter is warmer than it sounds.
WTF mate? - winter360, on 01/05/2009, -0/+17Nuclear fallout bad for the environment? really? Thanks scientists
- Slackdragon, on 01/05/2009, -1/+15"You can't leave the Vault, Steve!"
"Why not? I'm repaired."
"What about the radiation? The jagged, harsh environment? The flesh-eating rad-zombies?!"
"Got my radiation suit on. Got my First-Aid kit. Got my pistol and shotgun."
"What about the CO2 emissions?!"
"Get da fuggouttaheeeere." - leapingstan, on 01/05/2009, -1/+14Extremists planning a nuclear terrorist attack now will reconsider.
- silent128, on 01/05/2009, -3/+15Also did you know if a comet the size of Texas hit the earth there would be a great impact to our environment! lots of carbon and *****!
pointless article. - Murdats, on 01/05/2009, -5/+17so we will give you a vial of water that has 1% cyanide and then you can run around saying that everyone has been suckered and cyanide is not lethal.
- trotskyist, on 01/05/2009, -2/+14God forbid it be a bit hotter if we're all dieing from radiation poisoning anyway.
- Alias1431, on 01/05/2009, -0/+11DUCK AND COVER KIDS!
- wontstoptalking, on 01/05/2009, -1/+11Like if you should enter a Vault-Tech vault. Those commercials make it look like a very good idea! Where will you be in a nuclear apocalypse? Make it a Vault-Tech™ Vault!
- kinship, on 01/05/2009, -2/+12For every nuclear bomb launched, we have to plant a forest in its place..
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+11Pakistan and India deciding to lob a few at each other... While everyone else holds their breath praying it stays just that way.
- jjohnstn, on 01/05/2009, -1/+10So let's not have a nuclear war, then.
Next! - inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+10Here is an interesting thought though. If a major city say like Beijing was nuked, wouldn't the extra carbon footprint from the bomb be nulled out by the lack of carbon production of Beijing? Eventually even turn into a positive?
- oboshoe, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9Hey hey wait a second. This could work out.
The carbon release and resultant Global Warming will cancel out the Nuclear Winter. - Murdats, on 01/05/2009, -1/+9my point is that 1% isn't as insignificant as you indicate you believe it is.
but never mind that jimmy, you just go on being the smartest person to have ever lived, its just a shame you spend that gargantuan intelligence on digg and not on bettering humanity with your vast array of knowledge. - inactive, on 01/05/2009, -3/+11That's a lot of carbon offsets.
- rjey, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8Minor issue, after all isn't is all about the carbon footprint?
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8fta "Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a nuclear attack on a nearby city..."
umm yeah... - anonymous1986, on 01/05/2009, -4/+11Repeat after me: I do not know more than actual scientists, I have no clue what I am talking about.
- Murdats, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7and what does nuclear war have to do with nuclear power?
- AltairMetamorf, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6Yes... THAT would be the biggest problem.
- Charlie117, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6Would you mind describing a "small" nuclear conflict?
- fauxbro, on 01/05/2009, -2/+8god forbid we have a nuclear war....Think of the enviromental castastrophe. sarcasme mode turned on
- anonymous1986, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7So are you denying the greenhouse effect too? Something that you can even test at home? The standard of science is quite frankly pathetic wherever you come from.
- iamdan1, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6I think the co2 levels in the atmosphere will be the last thing we will be worrying about in the event of nuclear war. The radiation raining out of the atmosphere will have a more direct affect.
- AaronCo, on 01/05/2009, -1/+6I think perhaps if you're worried about the carbon footprint of nuclear war... perhaps you're missing the entire point of nuclear war to begin with. Polishing the brass on the titanic...
- angryredplanet, on 01/05/2009, -3/+8Unless you can provide peer reviewed science concluding what you assert, I will not repeat anything you say.
You are now denying the greenhouse effect - it's amazing the levels to which you will stoop. - suttin, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5this is how comments get buried..
