What is Digg?115 Comments
- slym2k, on 07/06/2009, -2/+13but how is the Green Hill Zone doing?
- FitteMas, on 07/06/2009, -5/+16I'll go get my Hawaiian shirt ready.
- mxxz, on 07/06/2009, -1/+11Why did they put a Nuclear Power plant as the picture? Nuclear power doesn't produce carbon dioxide, only steam and radioactive waste.
- drmangrum, on 07/06/2009, -2/+11Well, technically water vapor is a far more potent green house gas than CO2 is.
But the real answer is sensationalism. It's the main tool of the Cult of Green. - rthakidn, on 07/06/2009, -3/+11Do me a favor, keep repeating "virtually unanimous". Said often enough, people will believe you.
- elperegrino, on 07/06/2009, -15/+23i find the digg denial of global warming and climate *****-up strange and disturbing.
the scientific community is virtually unanimous on the subject (and i just read on another post, "science ***** yeah!"). the idea that this is a global scientific conspiracy motivated by funding is ludicrous and also goes against the average diggers scorn of conspiracy theories. so i have to attribute it to some strange kind of fanboydom. - missinglink, on 07/06/2009, -5/+13So, global warming is changing the tilt of the planet on its axis?
The "tropic zone" is not determined by weather or vegetation or even climate. It's identified as the band over which the sun is at some point during the year directly overhead. Specifically between 23°26' North and 23°26' South of the Equator. - inactive, on 07/06/2009, -5/+12What just one second. If we cut down the tropical zones we're destroying the planet, but if we let it expand then climate change is destroying the planet?
- chriskzoo, on 07/06/2009, -8/+1595% of Earth's greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor - BAN WATER!!!!!!
Seriously, greenies, get out of my pocket. - drmangrum, on 07/06/2009, -4/+11Facts?
The scientific community is NOT unanimous. In any event, science is not decided by consensus, it's not up to a committee, it's not done by petition.
The fact is, there are precious few facts, the interpretation of which is highly debated. The true anti-science people are those that shout down, belittle, and attempt to discredit those who put forth alternate theories. - liberalidiot, on 07/06/2009, -4/+11I'm still waiting for the global cooling craze to come back.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -15/+22Climate changes. This is not news.
- TheUngod, on 07/06/2009, -2/+8Because no global warming article is complete without fear mongering. Whether it's happening or not, the tactics used to get people to agree with it are terrible.
- Shwaavay, on 07/06/2009, -4/+10News changes. This is not Climate.
- Gumphlumph, on 07/06/2009, -15/+20Wow, people really are like a bunch of ostriches. Every credible scientist on the planet is acknowledging global warming as the single biggest threat of the 21st century and the geniuses that lurk on Digg are still screaming hoax.
- rthakidn, on 07/06/2009, -5/+10Many credible scientist disagree. Oh, that's right, they're only credible if they "go along". There is another article at DIGG today about thawing permafrost and the methane it will release causing the acceleration of "warming". Let me restate the argument I posted there. If the methane present in the permafrost is enough to affect global climate, how is it the ice formed?? Wouldn't ALL that methane prevent the formation of ice?? Did greenhouse gas have a different effect millions of years ago? Are we being cheated? I sure wish Al would tell us what to do.
- realeskimopimp, on 07/06/2009, -4/+9News Climates. This is not change.
- EtherGnat, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
- rthakidn, on 07/06/2009, -3/+7Well you're missing the point. Everything is caused by global climate change, get use to it.
- jdames1980, on 07/06/2009, -1/+5I prefer Emerald Hill Zone.
- TwistyMcFister, on 07/06/2009, -3/+7I didn't realize disease and drought only existed in tropical zones.....
bring it on up to California I guess......can't get much worse here - zacharytelschow, on 07/06/2009, -17/+21The seas were supposed to rise dozens of feet this century. We're about 1/10 of the way there. What has been the total rise so far?
What has been the increase in temperature so far?
Until the chicken little can legitimatize their screams with actual metrics (and studies supporting global warming aren't repeatedly refuted based on biased and intentional error), I'm not buying it. - drmangrum, on 07/06/2009, -2/+5@EtherGnat
I think it's important to point out errors and inconsistencies that many people will overlook.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
69% of the scientists polled didn't respond. They build their figures on the 31% that did respond. So why did more then 2/3rds not respond? Chances are, the 31% that did are passionate about the climate change argument. If the other 69% aren't passionate about the subject, what does that tell you about importance?
They also focus on temperature changes have pre-1800's earth. They are focusing on the post-industrial revolution data. What they AREN'T tell you is that the Earth has been on a steady warming trend since the 1650's, WELL before the industrial revolution. They also don't tell you that the global average of today is about the same as it was around the year 1100.
STATS, 2007
They don't tell you how many responded. They also focus on the relatively recent history. They don't tell you how they "randomly" chose the sample. If they randomly chose 500 names from a bank of a 1000 known pro-anthro, then the stat is meaningless.
Oreskes, 2004
The entirely selection started off with bias. Garbage.
Bray and von Storch, 2003
In the article they explain why the study was complete garbage.
