What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
108 Comments
- Dralha, on 12/01/2008, -27/+38An excellent read.
"The Deniers seem to think that climate science is a three legged stool, and if they could only knock out one leg it will fall over."
It really is striking how the mindset of the global warming denialists is exactly the same as that of the evolution denialists. Both camps think that the respective theories they're attacking are three-legged stools. Both use "arguments" with the exact same structure, employing the exact same rhetorical tactics and fallacies. Both sets of devotees regularly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of rudimentary science. Coincidence? I think not. My suspicion has always been that nearly every global warming denialist is already an evolution denialist. They've already gobbled up the right wing's anti-evolution propaganda, so it's only natural that they move on to another course of ignorance and embrace global warming denialism. - greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -10/+19Do you notice how you keep trying to shift the point as you get nailed? I do.
No one here mentioned the consensus; apparently it is you who is worried about it.
Anyway, the "consensus"
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/%22There+is+no+Consens ...
is not about belief or opinion, it is about the validity of the science. It is informed, expert judgment that the facts as presented by the science are correct:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-science/ - Alheithinn, on 12/01/2008, -15/+23Well, I can see the deniers have been busy knocking us all down. The last we'll see of them, I think, is them floating away on little ice chunks that get gradually smaller and smaller. By then it will be too late for them to change their minds.
- Alheithinn, on 12/01/2008, -6/+14Incredible...how are you continuing to miss the evidence, govsucks? Can't read a thermometer?
- greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -5/+13I have provided inks to the science which gives the facts and evidence. You respond with ridicule and claims that science has shown to be false:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mo ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
Pls cite facts and evidence if you wish to be taken seriously. - Alheithinn, on 12/01/2008, -22/+29It seems obvious (or it should) that the planet is warming. This happens from time to time, just like it gets colder. The last cold period was the Little Ice Age. We're still recovering from that. The warming period before that make the Viking voyages of exploration possible.
Even if part of what we're experiencing now is natural, we're still warming. Anyone who has lived a few decades will have noticed this.
I grew up in the Twin Cities, Minnesota. When I was a kid, we had tons of snow. We made snow forts that lasted all winter. It never warmed enough during the winter to melt the snow. We'd dig tunnels into the drifts, caves into the piles of snow we shoveled off our sidewalk and driveway. Thirty years later (and by then, living in the same house) everything had changed. We'd get snow, it would melt, we'd get more snow, it would melt. I never had a chance to build those snow forts with my kids that I used to built. The weather wasn't the same. Sure, we got a few nice blizzards over the years, but overall, you could see that these were not the same winters.
It's obvious too that we've adversely affected the environment. We have a hole in the ozone layer, we have so much haze from pollution that places like LA are perpetually clouded over by smog, and so are some of our National Parks. We have acid rain. These things can be measured. They can be seen. They didn't occur naturally. It really doesn't matter how much of the warming trend is due to we humans. We're hurting our planet, the place we have to live; the place our children have to live. We can't just sit on our hands and do nothing.
We're talking observable facts. We're not talking science fiction. - ezekiel105, on 12/01/2008, -8/+15All I read from your source is how to collect climate change data. Could you provide links to the actual data collected?
- Alheithinn, on 12/01/2008, -11/+18LOL Self-righteous mob, are we? You know, even if I grant you that we're a mob, sometimes a mob is right.
But here are the key facts:
1. We offer you scientific facts to back up our arguments
2. You offer insults.
Tell me who is more likely to be right? - ezekiel105, on 12/01/2008, -8/+15Are there any sources that aren't tainted so much by government sources. The reason people are skeptical is because there is a very strong motive politically for climate change to exist and therefore, you would have to assume that any government agency reporting on climate change would be biased or at least potentially biased; either way that makes the issue moot until there are independent organizations to do the research with no apparent biases.
Furthermore, the websites you link give links to other websites to find the data. They make it very difficult to derive simple answers. If they were really trying to provide evidence, instead of obfuscating the issue, they would include data in the article and not sporadic links.
