What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.264 Comments
- cjonpayne, on 10/12/2007, -28/+97I'm beginning to think that Digg is inhabited by some of the most unintelligent, scared-to-think-for-themselves people on the planet. Everything Republican = bad. Everything religion = bad. Everything that disagrees with pet theories = bad and inaccurate.
Get off your high horse, Diggers. You're not nearly as smart and enlightened as you think. In fact, most of you are incapable of believing anything that isn't the latest quasi-intellectual fad. I've seen more independent thought in a nursing home than in this -- and most other -- Digg comments sections.
/Rant over. Flame away. - PowderHound, on 10/12/2007, -49/+103Ridiculous because it is sensible and based on facts? That there is no greater arrogance than humans thinking we can have more effect on the climate of a planet than the Sun? That scientists without a need (read, hysteria) don't get public funding? That just 30-ish years ago Time magazine proclaimed the debate was over and we were going to have... an ice age? You better believe it's ridiculous.
Global Warming's coming.... Hold onto your wallet. - Mythrl, on 10/12/2007, -12/+52http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ [University of East Anglia]
It's not sensible and based on facts. It's a clear demonstration of how the bias in a op.ed. can twist data. Looking at the data 1998 was a very hot year and yes relative to 1998 the temperature has dropped a bit, but relative to 1999 it has increased dramatically. The thing is the data isn't zeroed around 1998 so it makes a poor referance point unless you want to present skewed results. Based on the zero line the trend for the last 140 years has demonstrated a general warming trend. - wastrel, on 10/12/2007, -24/+49Opinion column from a global warming skeptic. Not really news, just a lot of criticism of perceived bias in global warming research and policy. Here's some info on Carter
- kiddailey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Because it's got some usability issues. In this particular case, the reply box would have been visible directly under the post that PowderHound was replying to.
Another example that makes it annoying to use is that you have to hunt for the reply button if a post you want to respond to isn't a parent post -- especially in long threads. - detrux, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34Regardless, I don't particularily like breathing in this toxic air, and I am in favour of air polution laws whether the polution cuases warming or not.
People can debate global warming for the next 100 years, but the fact of the matter is we're killing the planet, regardless of whether or not the sun is slowing warming us up. - psxman, on 10/12/2007, -25/+49Why the hell do people refuse to use the reply button?
- brianmost, on 10/12/2007, -16/+36Have the global warming theory supporters yet explained why the temperatures of other planets in our system cycle much the way the averages do on Earth?
I can't even get environmentalist friends to explain how my driving less with my low-emissions vehicle would help the planet when the oil supply is fixed. How is it better to reduce consumption here and kick cheaper fuel over to countries without vehicle emission standards?
Too much emotionalism, not enough hard science. - DisgruntledDave, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30Because I always rely on the expert unbiased journalism of OPINION TELEGRAPH. Come on people, do you buy candy from RAT POISON INC? Practice responsible posting.
I don't believe anything like this until I hear it from multiple reputable sources. - MilitantQueer, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31If it was seven years of data showing that the earth is becoming warmer I'm sure you'd be screaming... the sky is falling.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30If someone replied to any of the alarmist global warming stories with "Brought to you by knee-jerk liberals and scientists with anti-Republican agendas", it would be undugg into oblivion. This comment says nothing constructive or interesting.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23"That there is no greater arrogance than humans thinking we can have more effect on the climate....."
You might want to be careful about saying what the limits of human potential are.
Regardless of whether we (humans) are behind global warming, we definitely have the potential. Humans have moved mountains, literally. Almost every statement about what is impossible for humans has been made laughably false. From heavier than air flight to the four-minute mile. - djork, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20And don't forget that the measured temperature increase is not even outside of the margin of error, anyway.
- ajwillys, on 10/12/2007, -19/+34Am I the only one that loves the idea of Global Warming? Personally, way too much of the planet is way too cold.
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -18/+32Wow, 7 years of temperature data; that's a lot. Crisis averted! Everyone go home.
