What is Digg?103 Comments
- wazzu07, on 04/12/2008, -0/+33so far since i have been watching 210 people have been born and only 64 have died. i feel like i have changed lives.
- PocchieTheMan, on 04/12/2008, -4/+17Keep living in whatever world you're in. The world is changing, and instead of bickering about who and why and what, actions need to be taken. Maybe our CO2 emissions aren't responsible, but they aren't helping, either. That's something you can't deny.
- Isidore, on 04/12/2008, -0/+10scamerica's list contains many misleading quotations. eg
Edward Wegman made a technical point re Mann's methodology, if Mann's 'hockey stick' graphs are reworked according to Wegman, the overall result is the same http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
David Bromwich explains the lack of Antartica signal due to things like the increase in the ozone hole, fewer weather stations compared with the northern hemisphere, Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu ...
Paul Reiter was not denying GW or AGW, but the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases.
Hendrik Tennekes, is now retired and has not published for 15 years. http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1278
Henrik Svensmark & Eigils Friis-Christensen suggestion that cosmic rays from the sun affect cloud cover and earth climate has been refuted. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
Some of these people are real climate scientists. Maverick and unorthodox scientists play an important role in science eg Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's denial of the Big Bang theory or Einstein's initial denial of Quantum Physics. medical science has its mavericks who could be right, but who would you bet your life on - a maverick doctor or a mainstream doctor?
The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change. - nonzzero, on 04/12/2008, -3/+10Interesting to see how often people are born/die. People are born more often than they die in almost every country.
We need to increase the death rate! Or... decrease the birth rate, however you want to look at it. - bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -1/+8Some of those are probably legit. Others are probably paid for their diagnoses. What's your point? What do you suppose the list of supporting scientists looks like?
- inactive, on 04/12/2008, -2/+9Would someone give China and India some condoms.
- Isidore, on 04/12/2008, -0/+7maybe a few mavericks disagree but the vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change.
Who are the real experts? Is there enough clear scientific evidence for them to come to a valid consensus conclusion? National Science Academies represent the academic scientific elite. They know who the real experts are, what the evidence is and whether there is a consensus.
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Source: http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... Royal Society 2001
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... Royal Society 2005
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ... 2007
Note that these National Science Academies have issued similar statements over a number of years, so it is unlikely that one zealot issued an unrepresentative press release.
see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ... for the comments of other scientific bodies.
The scientific evidence and consensus is with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution. - dsmx, on 04/12/2008, -0/+6If only we didn't keep cutting them down for cattle ranches for McDonalds and residential development.
- torontoliam, on 04/12/2008, -0/+6To call a bunch of statistics "real-time" is a bit of a stretch. Event frequency is merely based on averages, not on real events.
- JAFFA, on 04/12/2008, -0/+6The human race is doing its very best to increase the death rate in every conceivable way ...
- markdr123, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5Yes, there are 200,000 MORE people in the world each day compared to the day before.
Scary, huh? - shownoregrets, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5i think mine is broken....india wont stop giving birth. every second. in the same place.
- LeonidasStokely, on 04/12/2008, -2/+7USA 1000 tons CO2 emitted every 5.4 seconds! WTF!!!
- inactive, on 04/12/2008, -0/+4Famine
- almightyzam, on 04/12/2008, -1/+5Why the ***** does scamerica have positive diggs?
- bsmang, on 04/12/2008, -1/+5Where is your brain? Firstly, birth rate means nothing without looking at the corresponding death rate. Next, how could you assume that population = CO2 output... US has almost double China's CO2 output with less than 1/4 the population. Did you even look at the map? Not that I'm saying the map is all correct or anything, but you're nuts.
- BigglesPiP, on 04/12/2008, -1/+5Real time?
It's an over-glorified population density map. - TheCash, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3I find it hard to believe that America emits 1000 tons of CO2 at twice the rate of China. Actually, it's pretty ***** impossible. Ever been to China? They burn coal like no one else. Emissions controls and EPA? My ass. The whole country fails the 'white glove' test. It's disgusting.
- JAFFA, on 04/12/2008, -1/+4WOW - Look at India and China breed! (not together!)
The 'rattle' noise is a little creepy tho ... A bit like a Jap horror flick. - sat0shi, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3A woman somewhere in India is in a lot of pain right now.