Are there any similar websites to this http://www.petitionproject.org where real people that are qualified to analyze the data have done so? - Alheithinn, on 12/01/2008, -19/+26"collectivist propaganda"? All you people have to offer in the face of facts is insulting terms?
- Shiloah, on 12/01/2008, -11/+18@monoa - Plenty of ex-deniers out there, they just won't admit to being ex-deniers. Couple years ago, when nailed by the data, they went from flat-out denial to saying "well, it is occurring, but it's NOT MAN-MADE." Even now, there is a shift underway from "OK, it's man-made, but we can't/shouldn't/won't do anything about it because THAT'S TOTALITARIANISM." They would rather let nature take its course and "evolve" us ...into extinction.
- greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -8/+15You are correct about the role of induction, but wrong in your conclusion.
Problem of Induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_o ...
Scientific method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
i) This discussion is supposedly about the posted article, something you have made absolutely no reference to
ii) As stated, except in pure mathematics nothing in science is proven. Go and find me proofs of the laws of thermodynamics or gravity if you doubt me; should be easy, no?
iii) Since I have never claimed "the consensus" was proof of anything I fail to see why you even mention it. Now that you have, see here
http://digg.com/environment/The_scope_and_scale_of ...
for what it means
iv) Links are a courtesy to substantiate points while not cluttering a comments thread. The source has been provided, no effort or skill beyond literacy are asked of you.
The data is there, that you cannot rationally refute it cannot be disguised with empty bluster. - ezekiel105, on 12/01/2008, -6/+11The government plays both sides of the issue; that's what they do.
"Lies are easy, the truth is complicated. We all wish it were not so, but it's how reality is."
Actually, you have that backwards. The truth is always easier. It's not hard to prove a theory if you have sufficient data. Lies are much more difficult to prove and it's much harder to make the data fit your assumptions. - monoa, on 12/01/2008, -24/+29Good stuff, greenfyre.
Another element to the 'scope and scale' of ACC, is the historical scale - over 100 years of scientific study has done nothing but strengthen the theory. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
P.S. I had a first yesterday - someone admitted that they were an ex-denier and had been fooled by the propaganda. There is hope! - ezekiel105, on 12/01/2008, -7/+12Any papers interpreting the data? This is raw data.
- greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -9/+14Because it is?
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/drinking ... - ezekiel105, on 12/01/2008, -8/+13As Bertrand Russell put it, "the general principles of science . . . are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed."
Your link proved my point. Thanks.
You can prove my points if you find that somehow helpful. I know their right. Conversely, that doesn't put forth any evidence to support climate change; just like your blog. It's been nice chatting with you.
Give me a shout when you have proven climate change with reasonable scientific certainty, but please don't even bother if you're assumptions are based on assumptions. Provide data in your writing. - cruzecon, on 12/01/2008, -8/+13I agree that the CO2 emissions "exchange program" to sell pollution credits is a questionable program. I don't see how that will ACTUALLY promote a decrease in CO2 emissions.
However; the science of CO2 as a warming factor is FACT. It is what it is- add an increase of CO2 to any mix of our atmospheric gasses/makeup and the temperature goes up. Of course you have to also add in the effect of sunlight/heat coming INTO the atmosphere- THIS is where any increase in CO2 percentages activates an increase in the total RETAINED heat in the atmosphere.
The THEORY that postulates that the rise of CORAL REEFS (which take carbon dioxide OUT OF CIRCULATION AND "FIX IT" in place as a coral matrix) was a major factor in the cooling of the atmosphere that eventually fostered life as we currently know it, HAS NOT been disproved, rather it's conclusions have been strengthened by almost every related investigation. The corollary that Coral Reefs are NOW dying -statistically related to increases in water temperature where the reefs are dying, and to the changes in nutrient content in the water- i.e., pollutants that affect the amount of light and interfere with the chemical exchanges necessary for the coral to extract carbon dioxide to build the protective matrix of carbonates that protect the actual living reef organisms, is both observably quantifiable and qualifiable. The exact correlation (precise chemical interaction) may be debatable but the involvement of CO2 science is factual and agreed upon. - twistaspliff, on 12/01/2008, -21/+25Pure alarmist *****, and blogspam from greenshill. Buried with extreme prejudice.