- snoble, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The best way to recognize an uninformed person right now is that he declares that the evidence clearly says something about climate change. The truth is we are dealing with an incredibly complicated dynamic system. These are traditionally very hard to model. To date there have been published many statistical models, several dynamical systems models and even a few cellular automaton models. Some say it is too late to save ourselves from disaster, some say we need to change things immediately and some say we have a while to deal with this still. Some say we are largely responsible and some say our responsibility is small. I don't know of any serious research that concludes that there is zero man made climate change.
Across the board there doesn't seem to be any good reason to reject any of these models yet; and certainly no reason to accept one model over another. Anyone who is saying that the evidence clearly supports one side is probably being very selective about the interpretations they are reading/accepting.
That said, personally I tend to favour caution over confidence. If there is anything we can do to stop a potential disastrous consequence I feel we should probably do it. - EdgarVerona, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23That's funny Railer - I would say the same thing of Global Warming skeptics. How often have I heard "you can't trust that, it's from the New York Times" or "this is from a biased liberal left source" or "you can't trust that data, you should look at the company he is working for".
I find it ironic that people who debate in these issues can see the glaring fallacies in the other side's argument but can never (or perhaps choose to never) see the exact same problems in their own.
As it stands, look at a website linked earlier (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) it gives important information as to WHY this article is fallacious. Statistics can be a powerful misleading force when it is misused. He chose an anomalous year (a year with significantly hotter temperatures than any in the recorded history of mankind) and developed his statistical data about the increase in temperature entirely based on that one disturbingly high year.
Global warming isn't about a continual stacking of heat year after year regardless of what happens: many factors could have been in play causing the dramatic increase in 1998, many of which were obviously temporary factors (El Niño is a previously stated possibility). When those factors dissipeared after 1998, the temperature still increased according to the overall average: it just didn't increase over that disproportional year.
When one looks at the statistics, one has a GENUINE basis to claim that this article's claim is invalid due to an intentional misuse of statistical data. The fact that he obviously went to the statistics and sought a disparate year such as this to perform his statistics shows a discernable intent to decieve using false statistical data. As a scientist, he should be ashamed for performing such practices. - wastrel, on 10/12/2007, -17/+28er, here's that info: http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=287
- utexaspunk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20I agree. But that doesn't mean it's not still in our best interest to minimize our impact on the environment.
- Boohickey11, on 10/12/2007, -18/+28I like cake.
- limnoted, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No, this guy's not a kook at all:
"It is that, contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has many obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in general"
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050504A - panicofficer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16From the science I've seen, Global Warming appears to be more hype than fact. That being said, I'm all about reducing emissions and striving for a cleaner planet. Here's the kicker though, and I'll probably be modded by the Global Warming crowd for this: You don't induce so much regulation, so quickly that you break the economic back of a country. And frankly, regulation is not the way to go either. If people will support only companies who follow "good" economic policies, then it would be financial suicide for other companies not to follow suit. Let capitalism work, let the consumer decide, and keep the government out of it.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23Nichevo earns another strike for invoking the buzzword of the week: luddite.
- KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23Humans may or may not have caused a temperature rise. Thing is, we havent been here long enough to make a significantly measurable difference. Compared to the age of the earth, humans have just been here a moment.
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -15/+23First Rule of Eco-Zealots - Attack the man not the science.
If the science is no good attack the science, don't send me to a web site telling me he in bed with this person or that person, every scientist gets paid by someone and most if not all have agendas environmentalists included. - kacymartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The May 2006 Issue of Popular Mechanics (page 22) reads:
"Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 1.08 F, according to NASA, making 2005 THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD [their emphasis]. That might not sound like much - a standard 1500-watt space heater can easily warm your living room. But artificially warming the Earth by 1.08 F would take 272 BILLION SPACE HEATERS [their emphasis]. (That adds up to 42 heaters for every human on the planet.)"
so it seems as if there is some conflicting data analysis. - CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17"First Rule of Eco-Zealots - Attack the man not the science"
By calling people Eco-zealots, you're doing *exactly* the same thing. It's one of the basic logical fallacies. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15We can't use 100 years of data to constitute a major change in a 3 billion year old Earth.
