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.
103 Comments
- lead2thehead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I'm not 100% convinced that man is responsible for global warming. But I AM convinced that we're responsible for a ***** of air pollution and that alone should be enough to make you jump on the clean energy bandwagon.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's an article, not a paper published by the person the article is about. You're daft as to think that an article is representative of the research it covers.
Mainstream media is notoriously bad for not backing up its claims. That's what peer-reviewed journals are for.
It was a Scientific Assessment of Climate Change he headed. Even Bush and his administration had studies into it. Studying the issue doesn't make you inherently biased to one side of the issue or another. In fact, it just gives you more insight into the issue than others may have.
You think this article is all of his research? You're so naive it's sad. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Why does the debate of what is causing the GW outweigh the issue of what are we going to do about it?
If the predictions are that in 50 years the acidity of the ocean could kill off the fish -- isn't that something important?
What bunch of ***** are going to say that we should just keep heading our ship towards an ice burg because they guarantee us there is a good chance it won't sink the ship -- wouldn't the wise choice be to steer clear of the iceburg and not take the risk?
That's a pretty dangerous attitude. - Zique, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Yeah, I'm sure no scientist receives money from the oil industry to say anything bad about global warming. And maybe you should actually see how "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been received in the scientific community, might teach you a thing or two about source credibility.
- aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11*****. There are islands in the pacific that are being swallowed by the sea.
- Qeveren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Everything, absolutely everything everywhere on Earth that we've built, is built around the current climate. So possible billions, maybe trillions of dollars of economic damage and the possibility of untold loss of life is irrelevant because "oh, it's natural!"?
I suppose we ought not to be building flood control, or drainage, or storm shelters, or any of that useless stuff because hey, floods and storms and such are all natural, right? - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, and if we get hit by a mile-wide Asteroid, why should we prevent that as well. Extinction by asteroid is completely natural.
- tehpwnerofn00bs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15See? global warming proponents use real data from respected scientists, whereas the nay-sayers get their "data" from scientists who's research papers are even published because they don't hold up to review...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Sort of like, only where it's real hot is evidence of Global warming, but when a Global Warming March is canceled due to unusually cold weather and snow, that's not evidence of anything."
You can't have it both ways. If you think unusually cold weather and snow is evidence against climate change, then you can't discount that hot weather is evidence for it. - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Right on the nose!
Too bad people like to be right more than sane. They'd rather debate endless about the details of global warming than figure out practical solutions. You know, trying to stem the wave of destruction that's forecast to hit us?
It's like knowing you're bleeding to death, and you'd rather argue with your attacker about why he stabbed you. Who cares about what caused it, you need to solve the problem, pronto! - Railer, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12With sea levels rising at 1.3-2 mm a year I'll wake you in 2315. I recommend a comfortable mattress.
- subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"SHEDS some light"?
- Shaggy3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5China is definitely a major polluter.
America accounts for highest CO2 emissions.. Around 25%.
No one in power is trying to do anything to help, weeks after Bush's inauguration he dropped all "concerns" about trying to reduce CO2 emissions. - kholburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So you're saying that anyone who studies global warming must be biased?
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, you can't dismiss a scientific consensus with just your own opinion.
If you truly believe in the scientific method you'd present your argument with proof instead of telling others they're wrong.
It's not a natural cycle. There hasn't been a temperate era like we have now in history. It might be natural but it's no cycle. - sammysoul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Anytime the 1% CO2 argument is being launched it's without any reference to a source. Where did you get that number from? Fox News? An Exxon sponsored think tank?
The first few pages of the IPCC working group I report available on http://www.ipcc.ch will show you that CO2 levels are currently over 25% above the highest historic level we know of (that's the last 650,000 years) and over 35% above the pre-industrial level.
Furthermore, the atmospheric concentration of methane, over 20 times more potent as a heat trapping gas, is 148% above pre-industrial levels and at least 125% above the highest concentration in history before industrialization.
"Water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold." (source: working group I report, page 5). To paraphrase, increase in water vapour is the effect not the cause of global warming, duh...
Finally, the estimated impact of solar irradiance on global warming has actually been lowered over the years. In the current report it contributes less than 1% (!!!) to the warming compared to human activities.
