What is Digg?492 Comments
- tman84, on 03/20/2008, -62/+211The slant on this article is so bad, they refuse to even delve into the possibility that Global Warming is a myth, and just say "well it's on hold for a while".
- elebrio, on 03/20/2008, -24/+134"Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them."
When the data doesn't fit scientists must be interpreting it wrong apparently. - norman619, on 03/20/2008, -36/+108Yeah like NASA/JPL don't understand the data coming from their own devices. It's amazing how they can't admit the other possibility. That they got the Global Warming thing WRONG. This coupled with the 12 month global temperature drop which has all but erased 100 years of warming says the UN report, Al Gore, the environmentalists, all the others who were blaming humans for the warming are completely wrong.
- Kagnew, on 03/20/2008, -25/+96Satellites: No warming.
Oceans: No warming.
Al Gore: WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! - Chahrlie5, on 03/20/2008, -17/+773,000 scientists "Can't be wrong" but 3,000 robots can?
Go NPR go. - bernandoo, on 03/20/2008, -7/+64global warming or not... it would be nice if humans were more environmentally friendly.
- mattowan, on 03/20/2008, -31/+85Let's explore all the options.............except that global warming is a fraud.
- Gandalff, on 03/20/2008, -19/+67I guess now we are supposed to believe that HEAT SINKS to the bottom of the cold ocean below 3,000 is where all the heat is.... I told you these people make this stuff up for money.
Oh yea and I would like to buy a carbon credit for breathing heavy while trying not to laugh when I typed this. - nuggsgalore, on 03/20/2008, -12/+59Some politician takes credit for saving us from global warming.....in 5,4,3,2,1
- Elcoro2005, on 03/20/2008, -15/+60What an inconvenient truth that is..
- diggablog, on 03/20/2008, -13/+57Real scientists don't know what is happening, they are still studying the data — only the religion of global warming claims they 'know' what is happening — please don't take out frustration on real scientists.
- inactive, on 03/20/2008, -26/+65Dont worry the government progress toward making laws controlling what you buy, how we live and where we work have not been put on hold. Although they did put the hold on AIDS Africa so they could spend the money educating people about how the planet is getting warmer... in theory, I mean. Too bad they don't make theoretical AIDS medication yet.
- aki009, on 03/20/2008, -27/+64How NPR defines 4 years of no evidence of warming in the oceans: must be an error in the instruments or some fluke in the theory of MMGW, but the theory itself remains valid. What a joke. Shows just how valuable the opinions of NPR really are.
- ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 03/20/2008, -34/+67The thing that always bugs me about the tree huggers is that, despite their unending love of Mother Nature, they refuse to acknowledge the ecosystem's built-in ability to self-level and self-regulate. It gets warmer. Then it gets cooler. Then it gets warmer. Then it gets cooler. I believe it's called a 'cycle' and there's not much we as humans can do to alter it.
- bmunichman, on 03/20/2008, -11/+42FTA: "But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat."
Wait wait wait.... I thought 'the science was settled on global warming.' You mean there may be some things we don't fully understand yet?? Who'd ever expect that... - denniswalters, on 03/20/2008, -18/+46Scientists support "Global Warming" because they support the millions of dollars and pounds poured into grants. supports etc!
Scientists only tell the truth when there's money in it! - Chahrlie5, on 03/20/2008, -15/+41It's NPR
- cybernetic798, on 03/20/2008, -5/+27The slant on the parent comment is what is so bad, not the one in the article. The article mentions that the scientists involved in the Argo project are trying to explain why they did not observe an increase in heat in cold-water currents (denser water hence under surface of oceans) given that the sea levels rose over the last few years.
From TFA:
"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.
Obviously, given that information, you cannot simply say global warming is a myth since there are two sets of data that seem conflicting, at least on the outside. I would argue that a lot of posters on Digg completely glossed over the fact that there is conflicting data mentioned in the article (not to mention many previous articles that discuss the GIS Temperature Trends http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/) and are looking instead to immediately pull out random quotes from this article as proof for their own beliefs.
That, good sirs, is not the way science is to be conducted. I am not offering Al Gore's speeches or movies as proof of global warming, I am just saying look at the data and studies and you will see IN THE LEAST that global warming/climate change/[insert term here] is worth exploring. Better safe than sorry. - Petrarch1603, on 03/20/2008, -13/+33but don't worry, there's still a global consensus
/sarcasm - psion01, on 03/20/2008, -5/+23So ... what's your explanation for a hypothesis that isn't supported by the data?