- rekrapt, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3Wow, the oceans of the world emit no CO2? Who knew?
- animalmuther76, on 07/30/2008, -2/+5what do you think AIDs is for
- Alegoo92, on 04/12/2008, -1/+4yeah seems like an overpopulation problem to compliment co2..
- blorguehad, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3I want my family to have this website open on a laptop when I die so I can watch my death happen on it.
- Slagtits, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3Because of the idiots who believe him.
- Ganja420, on 04/12/2008, -4/+7Too bad methane is like 24x more harmful to the ozone and mainly produced by our 6 Billion cows,, is the true cause of global warming.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html - sat0shi, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3What are you talking about? It says that they both emit 1000 tons of CO2 per minute (approx.).
- Ganja420, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2it scares people into using condoms in the US and therefore possibly preventing an accidental baby
- maffiou, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2It would be way more interresting if these data were normalized... ie: Tons of co2 per million inhabitant etc...
As they are, they're meaningless... it's obvious that a population of 1billion is going to have more birth and death and produce more CO2... - sunnycuts, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3Politicians cant make money on that one. That is problem #1 though.
- jmccgod, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2"..but is causing food shortages which mainly affect poorer nations.."
I think as humans we are better than every other mammal and we should no longer subject ourselves to natural famine due to overpopulation.. /sarcasm - inactive, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2We emit 185,200 times as much CO2 as Somalia.
- dualboy24, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2Well from what I know most of the CO2 is taken in by the oceans, only issue is this creates greater amounts of carbonic acid, its slowly killing off the marine life and the oceans are also becoming less efficient at absorbing CO2, we are unbalancing a system and who knows how it will try to balance itself again and what negative effects will be the results. The best thing we can do is to limit our output, and also try to fix the damage we have done to the environment. I dont think anyone could argue with keeping this world a cleaner greener, and healthier place for our and future generations.
I really do not understand why there are so many people, not only on digg, that think its all a fake and we should just ignore it and continue business as usual. We live in a finite system, but we are treating it like it has infinite resources, infinite space, and can take whatever crap we spew out and never hit back. Grow up people. - Slagtits, on 04/12/2008, -1/+3You really are living in a fools paradise aren't you? These people may or may not exist, may or may not have the degrees or positions stated. May or may not have been "influenced" buy "big business", who knows I sure don't and I doubt you do either. But even if you take them on face value, their numbers are minuscule compared to the number of scientists who believe Global Warming is true. I know which conspiracy theory I think is true.
- frontporsche, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2The way the information is represented is pretty cool, but the representation of CO2 emissions is visually misleading. ...It's misleading because you see more red for larger countries than for smaller countries for the same amount of CO2.
- ahsanfarhan22, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2Fom the moment I start watching I didn't see a single child being born in Canada
- thestrongrope, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1THANK YOU!!!!
- 380ppm, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I think shes cooking your dinner :)
- inactive, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2No it's real time. The internets never lie.
- Hooner, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Adolf? I think you mean Thomas Malthus. Look it up!
- inactive, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I think i figured out how to beat it!
- Barclay1188, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1No amigo! Esta la Frijoles!!!
- rationalist, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1By anthropomorphizing the Earth, you are practicing the same sort of magical thinking as "Bible thumping zealots."
- inactive, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Were *****
- WileyII, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2Dugg for the birth/death rates. The whole CO2 info wasn't that descriptive or surprising.
- Slagtits, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Ouch
- dstz, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1The born/dead people counter on the lower left kinda feels like "when you'll see it, you'll ***** brix"
- thestrongrope, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1The problem is you can argue anything, there are always going to be people who disagree, but it doesn't change that fact that we need to stop putting crap into our atmosphere (as well as our soil, our water, our children). We need to stop putting more CO2 into the air first. Lets start there. Its a big enough task.
- Isidore, on 04/12/2008, -2/+3Can humans change the climate?
CO2 was slowly absorbed by plants over millions of years and locked away in coal and oil. In the last 200 years we 'suddenly' release a large part of this CO2 back into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. CO2 is at its highest for at least 800,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - easily demonstrated in the lab. Surprised we can change our environment?
Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes, etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s.
www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide27.pdf
but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is the evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 - GvnMcCld, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah, the population of the countries don't even change with all of the births and deaths.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is