What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
20 Comments
- inactive, on 04/03/2009, -1/+21What a cool story. Who knew that people had been bottling scientific data for so many years?
- Isidore, on 11/26/2008, -4/+12Interesting.
But despite the scientific evidence, some people will still deny that we are now changing the climate.
see here for NASA on how humans are now changing the climate
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ - NoozeHound, on 11/27/2008, -2/+8So no climate change then tacklebox? You sound like a Bush cohort.
- Math, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6An 8000 year old bottle of wine was discovered in Georgia a while ago, and there's full surviving bottles over 1500 years old.
You're probably mostly right. We've got a huge amount of climate data from many sources (ice cores, geological, sediment, tree rings, etc...) that go back a lot further (millions of years), but every new source confirms the accuracy of our current climate data. - ElGubrush, on 11/27/2008, -1/+6"Hmmm, I detect hints of early 20th century car boom with just a hint of World War I soot."
"Indeed!" - DeathRay2K, on 11/27/2008, -1/+6That's not true, we know that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause it to warm up, and we know that humans release a ridiculous amount of greenhouse gases, way more than the Earth's natural filtration system can deal with. Thus, we know global warming is at the very least increased significantly by humans. There is no question of this by any reputable scientist.
It's sad that people are in such denial that they are unwilling to change their ways 'just in case' they're wrong. - sailadayaway, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3I would think this would be a VERY inaccurate way of finding out how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Different vineyards have different processes involved with bottling their wines, and since CO2 is absorbed by fermentation, isn't it possible that different bottles bottled at the same time could provide different results? Who knows, one vineyard could keep their wine in the barrels for 6 months, while another keeps it there for 2 years. I would think this would have a great difference in the results... But I don't really know, just doesn't seem like the best place to look... Ice cores can give us a much better idea of what was going on at a given time.
- quamis, on 11/27/2008, -2/+4as long as we dont know if they are for the worse, and dont have the money/technology to properly test and predict our impact, we could at least keep the emissions and other types of pollution to the level they were when we got here(i mean when we were born) .
We already have snowless winters, and desert-like temperature in the summer... and this dosent look like a "dont have the data to support" argument btw:) - andergriff, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2Fools. Only idiots can confuse scientific arguments with political arguments. Dumb and dumber. If some of us disagree with your "scientific" evidence, it's because we see other scientific evidence to the contrary. That has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative". Who's drinking the kool-aid now? Scientific inquiry never ends. It sometimes leads to conclusions that are uncomfortable or unsettling. The question is whether or not we bury ourselves in political ideology to the extent that we are incapable of objectively analyzing scientific data. Well, fools...are you objective?
- Rockkybox, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1Bread? let them eat cake
- TrendyTim, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1Whats more i didnt even know i was a scientist, processing scientific shiraz for years.
- PhattyPhattMatt, on 11/27/2008, -2/+3i can help with the tasting, i mean testing of the wine.
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1I haven't heard anyone worth noting deny human influenced global climate change for a long time. Even the Bush administration and far right groups in the US who for a long time seem to resist and oppress internal agencies on this issue seems to have mostly given in.
But I've heard many people twist very insightful arguments in the area of the economic feasibility of action to reduce climate change factors or the effectiveness of a given technique into "oh, he is just a denier". This is a lame attempt at a strawman that should be be condoned.
Right now I have seen no plan at all for correcting the problems we have that can actually be implemented, and on top of that, I haven't even seen a full analysis listing the key priorities for such a plan backed by scientific metrics. There is much core science work to be done, but many groups who see the financial opportunity posed by a climate scare would rather have us pump cash into "solutions" now rather than sober research which could in fact turn out to make the problems worse.
I do think we need a Manhattan Project for environmental issues, but if you recall, the Manhattan Project started out in the labs and in academic offices or long term planning and research. And before that, there was two decades of research into nuclear physics fundamentals, which indeed refined models of atomic physics that were incorrect on the onset on the investigations. Throwing more money at Fermi or Oppenheimer at the time would not have sped up the results that we needed, and neither will it help us now. - monoa, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1But many of these people who are now offering "very insightful arguments in the area of the economic feasibility" are the same people who 6 months, 1 year ago were saying "it's not happening!", "it's a hoax!", "there's nothing we can do about it!".
Anyone who offers arguments about any aspect of climate change needs to be carefully researched. If they were denying scientific reality in the past, there's no reason to pay attention to them now - there's plenty of clever people who accepted the science long ago that we can listen to.
As for solutions: what we need is a true *War on Climate* - not the marketing ***** of a War on Drugs or War on Terror, but a massive, concerted effort in the same way that Britain, USA mobilised in the 1940s. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is a politician with the balls to do that - and the ExxonMobil propaganda has confused enough of the population to make it near-impossible to sell to the ignorant and entitled public. - monoa, on 11/27/2008, -2/+2> ...other factors to blame. Mainly the inconsistent temperature of the sun...
Scientifically illiterate *****, as is the rest of your drivel. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...
> ...the only thing we know is we absolutely without a doubt dont have the data to support what impact humans are making on climate...
You're mistaking your massive ignorance for what climate scientists, and informed lay people, know. - inactive, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1What do they "know"?
- trevor98, on 11/27/2008, -3/+2Does this really add anything to the debate? Wine is, at best, a few hundred years old and the recorded temperature record goes back that far. The debate about anthropogenic climate change is a debate about several thousand years of climate change and not about a couple of hundred of change. The scope of the discussion is far more important in the global warming debate than any other factor since we are comparing today's trends to yesteryear and quite frankly the scope provided by any wine data is pretty much settled science.
- Hodor, on 11/27/2008, -2/+1they learned really well from the tobacco lobby; manufacture "dissent in the scientific community" and make it look like there's an actual debate. Anti-evolution fools do the same thing.
- inactive, on 11/27/2008, -10/+6The climate is changing. But there are other factors to blame. Mainly the inconsistent temperature of the sun and that climate is something that's been changing long before humans. People are to blame for pollution, but we cant take credit for facts that prove the only thing we know is we absolutely without a doubt dont have the data to support what impact humans are making on climate and if those changes are even for the worse.
- inactive, on 11/27/2008, -10/+1Shut up already. Aren't you in an economic crisis? Ditch the wine (and the whine) and settle for bread and water.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is