What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
213 Comments
- 45superman, on 11/15/2009, -18/+46Well, on the bright side, they all sure look spiffy in their Great Leap Forward costumes, or whatever the hell they're wearing ;-).
- govsucks, on 11/15/2009, -26/+52So they aren't convinced they need to destroy their economies to save the world huh?
So much for consensus. - PhoenixTx, on 11/15/2009, -28/+51Greenliar's gonna love this submission! LMAO!
- Karmashock, on 11/15/2009, -16/+36You can't address the environment while ignoring trillion dollar economic problems. The greens keep trying to make changes indifferent to the economic problems their suggestions create.
That will NEVER work. It's a pipe dream.
IF you "actually" want change then you're going to have to come up with a solution that addresses the economic aspects of the issue.
For one thing you need to allow for gradual change. No snap changes are going to happen. We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure that won't amortize for decades. It would be like suggesting your neighbor junk his new car (ie completely junk... no resale) and buy an electric car at twice the price. Seriously, try to see if you can get your neighbor to do that. That experience will show you what is going on internationally to a large extent.
For another, you need to provide alternative technologies that are as good or better over all then existing technologies. If your solution is that people use more primitive or less effective tech then that just isn't going to fly. Again, try to get your neighbor to do away with electric lighting... sleep and rise with the sun. They're not going to do it.
Finally, if you don't even care if people agree with you and you're happy to force it on them at gun point... then at least understand that politically you're going to have to give the politicians some populist/elitist reason to impose this legislation. Imposing unpopular legislation means pitting one faction against another and having it overwhelm the other. Your best bet at this point is to get the elitist to sign off on it. Just tell them they can keep their private jets so long as the common man is stuck on horse/electric people mover. You can do this effectively through the carbon credits that the elite will be able to afford while most people will not.
In the end... the greens are going to have to really open their eyes to the political situation on planet earth. The environment is one thing but if you're out of touch on everything else you're not going to get anywhere. - wrathchilde, on 11/15/2009, -13/+31It is difficult for me, as a scientist, to understand how a proposed solution invalidates the evidence for a particular observation.
You may disagree with the experts about what the effects of pumping carbon from the reduced organic reservoir, that is fossil fuel, into the oxidized reservoir, that is CO2. But the fact is, CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and hydrosphere (primarily the ocean). These observations are straight-forward, repeatable and irrefutable. How greatly will the climate patterns be altered? How rapidly will organisms adapt to the acidifying ocean? What other consequences exist to the buildup of CO2? These are some of the primary questions we are struggling with.
If one's primary assumption is that human activity does not have the capacity to effect the environment, then I suppose any solution that potentially changes your behavior will never be acceptable. - ChronicColonic, on 11/15/2009, -51/+67Fools! They don't know what they are dealing with! Rotfl...Any eleven year old with a search engine can discover the truth!
http://www.itsmyturntospammycrappyblog.org
http://www.dudewheresmyiceberg.gov
http://www.icantbelieveitsnotglobalwarming.org
http://www.itshardtoiceskateinwater.gov
http://www.quitmakingfunofmeitsnotfunnyanymore!.co ...
I will keep posting this crap until you prove me otherwise...
http://www.climax4you.com/ oops - from my private pr0n collection NSFW - meant to type
http://www.climate4you.com/
And lest we forget:
http://stopdrivingyourSUVnowyouplanetkillingbastar ... - ahdibuao, on 11/15/2009, -2/+18Its not a Great Leap Forward Costume, its a Singapore-styled Peranakan Costume. And fyi, Singapore is NOT PART of China...
- rocknog, on 11/15/2009, -12/+27I've said it before and I'll say it again - the economic feasibility of the solution has no bearing on whether or not the problem is real. Saying that there are no realistic solutions to global warming isn't the same as saying global warming doesn't exist. The problem is you seem to base your entire worldview on political ideology - you look at the political implications, and use those to determine the "truth," which is an ass-backwards way of approaching a scientific issue.
- MunkeyPirate, on 11/15/2009, -11/+25This is a very good thing. Have you read through the PROPOSED UN treaty on climate change? I Read bits and some are rather scary.
here: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/1 ...