I rest my case with Sir John Houghton: "Straight after the Earth summit in 1992 the Exxon company and the coal companies in the US set up a massive misinformation campaign, telling people that the science was flawed and that the IPCC was a collection of untrustworthy green activists. They hired top lawyers to spread this message and put it out over the US media. They also lobbied members of Congress and tried to discredit the IPCC and its chairman in a very serious way. This is still happening. It’s the big problem in getting something done about climate change. The US is the biggest emitter of CO2 per head of population and the country’s emissions have increased by 20 per cent since 1990."
Give me some sources for your speculations that global warming is not overwhelmingly caused by humans, and we can have a serious debate. I doubt you'll find some many respectable sources though ;-) - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Sure, scientists who back GW get funding from the government -- even though we've had numerous articles talking about our government supressing this research and firing scientists who insist that Global Warming is a problem
What other facts do you have to pull out of your ass? - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What is cheaper, building a solar/steam system for energy, or putting a 1-foot high dam around the entire country and pumping the water out?
Dealing responsibily with Global Warming and conservation, is a lot cheaper than dealing with the changes it will bring. - sammysoul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Comparing the emissions between nation states and then concluding that the most populous countries are also the biggest polluters is so obvious, it is basically a non-argument. To create a system of burden sharing between nations "other aspects must be taken into account, such as economic development, per capita emissions, historical contribution to the current global warming and the fact that China manufactures many goods for export." (source: http://tinyurl.com/2dmusv ) "Average greenhouse gas emissions (total, including non-CO2 gases) for all developing countries are currently about 4.2 ton CO2-eq. per head versus 16.1 ton CO2-eq. per head for industrialised countries. Emissions expressed per unit of GDP show the opposite pattern: about 1.1 vs. 0.7 kg CO2-eq. per US$(PPP) of GDP (on a purchasing power parity basis). A comparison between China, European Union and USA shows that per capita CO2 emissions are presently roughly about 5, 10 and 20 ton CO2/cap, respectively." (source: http://tinyurl.com/2dmusv ) These quotes are all based on the most recent data and published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah. Argue about the petty details. Anything but consider options that involve changing your way of life.
- sammysoul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Thadster, for your water vapor and sun argument please look at my other comment further down.
The true scientists ACTUALLY do look at the positive effects as well. Read the IPCC working group II report available on http://www.ipcc.ch and you'll find a number of positive effects of global warming, such as increased crop productivity in mid- to high latitudes, reduced heating costs, slight increase in forest growth, less deaths through cold exposure and newly navigable northern sea routes.
In light of the loss of freshwater reservoirs throughout central Asia and Europe due to the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas, increased flooding and increased droughts on a global scale, and finally the yet uncalculated so-called feedback effects, leading to an even faster increase in temperature rise, the positive effects are already dwarfed by the negative impacts. - Pake, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Remember, it's not a question of if global warming is happening (there should be no doubt that it's happening), but a question of what is causing it (is it Nature? Humans? Both?) and what all can be done to prevent it if need be.
- JoeVet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Richard Lindzen is a fool. He was a researcher of little note 30 years ago who is now enjoying the limelight by pandering to the likes of you. He doesn't believe we should worry about global warming because clouds act as an iris to block incoming solar heat and reflect it back. Now you can go on believing that we will be saved by this cloud cover or you can actually do some reading of your own and come to the same conclusions that the rest of the scientific community has come......Lindzen and his theory are hoohey.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2612021& ...
ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report said, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Are you a ***** scientist? If not, why should I listen to you?
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It is both, sort of. Nature is causing it, we are potentially accelerating it. Should we prevent it? No, the amount of damage it could cause could be astounding.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lindzen's "Iris effect" hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews ...
"The result is that the Iris effect slightly warms the Earth instead of strongly cooling it." - PrettyLadyGrace, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12a lot of the data isn't published because no one is willing to publish something that goes against these beliefs that have become so mainstream.... In addition a lot of scientists get funding by the government to back global warming, so why would the publish something that would cause them to loose money? The jobs of thousands of people are wrapped up in the notion of global warming, and none of them want to sacrifice that. I suggest that all of you watch the documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle," it will teach you a lot.
- brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Using that argument, how can we trust any scientist that is paid to do their job?
Won't they fabricate the results that help them keep their job regardless of who is paying them?
What ever happened to basing decisions on factual data instead of political agendas? - adamruth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21 foot high? What exactly would a 1 foot high dam do?