- ViperDaimao, on 03/20/2008, -3/+20umm, you can get immunizations for viruses. That's where i think they're looking for a "cure", though it's really a prevention. And there's a possible future with nano-technology that could specifically target viruses that would be considered a "cure".
- pnkearns, on 03/20/2008, -5/+22So we should consider the possibility that global warming is a myth? Right....?
- Petrarch1603, on 03/20/2008, -5/+21at least they're still publishing it, they could just as easily sweep it under the carpet
- nmoline, on 03/20/2008, -17/+33Maybe this is why Al Gore has been so quiet of late... Oh well the next natural disaster and Al Gore will be pinning it on the American consumer again.
- Matters, on 03/20/2008, -15/+31The world IS warming up, it's just kind of... sort of going to cool off again like a cycle... or something. But global warming is real... it's just the main evidence we had to support our theory is now bogus...
Do these people REALIZE what they've done to society as a whole? Everybody's so scared of what's going to happen to the planet b/c of inconvenient truths and the Discovery Channel, and yet it was all smoke and mirrors. Hopefully now we can focus on the real problems... like why I'm paying almost $4 at the pump. - gettophilosophr, on 03/20/2008, -9/+24Wait...you mean natural disasters didn't happen in the past? Wow...and I actually believed all that crap in National Geographic about civilizations wiped out by tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and volcanoes.
Damn you National Geographic!!!1 - capiCrimm, on 03/20/2008, -6/+21I did. Then I realized I was talking to a wall. So I took my meds.
Seriously, though, the simplest solution tends be the one you should consider. When you get an answer you don't like you don't assume the experiment is wrong. - inactive, on 03/20/2008, -15/+30It is SO funny to read words of the goreacle chorus between the lines of this piece . . . "We realize we are full of ***** but we don't want to admit it."
- R2Bacca, on 03/20/2008, -3/+18I think there is a general misconception about the way science works. Science does not set out to prove anything. It is not about providing evidence as proof. What science does is it assumes that anything is possible, and then attempts to DISPROVE things. It's like the old saying "to carve a canoe out of a log you first start with a log and then remove everything that isn't a canoe."
The problem with the issue of climate change is that good science has not been carried out yet. We've started with some idea that "the Earth is getting warmer and will keep getting warmer because of human waste" and attempted to prove it. We've taken an observation that the Earth seems to getting warmer and jumped to some conclusion that it is solely because of CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect. This is NOT science. This is politics.
The climate changes over time. That is what the climate does. The climate IS the climate. The climate is influenced by a HUGE number of factors, some that we are aware of, and, no doubt, many many more that we have yet to discover. And to compound the problem, we are basing our calculations on about 100 years of scientific data. The earth is 4 billion years old! How can we even be so naive to think that we can have some sort of understanding of global climate change based on 100 years of data (some of it arguably inaccurate)? Thats like asking 10 people out of the entire population of the united states what flavor ice cream is the best.
Am I denying the possibility that our climate may be warming? no. What I am saying is that the proper treatment of the subject has not been done yet. We need to do more research. We need to look at this from a more objective standpoint. We need to conduct GOOD science.
Oh, and BTW... if you think "Carbon Credits" are a great idea... please take the next bus to the moon. - inactive, on 03/20/2008, -26/+40Amazing. How stupid do you have to be to write an article like that? I think it's pretty obvious that the 'man-made global warming crowd' evolved from lemmings. lol
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/20/2008, -10/+24No, Wrong. I misclicked when I dugg you up.
CO2 Fertilizes plants. Plants grow better on this planet with more CO2. Reducing CO2 is stupid and pointless.
If you want to improve the environment, reduce ozone emissions, and reduce soot emissions. Those two things will save millions of lives a year from lung damage from smog. - norman619, on 03/20/2008, -9/+23Well there WAS global warming but that warming has almost vanished in the space of 12 months. So this means global warming was/is real. It'd be interesting to see if the global warming observed by NASA on the other planets in our solar system has done the same. Human Caused Global Warming is a fraud though. The 12 months of global cooling was great proof of that. This article is just icing on the cake. And this cake is not a lie.