Section 41 was what caught my eye flipping through this document. If I understood it correctly, it would allow the a UN panel to asses taxes on private business at their discretion in regards to pollution. And something like .7% of GDP from all participating countries would go into a fund to be given to un/underdeveloped countries, with a clause to allow for a "progressive" rate to be applied to countries with higher historic carbon emissions. (The numbers are from memory so if they are a little off I apologize)
I wonder what else is in the proposed treaty? - asami21, on 11/15/2009, -21/+34^ hahahaha =)
- bombula, on 11/15/2009, -2/+14@greg2k
"There are also plenty scientists that believe CO2 buildup is a consequence of an increase in temperatures and not the other way around"
No, there aren't. You're spewing the ***** you've heard from other redneck *****.
Give me the names of 5 "scientists" who believe that crap, and post their peer-reviewed scientific articles in your response.
As for "freaky explosions" going on at the Sun, WTF are you babbling about? Ah, that's right - you have no ***** idea, do you? Which of course makes you an expert who can claim "I'm pretty sure" ...
Christ, you people are ***** moronic. - bombula, on 11/15/2009, -2/+14@akaz
Funny that saps like you continue to fall for a petition that has already been proven to be a load of *****:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosph ...
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949- ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30 ...
If you want to know what the real scientific consensus is on climate change, you can visit the wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
Note that there are no longer ANY legitimate scientific organizations that deny climate change. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists were the last to recant, in 2007. - PacoBell, on 11/15/2009, -6/+18I don't think it's so much a "Maoist getup" as it is traditional Singaporean dress. Maybe you shouldn't lump all Asians into your myopic worldview, Clyde.
- stevenhatfield, on 11/15/2009, -21/+33...and thus the humans of Earth continue their slow but steady march toward making their only home unsurvivable.
- archiesteel, on 11/15/2009, -9/+21To quote a comment from the link:
"Um. I’ve identified several papers in this list which are “Viewpoints”, “Colloqium papers”, “Commentary”, “Correspondence” – most of those don’t count as peer reviewed.
Energy & Environment is rather dubious overall, though I doubt the followers of this website will buy that.
There are fantasies like Chilingar in the list, and journals publishing way outside their area of expertise (Energy & Fuels on the carbon cycle?).
There are papers based on now-obsolete data (de Freitas, 2002, back in the days before the satellite trend-corrections).
There are papers that aren’t actually skeptical (Shindell et al?)."
I noticed there are also 15 cited articles by well-known Oil Industry shill Richard Lindzen...
So, lots of non-peer-reviewed stuff, articles that actually *support* AGW, articles based on obsolete data, articles by Oil Industry propagandist...I think we can put this list in the same category as Inhofe's bogus petition!
And you thought you had found the "silver bullet" that didn't require you to think about this...so sad. - Infowarsdotcom, on 11/15/2009, -21/+29Disappoint?
When I read about it this morning it made me happier than I've been in a long time. Our sovereignty is still in tact for the time being.
It came down to the 11th hour but we did defeat this thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40 - archiesteel, on 11/15/2009, -3/+11What?
The hole in the ozone layer was *not* part of a natural cycle. It is precisely *because* CFCs were banned that it has now started to heal.
Also, no one said the hole in the ozone layer would "end" humanity. It was correctly identified as a threat and dealt with - which shows that, when we put our mind to it, we can fix these things. - Rudegar, on 11/15/2009, -3/+11commies?
what do commies have to do with the environment?
you mean commies would be making up stuff about environment to destabilize the capitalistic economy
so they can take over and make plan economies? - halmighty, on 11/15/2009, -20/+28Crap. Does this mean Al Gore can't buy that 4th gulfstream he's been eyeing over the past few months?
- bombula, on 11/15/2009, -9/+17Using logic on climate change deniers is like trying to fix a broken record with a hammer: the harder you try, the more ***** up they sound.
You would think that, after thousands of success stories, people would get it through their thick ***** skulls that it's a good idea to LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS.
But it's exactly like trying to convince 13-year-olds that it's a good idea to listen to their parents. Even though their parents have been right a thousand times before, the kids still think they know better. - funkeepickle, on 11/15/2009, -1/+9Same thing that happened with acid rain in the U.S. It was identified as a problem, a cap-and-trade plan was instituted to help deal with it, and as a result sulfur dioxide emission have dropped over 60% in less than 2 decades. As a bonus the program ended up costing about half as much as it was projected to.
We CAN succeed in fighting climate change as long as we're willing to commit to it. - magibeg, on 11/15/2009, -7/+14So wait you're listening to scientists now?