- artwhite, on 12/01/2008, -19/+23I'm beginning to believe that "greenfyre" is in fact a group of paid (by tax-free foundations own by international banks) individuals with an agenda of brainwashing the sheeple into total submission towards a CO2 global tax-scam.
There's is NO scientific consensus on CO2 being a driver of global warming. - GlobalistShill, on 12/01/2008, -13/+17My understanding is that the climate and environment is, and always will be, changing. But if the Rothschilds had their way, perhaps they would establish a breathing tax on Earth for this?:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_sout ... - ezekiel105, on 12/01/2008, -10/+14Your sources have not proven any theory. If they have, what is the name of the theory, and where is this theory documented.
"problem of induction" That's just a complete fallacy.
Sorry, but science IS induction. Everything that is considered law is statistically only 99.99999% conclusive, because from a philosophical standpoint, you cannot prove something will happen again even if it has happened millions of times. You can say with statistical certainty that it will happen, but not they cannot remove all doubt. That's where the induction comes into play. You must use deductive logic and inductive logic to prove theories.
If you cannot provide quotes of data here in this discussion, you should at least admit that climate change cannot be proven with collective consensus. Links are not evidence. They are asking people to do research for you. This is your argument. Prove it. Your words are meaningless without data to back it up. - lostlyrics, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5don't misuse spaceweather.
it is just a picture and indeed confirming
my doubts. in any pride you could have yet.
why don't you just stick with uhm
issues of your intelligence suite ?
http://digg.com/celebrity/Guess_Who_s_Real_And_Who ... - greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -20/+24i) "collectivist propaganda."
All I talk about is science ... copy paste what you think is "collectivist propaganda."
ii) All you offer is empty opinion. If you want me to listen you will have to talk about the actual science and show me how it is wrong
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.ht ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-science/ - sheeplescareme, on 12/01/2008, -12/+15from the blogspam:
"My suspicion has always been that nearly every global warming denialist is already an evolution denialist. They've already gobbled up the right wing's anti-evolution propaganda, so it's only natural that they move on to another course of ignorance and embrace global warming denialism."
well greenshill, you've really outdone yourself this time. we all know that you're an arrogant twit, but it seems your deluded sense of self-importance knows no bounds. - lostlyrics, on 12/01/2008, -6/+9well sistasdiff, thanks for showing the low end of the scale :P
- lostlyrics, on 12/01/2008, -11/+14"Denier til death" - that's simply sulking
no opinion at all which would adapt reality -
the romans said 'stupor animos suos tenet'
we will have to deal with some asocial elements. - greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -10/+13Where the F did that "quote" come from? you imply it came from me? why isn't it linked?
- greenfyre, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6"your absolute insistance that you are the oracle of truth"
Quite the opposite, that is why I always provide links to reputable science and credible sources. No one should accept anyone's say so.
Speaking of which, why should I accept what you say? Aren't you the one who seems to be believe just his word is enough, no other sources required? - BigManOnCampus, on 12/02/2008, -7/+10Greenfyre, again you display a poor understanding of science. Yes, indeed, elements of science far simpler than climate science have been proven incorrect by one simple equation, and yet you want to claim that AGW is some "18-wheeler" that cannot be assaulted. You again demonstrate both an extreme lack of understand of how science works, it's history, and the tenuous basis of most human understanding.
- lostlyrics, on 12/01/2008, -4/+7:P the scam funders love to look around in a
reproaching way, after they farted themselves - greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -10/+13Volcanoes and Climate Change, Part 1 http://helicity.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/volcanoes ...
- MorganMghee, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3I guess I would need to see the proof (legitimate published report) showing the IPCC is paid to advance anything aside from climate change research. Next I would like to assure you that the models include both natural plus anthropogenic forcing (MME_ALL) AND anthropogenic only forcing (MME_ANTH). Your 'excluding summertime' analogy doesn't work, least of all because climate≠weather. The early volcanic data was used in a study along with sun data to test models and compare pre/post-industrial climate in 2004, it's only been updated since.http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_ ...
- greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -6/+8Or they could check what scientists have to say:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=It ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Sunspots-and-Solar-Myt ... - twistaspliff, on 12/01/2008, -9/+11LMFAO! Greenshill lecturing me on faith over facts. That's a good one. You want evidence? Here, debunk this - http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh? ...
So much for the ice cap melting, and all those poor swimming polar bears, eh? Let me guess, this is debunked on your pathetic alarmist blog. - lostlyrics, on 12/01/2008, -4/+6who's paid is quite obvious anyway
say when (1 of 100 examples)
Heartland is a free-market, anti-regulation right wing think-tank which last year organized the biggest gathering of climate sceptics seen for years in New York. As for funding, Heartland used to publicly state who its corporate and foundation funders were; these days it refuses to. What we know however is that in the past Heartland has received funding from ExxonMobil ($676, 500 since 1998), with the oil giant specifically tagging its 04’ funding to
Heartland for its "climate change efforts". Heartland’s funding has also come from foundations such as the Charles Koch Foundation (big oil), and Richard Scaife, (well-known right-wing billionaire). One can make their own judgments about these funding streams. Former board members include Walter F. Buchholtz, “Government Relations and Issues Advisor” to Exxon (he then took on the same role for Heartland in 2005). Current board members include a former staff member from tobacco company Phillip Morris.
Heartland's original statement listing the scientists is unequivocal: "The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:..." and goes on to list a number of classic sceptic contentions. Heartland is refusing to change this statement and it is this statement the New Zealand scientists have a major problem with.
Mr Bast reveals that the authors of the list are Dr Fred S Singer and Denis Avery. It’s important to note that neither are climate scientists. Dr. Singer has always asserted the issue of global warming has been "blown out of proportion" by "eco-activists". He reported that smog is little more than an irritant to people with breathing problems, despite more than 20 years of scientific evidence to the contrary. He has proposed that defending our planet from incoming comets is more important than reducing the threat of global warming. And he has supported the commercial hunting of whales. There seems to be no limits to the breadth of Dr. Singer’s opinions or his willingness to speak out. Rarely does the scientific base of his arguments stand up to scrutiny. - lostlyrics, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3and nevermind.
I just pretend to speak english.
was still nice talking at ya :D
farewell hint: if you keep busy looking
out for better a spliff quality, then ppl
might not again be misled to presume
higher-twist an associativity with you. >8) - digtastico, on 12/01/2008, -17/+19really interesting article, good posting!
- ozydingo, on 12/01/2008, -3/+5twist
Single-data point, qualitative comparison from graphics. From the same site, and a little easier to read the quantitative info:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur ...
showing that the 2008 northern hemisphere ice coverage was an abnormally high-point amongst the trend.
Also,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea ...
which unfortunately does not cover up to 2008.
So...it seems you lose on this one. Quite badly. - monoa, on 12/02/2008, -4/+6Here he is, cashman the coward.
For those who aren't familiar, this little troll vomits up the same nonsense about volcanoes in nearly every climate thread and when cornered by science, disappears - until next time he repeats the same tactics as though he never saw the previous rebuttals. A liar and a worm.
Here's all we need to know about cashman's volcano drivel:
The total heat flux from the Earth's interior amounts to just 0.075 Watts per square metre (http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatfl ... ), while incoming solar radiation is 342 Watts per square metre (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Clima ... ), about 5000 times as much.
Human emissions of CO2 are one hundred times that from volcanoes on land and under the sea (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15. ... ).
Therefore volcanoes can be discounted as the cause of recent warming. - Isidore, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3Cashman keeps repeating one of the LIES from the "Great Global Warming Conspiracy".
in fact, human activity produces 150 times more CO2 than all volcanoes combined according to the US geological survey,
If volcanoes were a significant factor in modern CO2 concentrations we would see massive spikes in the Keeling Curve of CO2 concentrations
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/
but we don't.
What we see is CO2 steadily rising over the years with northern summer winter blips.