- angryredplanet, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7@anononon
While JimmySpaza might be an awesome street sweeper (or whatever), he is clearly not a climatologist, therefore I will not take climate advice from his unqualified self. Rather, I will consult what the commonly accepted climate science of today says on the matter. While that may technically be viewed as an appeal to authority, to blindly believe the unqualified JimmySpaza without a scientific citation or demonstration would be nothing less than irrational.
The greenhouse effect was demonstrated by Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century. He showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which re-radiates the suns thermal energy. His predictions, over 100 years ago, proved to be surprisingly accurate. Many others have confirmed the blanketing climatic effect of CO2 throughout the last century. Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system, despite Mercury being closer to the sun, because of the greenhouse effect. Earth has life, because of the very same effect. This can not happen if CO2 were not a greenhouse gas (i.e. one that causes global warming). JimmySpaza implicitly denies all of this with impunity and without evidence.
In a nutshell, you'd have to be plainly stupid to take climate advice from somebody who denies the undeniable without evidence. I concede that nothing in science is ever proven, but you need some damn fine evidence to overturn established science. So, to allow my counterpart to clear up my "appeal to authority", JimmySpaza, do you have any evidence to back your claim that CO2 does not cause global warming, and hence the greenhouse effect? - equanimist, on 01/05/2009, -1/+6@JimmySpaza, It is my understanding that while CO2 might not have caused (or even didn't cause, depending upon the source,) global warming in Earth's past, additional CO2 in the atmosphere as the result of warming should have effected additional warming and should effect warming now; that while earth should have entered a cooling period, it has, instead, warmed; that mankind has (and is) spewing out so much CO2 so that there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any point in the last 650,000 years; that the effect of spewing all this CO2 into the atmosphere is very likely to have warmed (and very like to warm) the earth; that this is very likely to lead to continued warming on the order of several degrees Celsius. Where am I wrong? And why should I be willing to take the risk that this very reasonable scenario is wrong?
- Barackalypse, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5OK, so what is the carbon footprint of detonating 50 megatonnes of conventional explosives on the same target?
- TheTallest, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4Hey, Australia will be saved!
Also we will be saying WTF Mate? - snapuswipe, on 01/04/2009, -1/+5FTA: "Although concern at the time of an explosion will be the deaths and not carbon emissions, policy makers today must weigh all the potential future risks of mortality and carbon emissions when comparing energy sources."
On the other hand, it goes on to say that the numbers are completely arbitrary, as far as the author can tell. - winter360, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4except for the dead people
- MikeRiley, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3Did a paper really need to be written for people to know a nuclear blast is bad for the environment?
- sonofashoe, on 01/05/2009, -3/+6Odd how British news (except BBC) has become the mainstay of ridicule on Digg.
- bigteebo, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3Who cares? You'll be too dead to care about carbon footprints, etc.
- coldkill3r, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3http://prepareforthefuture.com/
- winter360, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3Pakistan and India going to nuclear war would not be pretty
- diggydougie, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2With everyone getting on the carbon footprint bandwagon there is a problem with nuclear power. nuclear power does not generate carbon. So the spectre is raised of a nuclear war carbon footprint, and of course there is the irrational connection between nuclear power and nuclear war, so it makes people fear anything nuclear.
- sock2828, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2So will the Co2 cancel out nuclear winter?
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -0/+2The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war Judgment Day. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines.
- yacks, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2I think the nuclear war will reduce carbon emissions created by man immensely.. I mean Do you really think as many people will be driving to work the next day?
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -0/+2I'm not worried, I have a lead-lined refrigerator stocked with food to hide in in event of nuclear warfare.
- yacks, on 01/05/2009, -0/+1I'd be scared of the nuclear fallout that will find it's way over the pacific.
- bob1029, on 01/05/2009, -1/+2I'm going to call shenanigans on this article. Big oil/coal is terrified that nuclear power is going to edge in on their business in the next 50 years so they drum up support by drawing a comparison between nuclear war and nuclear power generation. The general public (in the USA) is to ***** retarded to know the difference, so it will probably work.
I haven't seen this much bait and switch since the last time I shopped at Best Buy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is