- bullcutter, on 03/20/2008, -9/+23yes, well said -- people forget that carbon dioxide is organic in nature, the product of life -- the earth has been dealing with its presence for billions of years.
not to forget that oxygen-breathing life has historically flourished in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 up to 10x higher than they are now. - JonTheGoose, on 03/20/2008, -0/+13The robots are bluffing. They're preparing for the uprising.
"Report: Nothing is wrong. Everything is normal. For your safety, please stand next to the woodchipper" - timewarp424, on 03/20/2008, -2/+14When evidence starts to point in a different direction, it's the job of the scientist to alter the theory to make sense with the new conditions or at worst, entertain the possibility that the initial theory was incorrect. Just because a bunch of scientists agreed that a theory was correct, doesn't make it correct. The theory needs to constantly work with the data. Here's a case where the data is straying from the theory.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/20/2008, -3/+15Hey, they do know something!
FTA:" "Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says."
Smartest thing they ever said. Clouds are like a blanket. You know what happens when you put on a blanket, right? You can either shield yourself from heat, or keep heat in. Scientists cannot model overall cloud behavior and impact on Earth, it is simply too complex of a task. Hence they cannot know where the climate is going. - abran1984, on 03/20/2008, -16/+28Let's continue working to reduce CO2..
- Daedalus17, on 03/20/2008, -1/+12By "recorded history" you are talking about how long we have had satellites orbiting the earth taking pictures. That should pretty much show you how valuable "recorded history" is in this case.
- LuckyASN, on 03/20/2008, -6/+17So the oil companies bribed the robots that actually went and measured the oceans and found bubkus?
Your post smells of fail. - norman619, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11A flu shot is NOT a cure. There is not cure for the flu. No more than there is one for the common cold. You get the shot BEFORE you get infected in hopes of fooling your body into creating the antibodies to fight the current strain. A flu shot won't do jack for you if you already have the flu. You really need to learn the difference between a cure and a vaccination.
- aki009, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11... to add to the list of the Hansen accomplishments: he was bankrolled to a significant extent by none other than George Soros.
- MeanYogurt, on 03/20/2008, -6/+16What planet do you live on? Icecaps at both ends of the Earth are thickening and have been for quite some time.
http://www.gvnr.com/62/1.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s148557 ... - inactive, on 03/20/2008, -3/+13A scientist not understanding what the data is telling them does not mean that they 'must be interpreting it wrong.' NPR, and the scientists, are saying that there may be other variables involved, meaning that the data can not be interpreted as expected. When new variables are introduced to an equation, you don't just shrug, and keep going on the same way. No, rather you wouldn't 'quite understand' the equation any longer, and have to step back, and take a new look. Why must you be obstructively cynical?
- bowe, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11My issue isn't so much whether or not the earth is increasing in temperature, we can be sure that temperature increases have been happening since the ice age. It's whether or not C02 is really to blame for the possibly accelerated rate of climate change we are experiencing. It's inevitable that glaciers from 1000s of years ago are going to melt, with or without human intervention. There are so many inputs into climate models that it's hard to be convinced one way or the other. Sure C02 is a greenhouse gas, but so is water vapor, and so is methane. We know that the sun doesn't give off a constant amount of radiation, which could explain some of the warming. We also know that the earth has been forever changing for billions of years before humans, with species appearing and disappearing. How can we define what a normal temperature is for our planet?
- PeterODactyl, on 03/20/2008, -2/+11Boy, this thread is the biggest Denier circlejerk I've ever seen.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/20/2008, -3/+12The robots were probably made by Diebold...
- vault, on 03/20/2008, -12/+21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism
Educate yourself. Eco-Marxists who have no genuine understanding of these issues and who simply saw An Incovenient Truth are looking for an excuse to screw capitalism. - bullcutter, on 03/20/2008, -11/+20wow, the tides of "Digg popularity", they are a turnin, no?
all i can say is 'bout time, bruddahs... - inactive, on 03/20/2008, -5/+141.7% of the earth's water is in ice caps, glaciers and permanent snow. What happens when you drop a tiny sliver of an ice cube in your drink, dawg? Does it keep it chillin, dawg? Huh, dawg? Just sayin, homie. You know how that shiz be chillin, homie.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/20/2008, -2/+11Indeed. And I do wish the network of weather stations that goes into all the surface temperature records were investigated for their proximities to urban sprawl.
Oh wait, they are... www.surfacestations.org.
Too bad James Hansen doesn't do this to ensure the quality of his own data. -
Show 51 - 100 of 490 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