BTW CO2 concentration readings are now taken at hundreds of points round the globe, not just Mauna Loa. - monoa, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2The links I provided debunk your idiocy - you're just too dumb to understand why.
You're a moron. A coward. A liar. You have no grasp of science, just proud ignorance. You are intellectually weak and dishonest.
You think that because *you* don't know or understand, then no one does. You think that the world's climate scientists didn't consider volcanic activity? You are a delusional retard.
If you had any intellectual ability you would have researched the answers to the questions yourself - but you won't. You just keep repeating them, thinking you've scored some kind of victory.
A worm of a human. - lostlyrics, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2http://digg.com/environment/Climate_Change_The_Dut ...
- lostlyrics, on 12/01/2008, -5/+6bury-trolls get on block at first tone. 0:)
the difference between mysterious longcoat
in central park and curiously longcoat opening. - cruzecon, on 12/01/2008, -5/+6In the last 8 years, it was the Administration that PREVENTED PUBLICATION OF SCIENCE THAT SUPPORTED THE THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING that had everything to gain by, increasing our reliance on oil, coal and old fashioned manufacturing and production processes to increase the profits of the shareholders of those old technologies. Once it became evident that the FACTS actually supported the theory of Global warming, ONLY THEN did the Administration actually admit it MIGHT be true.
I share your healthy skepticism for the SOURCES of the research but, it is disingenuous to isolate Government studies as a suspect class without differentiating between those "funded" by the energies/technologies of the status quo. As always, follow the money trail to evaluate the objectivity of the report. - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -14/+15Greenfyre is just a militant activist who won a local award in 1995, and has inflated his own self worth.
He is SUCH a negative person, others have written entire blogs trying to get him to stop being such a douchebag:
http://theguerrillacapitalist.wordpress.com/2008/1 ...
He reminds me of Mightdavefish/cryrighttardcry: He does more harm to his argument with his dickish personality than good. He just can't help putting down anyone who isn't firmly in lockstep with his every view. I have tried several times to convince him that his ***** personality overrides any valid arguments he makes.
No go. He is so enamored with his own perceived self worth, no one else's opinion matters on anything, AT ALL. The anger and resentment (failure?) come through long before any facts.
If there was EVER someone who uses "Peace" in their title and org wrong, it is greenfyre. There is no "Peace" coming from his direction. Anger, resentment and ridicule, sure. Actual attempts to persuade others peacefully? NONE. - inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1Climate change is a win-win for the likes of Rothschilds because they profit by causing it with their business concerns, and then they say "oh dear isn't it terrible, we had better tax you all and have a one world government".
So where to stand? Go green and you can argue against global finance, globalism and immigration. Be a climate change denier and you achieve nothing other than to encourage more destruction of the planet. - KMye, on 12/02/2008, -4/+5gf, please drop the act...I haven't read this article yet; I will directly after this, but please, after your last digg-popular Greenpeace submission, just admit you're an outright activist, and not some measured, objective, scientific voice in this debate, as you try to paint yourself as...it's embarrassing, for you...
- lostlyrics, on 12/01/2008, -5/+6onwards at your destiny too
http://nsidc.org/sotc/ - MorganMghee, on 12/01/2008, -2/+3Your comment perplexes me. You've asked for sources that interpret the data, but don't want to see those 'tainted' by the government. None of the sites given were government or political. (see comment above: You asked for the data.
See any of:
@) and you give an example that is fully 'tainted' by politics and therefore by nature, government. (petitionproject).
NASA gets more money from and for the military than it does for the environment. If their concern were the bottom line, or pleasing the party that brings the most dollars, they wouldn't be pushing the climate change issue.
IPCC is solely concerned with the climate, the government will pay them to study and surmise data no matter which stance they take.
Union of Concerned Scientists, likewise, study for the sake of study and get paid for results no matter the direction they take.
The non-gov sites offered to you have not been associated with any sort of 'alternative energy profit generating, dis-information spreading' groups.
So, failing to believe any of these sites can reliably interpret the 'raw data' for you, give it a try yourself. It's not that hard to do, and who can you believe, if not yourself. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