- Railer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2overall ocean levels are rising 1.3 mm per by most recent accounts, with is LOWER than historical averages. At the current rates in 100 years 13 cm or about 5 inches??? Wow where's James Hansen with that alarmist rant?
- Railer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Psst. Global warming is normal and follows normal cycles, Stop being a chicken little the sky is not falling.
- brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2would you mind rephrasing that comment? What are you trying to say?
- Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It was an interview. Personally, someone who carried around papers to cite in personal interviews would seem creepy, but perhaps that's me.
- mrjoanofarc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why doesn't a US President create an Office of Environmental Advisory? It should've been done a long time ago...
- aussieNickuss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@ brad3378
The Great Lakes are just that..... Lakes. They are inland and what effects them is different to what effects the World's oceans. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4And so roads, raising cattle that fart methane, filling in swamp land, and cutting down milions of miles of forests doesn't have an impact as well? The cumulative effects of humans can be seen from space, yet we are supposed to listen to your simplistic viewpoint on carbon dioxide?
I think the scientists are studying thousands of factors -- not just CO2. - Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its tremendously misleading. The fallacy is that a paper discussing climate changes in the past disproves the human contribution to the current warming. Its simply not so. Similarly, a paper saying that has been not much trend the number of tornados says absolutely nothing about whether or not AGW is happening.
There is only a small handful of actual denier papers on that list - you can spot them by looking for the denier journal Energy & Environment (e.g. Soon/Balunis) or the non peer reviewed papers published by conservative think-tanks (e.g. Idso). Then you also have a few from the cosmic ray cultists. So about 10 or so of the "500" are actually denier papers. Take the subset that have been published in legitimate journals and you have perhaps half that.
So "500" is exaggerating by a factor of 100 ... pretty much par for the course for denier claims. - Railer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2IPCC 2000 Budget 10 Million
http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session17/Doc.%205.pdf
In the United States, annual federal spending for all energy research and development - 3 Billion
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/worldbu ...
Bill Brennan, acting director of the climate science program ... , which has an annual budget of about $1.7 billion.
http://globalwarmingresearch.blogsavy.com/2007/09/ ...
Canada
$230 million for the ecoENERGY Technology Initiative for energy science and technology to fund the research, development and demonstration of clean energy technologies. - http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc3e.html
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/b ...
The Department of Energy has awarded a $125 million grant to establish the Joint BioEnergy Institute in Berkeley.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ouruniv ...
IPCC, got , now remember they don't DO the research they just sum it up, 17.5 MILLION in 2006.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session26/Doc3.pdf
I could go on with hundreds of links but you get the point. - Thuktun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Er, we already have an Environmental Protection Agency. We don't need another.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "natural warming" contribution to the past 30 years of warming is very small.
Burning less carbon will slow down anthropogenic global warming somewhat. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for many decades. Actually reversing AGW isn't going to happen anytime soon. - brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That's odd - the Great Lakes are experiencing record low levels. Maybe the issue with the great lakes is related to something else?
Source: http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/ - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Headline should read "Weather Scientist Sir John Houghton Repeats Tired FUD, Fails to Cite Actual Studies"
- Railer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I love how you cart out the last 20-30 years like it's the entire history of the earth. Wow and you guys say Christians that believe the world is 5000 years old are myopic, not environmentalists 30 year is good enough for us!
You why all of these studies only go back 30 years??? BECAUSE THE LAST 400 match up fine, taking into account cosmic rays, el nino, and major volcanic activity.
THe Northwest passage HAS ALWAY OPENED UP IN THE SUMMER!
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-repor ...
You know it's pointless talking to someone who looks only into the last 30 years for all our climate history, I see you didn't even read the articles I sent, the clearly shows climate data in the 1930's as warm as it is right now. - Railer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There skeptics until they open their mouths and question doctrine, then the are branded deniers.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How does a multi-thousand year cycle explain a 30 year rise?
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Regional effects do not prove or disprove global trends.
- scout29c, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Worse case scenario: Either the glaciers melt from made-made global warming and New York City is flooded or glaciers rebuild from the natural causes in the return to the Ice Age and New York City is wiped off the face of the earth. Either way the City is doomed.
Climate stay-the-same is not an option. The climate will either warm up or cool off. It always has; it always will.
Wouldn’t it be funny if global warming preventing us from returning to the Ice Age that has been going on for the past 3 million years - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It is apparently because it wouldn't be fair to restrict a developing nation.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That would be the man-made part. The part we can stop.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is