What is Digg?26 Comments
- greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -9/+24None of them even remotely related to science or reality. Just the usual Denier myths, all debunked
1) Debunked http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837 ...
2) The models do not predict a consistent warming trend so not finding one is not exactly shocking, and certainly does not demonstrate that the science is wrong It is called "climate change" (actually a consistent uniform warming would blow the models away)
3) Yes there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
the handful of hacks who disagree are mostly industry shills Who funds them? http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37379 92% of "neutral" Eco-skeptics turn out to be industry shills, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ ... and http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war ...
4) How irrelvant can you get? So if the existence of a global warming industry is 'proof' that global warming does not exist, then an oil industry is proof that oil does not exist? Yeah, that makes sense.
5) The claim that the trophosphere should be warming first is nonsense (sorry, can't link to a scientific site since none make the claim), and the whole sunspots and solar cycles repeatedly debunked by scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-f ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
Never mind the language ... "Non-human water vapor"?? There is human water vapour? and the guy copyrights this stuff? like who would steral it? and for what? That's like keeping your used toilet paper under lock and key. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7Mariana
i) which things require more documentation? I will provide whatever I can. It is not possible for 2 & 4 since they are 'Straw Man Fallacy' http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal%C3%A1cia_do_homem ... . He makes a false claim about climate change, and then attacks. Since the original claim never existed, how can you find evidence about it?
ii) Lies and distortion can never be "the other side" and no good can ever come from it. If you are seeking legitimate or at least reasonable skepticiam see the comment threads at realclimate.org or climateaudit.org - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5The science and threat of climate change was already understood in 1958 http://youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg - you want to claim the 10yr Gore was behind that too?
What is about Gore that gets the Deniers so excited? Is it some kind of Oedipal complex? or some sort of repressed homoerotic obsession? It's definitely creepy. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5PS In science you cannot actually prove anything so asking for proofs is illogical.
It is called the problem of induction http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#A_filosof ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_o ... - pharoah724, on 06/29/2008, -3/+7Hey Mariana,
Here's my 2 cents. I find that global warming detractors have a few problems with their arguments against the global warming phenomenon.
1) They do not recognize that humans have already impacted the global environment. Did you know that some species of animals are now extinct because of human activity? We have polluted the air and the water. That is a fact. Emissions from factories and cars are poisonous! CO (carbon monoxide) can kill a human rather quickly. People have committed suicide with CO. Kodak was sued many years ago for dumping toxins in the water! They lost that case. Exxon Valdez... and the list goes on.
2) The science that they claim against global warming is weak. These detractors claim to know what the temperature on the earth was before we had the technology to measure it. But when a global warming person uses the same data to prove that we are causing global warming, the detractors say that the global warming people are just making assumptions. That makes no sense to me.
3) This article doesn't prove anything. It is pure conjecture. It makes no references or anything. To me this is just an opinion.
Instead of fighting against the idea that humans cause Global Warming, why don't we work together to find out what impact we DO have on our environment? This is the responsible thing to do. Taking sides does not help. We really need to work together. It is a fact that the polar ice caps are melting!! This is a serious problem. It's been recorded, documented, and talked about.
So to flatly deny Global Warming is caused by us without working on a solution to problems like this is irresponsible.
And finally, sitting back and saying that we can do nothing is victim mentality. The detractors are basically saying let's see how bad it gets before we do anything. But of course then, it will be too late. To me that's just like not putting up a street light at an intersection until somebody gets killed.
I know this was a little long, but I think it's important to think about these things. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3If the science is wrong
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
show us how it is wrong, rather than wasting everyone's time with unsubstantiated, absurd claims. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3"This is the first article I have ever written "
Ouch. I am actually sorry for stamping on your first attempt - although even had I known I would have done it anyway because only truth can help us move forward.
Keep writing, but pick topics that you know better. Or if you really want to write about climate change, take some time to learn the basics and have more clarity about what is true and what is not. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Exactly, remember how the British forgot all about the Nazis as rationing and shortages dominated their day to day lives.
- greenfyre, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3True, we keep using facts and science - it's just not fair, is it scam?
- greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Notice the period between the two statements? It separates them. The first one tells you that models do incorporate water vapour. The second one tells you about water vapour levels in the atmosphere.
Now I assume a good model would mimic the actual levels, and so it is true to say that the models have a range of vapour concentration, but that would be because reality has a range of vapour concentration, and it's not a very good model if it does not mimic reality.
Notice how when the temperature suddenly drops the water vapour concentration in the air drops? That is something called "rain".
Ever notice that the CO2 level also drops? No? That's because it doesn't.
In fact water vapour mean residence time is about ten days, whereas for CO2 it is thousands of years. "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases" http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
Now please stop making me tell you things you could easily have googled yourself. - MarianaPeyton, on 06/29/2008, -7/+9Greenfyre, I agree on some points with you, but sometimes you just posted an article stating the opposite of what Cherman's article said, but with no proof whatsoever. I just want this article to get frontpaged so people can hear the other side of the story.
- kbro, on 06/29/2008, -3/+5Hey Mariana,
There is a very vocal group of people who appear to desperately want global warming to be true, and want it to be caused by human activity. Maybe this makes them feel more important than they really are? Sort of like a Munchausen Syndrome by proxy (See http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/factitious ... )
Then there are a group of anti-capitalists who see global warming as a dagger to use against the industrial society.
Then there are the Soclialists who see global warming as an opportunity to expand the role of government to tightly control or own more industries.
Then there are corporations and governments who stand to benefit greatly if they can convince enough people that we need to buy their product/laws to save the world from the evil carbon dioxide.