- danlemire, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17I'm ready for another round of the flame wars. While this is an opinion piece, it's just another article to add to the pile. To me though, I find it very interesting that a geographer/climatologist professor and a geology professor presented directly opposing information when I took their science classes at university. Whatever you believe or support, you can't just say that "science" proves global warming, because all "scientists" don't agree on what the "scientific data" shows.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11people are so insistent because of scientific data. My question is why is there such a backlash against reducing emissions and being more environmentally conscious?
Other than costing oil/industrial complexes the money to develop better technology, is there anything negative that can happen because of us reducing emissions, pollution and protecting forests and species? - avalanch00, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18"That just 30-ish years ago Time magazine proclaimed the debate was over..."
Well, I didn't know Time magazine was the end all source of information. I'll have to renew my subscription.
And it's funny this "article" is from the opinion section. Would have been nice if there was any references, but I guess you don't have to do that when it's your own opinion and no sources to back up what you have to say. - aposter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Nice example of an "Ad hominem circumstantial" attack. Regardless of whether the article is biased or not attacking the person through an assumed association does not counter it.
- wastrel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@3DPeruna: and here's a site run by real climate scientists - http://www.realclimate.org
- boxomojo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13even if you don't believe in global warming,(which i have trouble comprehending), the fact is we should still be doing everything we can to limit the tons of co2 that we dump into the atmosphere every day...it's certainly not going to have a positive effect. here's a thought: let's just take care of the environment anyway, so that we can have a planet worth living in in 100 years. if a doctor told you that you should stop smoking because you looked like you were starting to develop cancer, you'd probably stop, even if you were idiotic enough to think that smoking wasn't dangerous...
- krazykit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18You can't say global warming stopped looking at only 7 years. If you haven't actually looked at the data, you obviously have no place to speak. Not only have CO2 levels continously risen since the Industrial Revolution, we've seen a warming trend since then as well. The 90s was the hottest decade on record, and in the top 20 hottest years, all are in the past 20 years excepting 3 or 4 of them.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"1995 was the hottest year on record until it was eclipsed by 1997 — then 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html
This directly conflicts with the claims of the editorial posted on digg. - zelig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I see the article is now UNDER REVIEW(!) so I guess the Global Warming crowd doesn't want anyone to see it.
- Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The number one source of "global warming" gasses is water vapor, by a huge margin. CO2 really isn't even that big of a deal, especially given the fact that upper tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures have been declining (which according to the greenhouse effect, they should be rapidly increasing).
Funny, wouldn't huge amounts of CO2 mean an increase in plants? Maybe that would cause problems...more methane being produced from decaying plants when they die. - Thrashtastic27, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12The problem with that link (while valuable to a degree) is that it's so spectacularly biased. It's just as loaded with sweeping generalizations, appeals to biases and hyperbole as any skeptic article, maybe even a little more so.
- noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8oceanplexian; in my (relatively uninformed) opinion the truth is that it is unlikely (given current technology) that human beings will kill the planet completely. We may cause a fair bit of damage, but in the long term, some sort of ecosystem will remain.
The problem is that nature works in the very long term, and re-adjustment of the system may take a long time. There's no guarantee that it will suit human beings; on the contrary, if human beings are part of the "unbalancing" process, they're more likely to be wiped out, as unconsciously as the sharp edges on a rock are smoothed off a pebble.
But that's irrelevant; most of us are looking at the (relatively) short term of hundreds or thousands of years, and the problem is keeping the planet inhabitable for *us*, as humans. Yes, I am being ultimately selfish (as a human) about this; humans are designed to work in, and work best in the current environment, and whilst we're pretty flexible creatures, why make life harder than it needs be- if not impossible- for some *very* short term gain.