Like I said before, science isn't done by consensus. Anyone saying the contrary is a fool. - zacharytelschow, on 07/06/2009, -3/+6Yes. If everything on the entire earth doesn't stay exactly the same as it was down to the smallest detail until the end of time humans have destroyed the earth.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -2/+5Water, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide are destroying the planet!
- Shwaavay, on 07/06/2009, -8/+11Your anecdotal evidence has me convinced. I'm gonna go get some sand and put it in my backyard so that I can have a beachfront property.
- Mike17102, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4Seems to be working just fine for the Goracle.
- xsecretfiles, on 07/06/2009, -4/+7I like the tropical, when is it coming near me?
- Dipsomaniac, on 07/06/2009, -0/+3If you're depending on "Swindle" for facts then you're not getting any. Many of the scientists interviewed for that have publicly denounced how what they said was completely distorted by the producers.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propag ...
Do you have something that isn't basically an hour or so of dogmatic lies? - rthakidn, on 07/06/2009, -2/+5Buz, knock it off. Start chanting, "yes we can" and get along with the shuffle. Fall in line and stop thinking.
- chriskzoo, on 07/06/2009, -7/+10Every greenie i have met falls into one of four categories:
1) 'Scientist' that relies on global warming funding to put dinner on the table
2) Works for a politician/business with a financial interest in regulating CO2
3) Myopic student
4) Hippie nutjob - inactive, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4If global warming is such an existential threat, why did 100s of "scientists" and politicos fly all the way to Bali to discuss it? Why wouldn't they meet virtually? Humans very existence is at stake, yet they still all managed to fly to a resort in the middle of the Indian Ocean to discuss it.
Why doesn't Gore meet virtually? Humans are going to become extinct if we don't stop flying planes, yet Al Gore must fly planes to tell us about it. - DankBuddz, on 07/06/2009, -1/+4Like I said above, people don't like the mainstream, and they don't like new ideas. Look at the era of Darwinism. All these deniers are the same people who scoffed at evolution.
"HAH! We can't SEE any change in these animals, and you're suggesting they EVOLVE over longs periods of time? That's ridiculous!"
Pretty much interchangeable with a denier argument. Based on no science whatsoever, but just arguments based on personal experience and rhetoric. - gameboyhippo, on 07/06/2009, -2/+5I guess this is our way of saving the rain forest. Why aren't the liberals happy?
- Dipsomaniac, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2And I'm still waiting for the deniers to finally stop lying about there ever being a mainstream scientific hypothesis about that.
There never was. It was media hype. Just stop. - Dipsomaniac, on 07/06/2009, -0/+2WHAT good points? He brought up global cooling as if it was ever a serious hypothesis (it wasn't) and he basically said weather and climate are comparable (they aren't). After those glaring untruths, what's the point?
- DankBuddz, on 07/06/2009, -3/+5"Until the chicken little can legitimatize their screams with actual metrics (and studies supporting global warming aren't repeatedly refuted based on biased and intentional error), I'm not buying it."
People like you really make me laugh. You'll sacrifice integrity just to be a martyr against mainstream opinion.
Studies repeatedly getting refuted? I haven't seen any plausible argument refuting the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change. That's probably because I chose to learn about the issue rather than read headlines on denier sites and eat up political rhetoric. Hey, to each his own, right? - PM08, on 07/06/2009, -2/+431,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/ - vbullinger, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3News changes climate. This is not.
- Dipsomaniac, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2No, buzaman, that isn't how climate models are formed. Not even close. You're arguing nonsense.
- evildemonic, on 07/06/2009, -1/+3The entire country of Canada will finally be habitable
- realeskimopimp, on 07/06/2009, -3/+5News Climates. This is not change.
- Dipsomaniac, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2But the globe IS warming. No, it didn't stop in 1998. The average global temperature is still going up.
It's called climate change now because not everywhere on the globe is going to warm up right away. If the current up the eastern coast of North America is disrupted then there's going to be a lot of land that gets considerably colder, even as the globe warms up on average. - danwgre, on 07/06/2009, -3/+4There is absolutely no doubt that global warming regulation is becoming a huge power grab. Alot of you greenies need to realize that people who crave power don't care how they get there, or give a damn about any ideological merits. They want to control people and resources. The global warming issue (regardless if it is true or not), is simply the latest way to control what you do and what you have.
- RedDragonAngel, on 07/06/2009, -4/+5Global Warming propaganda remember you don't have to be a Scientist to be on the IPCC. You would think that would be a requirement some where.
- drmangrum, on 07/06/2009, -4/+5Before Copernicus and Galileo, it was unanimous that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Before Columbus, it was unanimous that the Earth was flat.
Before Newton, it was unanimous how gravity worked.
Before Einstein, it was unanimous that Newtonian physics could explain everything.
"Unanimous" in science is another word for brainwashed. - buzaman, on 07/06/2009, -1/+2Scientists should study these things. There is no discussion about that. I'm sure the science has come a long way in 30 years and in the next 30 it should be even better. But it should in no way be used to drive policy. The issue is we have politicians and corporations using science to push an agenda to grab more power.
- Ferretman, on 07/06/2009, -1/+2I see some folks have themselves another alias....
- Ferretman, on 07/06/2009, -4/+5There's a well thought out and considered reply--thanks for adding to the conversation little kid....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is