I, personally, am angry at the Global Warming Believers because they have hijacked the environmental cause -- and are leading it down a very stupid path. When the temperatures do not rise (due to non-human forces), the entire environmental movement will be painted with the same brush of ignorance and irrationality. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3I can't help noticing the complete and utter lack of any actual information or reference to the science in this diatribe. It is nothing more than an opinionated rant from and uniformed person.
As someone who has spent 25 yrs helping build that environmental movement as well as taking the trouble to actually know what I am talking about I'd like to know where the f... you get off? - BigManOnCampus, on 06/29/2008, -4/+51) From your link: "...36% to ... 85% when you include clouds."
36% to 85%??? And they think their models are accurate? Your debunk site just said they have an uncertainty of 200% for the effect one of the most prevalent gasses in our atmosphere, and somehow everything is understood. What a joke.
And of course they follow that with this: "...It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."
Ah, but you realize of course that CO2 in the atmosphere is also a function of temperature. This is because dissolved CO2 in the oceans varies with their temperature, and natural fires on land vary in size as a function of temperatures.
Why do I even try to read these things? People read these debunk sites with their brains off, just accepting that what is said is a thorough debunking of data. - greenfyre, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1My favourite part of the swindle is Ball identified to be in a Dept that never existed with a degree that his alma mater University never offered - classic Denier 'truthiness'.
The "Swindle" was exposed as a fraud when it was released
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/monbiot-on-the-channel-4 ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/1 ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/abcs-australia-expert-sw ...
176 page document peer-reviewed by leading scientists http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint ... - wholeness, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Yes, according to Alex Jones, David Icke, the documentary titled "The Global Warming Swindle" among other alternative news sources say that the IPCC report that initiated all of this man-made global warming fear-mongering was extremely biased and any scientist who did not go along with what they wanted it to conclude was edited out of the report. Allegedly, many of the so-called specialists who wrote the report had questionable credentials too. Apparently, if these sites are true, then the temperature of all the planets in our solar system are getting hotter because our sun is getting hotter and man-made global carbon dioxide emissions are virtually insignificant in the greenhouse effect since they only make up a very small percentage of the greenhouse gases.
I believe that this global warming fear-mongering by Neo-cons throughout the world governments is likely just being used as an excuse to tax people more and take away more civil liberties so they can get richer and more powerful while the common people get poorer and have less power.
I do however think we should respect the environment, and follow the reduce, reuse recycle principles but really it is the largest corporations that if changed would have the greatest impact, let's stop suppressing alternative fuel vehicles that run on water and air for one thing, let's go after fast-food giants and force them to provide reusable containers for sit-in customers, etc.. there are many ways we could reduce the waste we make on large scales and even cut back or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions if the corporations were forced to be responsible. I doubt a tax on gasoline is really going to change anything other than making the poor and the middle class poorer. - BigManOnCampus, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3wtf, full quote:
"Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.
Oh, I wasn't talking about "
Models, they're talking about models. so wtf are you trying to say. Those numbers in that paragraph, in that context, directly refer to the effect of water vapor on temperature in the models. I think your english skills are lacking.
Then you start just pulling stuff out of your ass.
"not as sensitive as water vapor", show proof for that claim. Noone really knows that because you cannot accurately model clouds. - greenfyre, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3Speaking of reading with your brain off ...
The range refers to current and historical measurements, not the models. just like it says right there at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837 ... which you allegedly read.
Guess what? temperature varies seasonably year to year and since vapour is affected by temperature, the water vapour varies accordingly, and hence it's contribution - just like it says which you allegedly read.
And while CO2 saturation is a function of temperature it is not as sensitive as water vapour, so while it is fair to say their response is similar, it is not equivalent.
"Why do I even try to read these things?" Maybe if you tried again you might actually learn something instead of desperately hunting for something that you then falsely claim is wrong. - greenfyre, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1If the science is shoddy, show us what is wrong with it
"How we know we're not wrong about climate change" http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O ...
perhaps you can explain why you think the science
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm - Thrilltone, on 06/29/2008, -5/+5Concern over global warming will fade proportionally, as concern over personal economic hardship increases.
- ProfMandia, on 07/31/2009, -0/+0http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming ...
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming.
This Website summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists. - uberchaoslord, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1Its not only anti-capitalists, its all socialists who want Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 to be the cause of Global Warming. (aside: have you noticed they all say "climate change" now as opposed to "global warming"??? Its so they don't have to back pedal when the temperature goes down, like it did this year). In Canada, our former minister of environment was quoted as saying "Global Warming and the Kyoto protocol provide the best opportunity for the transfer of wealth to the third world in our lifetimes".
Carbon transfers are a joke, a scam. People who talk about global warming and saving the planet these days ABSOLUTELY have a personal attachment/agenda to uphold.
I agree with the statement that we shouldn't be polluting. We all know its bad, and we knew it was bad before this Global Warming BS came around. Western society as a whole is cleaning up its act, producing less polluting cars (ones that run on gasoline, your "green" electric cars aren't so green, even if you do manage to get your power from wind or solar), doing less harm, but you can't expect people to forego their ways of life when the science behind it is shoddy. - inactive, on 06/29/2008, -7/+3You can't debate with an eco-fascist
- davidhallstrom, on 06/29/2008, -10/+3Global warming, yes. Human caused global warming, no.
- Catspaw, on 06/29/2008, -11/+2You just need to look at the conduct of Al Gore himself to realize global warming theory is bunkum. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, [6]. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil!
Refer: Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468. - MarianaPeyton, on 06/29/2008, -18/+7This article really got me thinking if all the global warming thing is true at all.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is