In a cruel twist of numbers the IPCC report sported over 2500 scientists, more than 800 contributing authors, 450+ lead authors, co-operation from 130+ countries for 6 years. And yes those authors had peer reviewed articles as well. So you're going to listen to me now that I have more scientific papers right? - smashdracs, on 11/16/2009, -3/+10Why isn't greenfizzle in here throwing abuse at everyone who disagrees with the big oil funded climate change alarmists?
- DiggRage, on 11/15/2009, -6/+13yes, mankind has survived for how long without an economic "need" to pollute and destroy, but now it is necessary to do so?
- funkeepickle, on 11/15/2009, -3/+9Because most right-wingers seem to be ideologues. They view situations in black-and-white terms and they have a strict, simple view of how government should be run. Admitting that there is a scientific consensus behind man-made global warming would go hand-in-hand with admitting that action needs to be taken to help limit it. And to them, admitting that there is a very widespread problem that would require government regulation and cooperation between governments would be admitting that there is a failure with their ideology.
Now rational right-wingers who aren't ideologues would argue something like "Yes, global warming is a serious problem and action needs to be taken to help limit it, but we also must be careful so that whatever we do won't have too much of a negative impact on the economy." And I'll give credit where it's due, there are some righties who are like this. Unfortunately, most on the right act like hostile children on this issue, and their arguments can be pretty much summed up as "RABBLE RABBLE TAXES CONSPIRACY AL GORE COW FARTS NWO THE SUN RABBLE RABBLE".
It's a shame because what to do about this requires serious debate, it shouldn't be as partisan as it is. Hell, support for cap-and-trade was an offical stance of the Republican ticket last election. What happened to all the reasonable adults here? - LoneStarLizard, on 11/15/2009, -2/+8*writing*
- Karmashock, on 11/15/2009, -1/+6worst cartoon ever
- kreatre2007, on 11/15/2009, -15/+20This is actually good news. Mankind is not changing the climate. This idea has NEVER been proven to be true.
- Karmashock, on 11/15/2009, -11/+16Yeah but without a realistic solution all you can do is talk about it.
I mean, we have no realistic way of starting a colony on mars... but a colony on mars is probably a good idea.
That's sorta where these green ideas are right now... out with the colony on mars. Have a solution that doesn't destroy the economy along with whatever politician you think is going to pass it and you might have something.
As it is, the green plans are economic suicide... and what follows is political suicide. Anyone you get to pass the legislation will be out of office after one term and the legislation killed.
Until the greens respect the economic realities they've NO HOPE what so ever of getting anything done.
Period. - archiesteel, on 11/15/2009, -5/+10Yes, because there are *no* economic opportunities in switching over to renewable energy sources. *rolleyes*
What really amazes me is how idiots like govsucks, who *claim* to be Libertarians, really know very little about how the economy works. - bobsworth, on 11/15/2009, -0/+5@poitsplace
What you fail to realize that the 2C increase in temperature is an average. The temperature change will be largest near the poles, where those projections are at least 6C. The poles are also the most sensitive to temperature fluctuations. And despite what you may think, the poles have a large influence on the earths climate. - geoboy, on 11/15/2009, -3/+8Eh, dugg for being culturally ignorant and insensitive.
- twinklyJesus, on 11/15/2009, -4/+9Off topic, much?
- Corrosionx, on 11/16/2009, -6/+11Dissapoint who? Not me. Climate change is a hoax, the carbon tax is pure evil.
- Fitjarald, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5Can I pose a question? Why do debates such as these break down into two arguments: One side stating the flaws of carbon trading and ridiculing Al Gore, while the other side throws scientific articles supporting AGW while discrediting sources of the opposite argument?
I fail to see a connection between carbon trading and AGW, nor do I believe that Al Gore is *the* scientist to go to for facts supporting AGW. While both sides of the debate certainly employ viewpoints with specifically slanted agenda's, cherry picking names and solutions and subsequently discrediting them does little to debunk either side of the argument. Why not look at JUST the science behind global warming, and peer reviewed proof of or against it, not articles talking about commodities trading, measurement flaws, and orientation to oil companies? - archiesteel, on 11/15/2009, -1/+6What do you think happens when you spend money? That it disappears forever? No, it goes into the economy, which is not a zero-sum game.
Investment creates wealth, except that instead of adding the wealth into the considerable reserves of the oil industry (and making Saudi kings even richer), we'd be developing whole new industries.
As far as the energy sources being "expensive," that's only a question of volume. Increased use will lead to decreased prices, as opposed to petroleum, which already sees increased exploitation costs due to dwindling resources.