In short, we might not be able to destroy things completely (yet), but I believe we're certainly capable of screwing it up for ourselves. - Arbinshire, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This guy is a crank - Global warming has been occuring on the scale of 1degree per 100 years. Scientists have measured the cycles of warming/cooling and since the industrial revolution, Earth HAS indeed warmed rather quickly.
Consider the amount of energy needed to increase the world average by 1degree. It's an IMMENSE amount. Realize then that temperature of the planet is held in a delicate balance that can push it either way. It's a delicate balance and such an increase can and will result in catastrophic results.
Look at the permafrost melting in the siberian region. It's been frozen since the LAST ice age, and it's melting.
There -IS- a warming trend. Debating whether it's occuring is wasted time. - mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"(there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)."
I'm no expert but doesn't that spell out a plateau? Keywords not...significantly. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@hadees: "Would you rather be wrong and have Earth become way to hot or would you rather spend alittle extra effort and make our impact, no matter what that is, as small as possible."
The problem is that we're not talking "a little extra effort". Advocates of reducing emissions tend to be of the "by any means necessary" type, and if we followed their suggestions, we'd be literally back in the stone ages. Unable to burn, well, anything. Cars, gone. Power supply, gone. Economy, gone. Deaths would be in the billions.
Now, a more sensible approach is simply to improve the technologically to be more efficent and less polluting. And that's all well and good, except that we've been doing that for decades. The push for that sort of thing really began in the mid-80's and progress has been more or less steady. Silly things like the Kyoto Accords set unattainable goals in the hope of speeding up technological advance. Except that if we don't get that technological advance in time, poof, there goes the world economy.
You cannot stop the progress of technology, granted. But you also cannot speed it up by anything other than minor amounts. There's already enough incentive for cleaner tech and environmental friendliness without being all crazy and trying to hurry it up. And most of the so-called environmentalists out there wouldn't understand what's really environmentally friendly anyway, because they don't have the ability to truly understand the environment.
Environmentalism is a great idea, except for those pesky environmentalists. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well said.
Tundra in Northern Canada is thawing too. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I dunno, I kind of believe that people who argue for Global Warming cherry picks their facts as well.
We have only been keeping temperature logs since 1870 aproximately (but don't quote me), so we have been judging the "warming" trend for a 130 years. A couple weeks ago, where I live, we had a record high temperature. Sure you are probably ***** your pants, but the previous record was set in 1883!!! over 100 years ago.
What irks me about this global warming debate is that there are like three groups of people: the people who have sensible facts and figures about Global Warming, then the group who don't believe in Global Warming at all, and then we have the hysteria group who think that thunderstorms aren't a natural occurence, so they must have been caused directly by global warming. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9we actually use data from tree rings up to 10,000 years
using pieces of acient pieces of wood found in bogs and such.
we can go back even further with ice cores
we now have newer more powerful computers and run computer simulations on them
based on our best throries the simulations match the data.
the simulations say the human effect is not insignificant.
Scienctists are the most skeptical people on the planet, there is things like peer review, when countless noble winning scienctist all belive the same thing and the only people that dont are governement shills, you have to listen. When people forcable try to stop scienctists from speaking of global warming, you have to ask why?
Generaly i will tend to believe those who study the subject then the arm chair diggers that seem to belive the limbaugh mantra that we cant have an effect on the enviroment.. the only reson the world tody has soo much oxygen that animals like us can survive is because of a small blue/green algea that distroyed it's world with it's oxygen emittions and it did so without the invention of language, cars or factories. - limnoted, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's the global instrumental temperature record from the CRU at East Anglia that the article is referring to:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Do you think global warming is stopping? Doesn't look like it. - RetroActive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+24this is just as valid as any other global warming story if not more so.
- scsikool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>> Warning: The Content in this Article is Under Review
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
That banner is lame. Let us decide. Not the Digg masters. I think it's obvious enough when we read the comments. Otherwise why bother with the comments below. -
Show 51 - 100 of 260 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is