We have to start thinking long term, otherwise we'll just paint ourselves into a corner.
People who don't understand how the economy works ask how much it will cost. People who *do* understand the economy will ask how much the investment will pay off in the long run. - LokitheComplex, on 11/15/2009, -2/+6I generally agree with your points. But I would point out that technological change can be rapid. PCs change so fast that resale of 5 year old machines becomes impossible as is the case with phones. Think of all those tube televisions that were replaced. The value of tube televisions has collapsed.
The economy has to be greener in for the economy to survive.
And I agree the environmentalists that ask for a poorer quality of live and are then surprised when no one takes them up on this are naive at best. - quarando, on 11/15/2009, -3/+7@Infowarsdotcom - The new world order is alive and well, and it is being supported by puppets like yourself. I don't know what you think the NWO is, but it is talked about openly in the business press. Its not grassroots environmentalists, its wealthy multinational investors who think that they should be able to run the world behind closed doors at investment meetings or at the World Bank or WTO.
Its people that think the world's people should have no so on whether or not big business makes itself ultra wealthy by polluting our planet into oblivion.
You think our leaders are listening to people like you? Of course not, they are listening to oil companies and large investment houses, you just happen to be gullible enough to tow the corporate line along with the oil companies. - poitsplace, on 11/15/2009, -10/+14After factoring in natural fluctuations, the warming rate is about .5C per century. Even assuming the warming rate had continued at 80s and 90s levels (which it did not) we'd have only hit a total anomaly of 2C by 2100. We don't even have any real-world data that indicates warmer is more dangerous. Mankind actually seems to have been MORE prosperous during the medieval/roman warm periods and even during the MUCH warmer Holocene optimum.
So we've got reality absolutely refusing to cooperate with the gloom and doom of AGW alarmists...and when someone FINALLY lays down the law and says "80% by 2050" the engineers crunch some numbers and notice...On no we won't either. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8358077. ...
Reality is a real bitch - TauQuebb, on 11/15/2009, -17/+21Why is the spammer getting dugg?
Yes, it takes an eleven year old to google search, it takes more to read actual scientific papers on the subject. - 45superman, on 11/15/2009, -5/+9That was a dumb thing for me to say, and I apologize.
- archiesteel, on 11/15/2009, -9/+13It's easy to call someone a liar, not so easy to refute the science he provides.
- Jaime2000, on 11/15/2009, -7/+11what is this i don't even
- bombula, on 11/15/2009, -9/+13Yeah, Obama is a communist because Jesus wore blue jeans and a NASCAR baseball hat...
***** rednecks, they never fail to crawl out of the woodwork when you mention climate change. - AwakeAmerican, on 11/16/2009, -6/+10This is great news!
- flip2trip, on 11/15/2009, -1/+5WTF has Palin to do with this article?
- Rudegar, on 11/15/2009, -2/+6bangladesh is in for more problems then holland
and Africa too not from flood but drought - ohreilly, on 11/15/2009, -0/+4Brown knows he's ***** the economy (but won't admit it - 11 years as chancellor (responsible for finance) and 2 years as prime minister, and somehow he had no part to play whatsoever), and after his failed attempt to be the global saviour for the credit crunch he's turned his attention to this. Probably because he can tax it. I for one am looking forward to my "carbon account".
Roll on 2010. Can't wait to get rid of him and the rest of the Labour Party in Parliament. - archiesteel, on 11/15/2009, -4/+8So Carbon Trading could *potentially* generate volume in the trillions of dollars. Not only is that an estimate, but it is not money that can be used *now* to spread anti-science propaganda, unlike the very real Oil Industry profits. Yawn.
AGW studies do not limit themselves to hockey sticks, and the fact that McIntyre (who doesn't hold a degree in either physics, climate science or any other scientific field directly related to the climate) found some inaccuracies in measuring methods (which will allow scientists to refine their models) means in no way that the science is flawed.
Never mind McIntyre's past involvement with the mining industry, his links to the George C. Marshall Institute, or his position as advisor to an oil and gas exploration company...
Why can't deniers find just *one* scientist with no ties to Big Oil/Gas/Coal that has published actual peer-reviewed science articles disproving AGW? It it's such a sham, it should be easy to find... - Trax91, on 11/15/2009, -1/+5Who actually tried to click the links? I did. :(
-
Show 51 - 100 of 216 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is