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.279 Comments
- slickricks, on 10/12/2007, -11/+72I'm not a Bush supporter, but I will say that signing onto Kyoto wouldn't have helped anything. The problem with that treaty was that "developing" countries (a distinction which China and India qualify for) are exempt from any restrictions whatsoever. Additionally the punishment structure was set up poorly; it would just fine whatever country used more than its allotted share, which would have no marginal cost to consumers, thereby failing to disincentivize excessive energy usage. Indeed, the U.S. would basically have signed onto unlimited amounts of abuse by other countries (which is where corporations would go to do their gross polluting if necessary), while paying tons of money for energy usage its citizens are not going to curb. Also, fossil fuels are running out so fast anyway, it seems as though the alternative fuel solutions we come up with are not going to exacerbate this "irreversible" trend of pollution due to energy consumption. However, I'll agree that the political time horizons for governments are way too short in just about every respect. Thankfully, markets can adjust without government action. Indeed, markets adjust far better without government intervention.
- Godric, on 10/12/2007, -7/+65First of all, any treaty has to be ratified by the Senate before the President can sign it. Implying that Bush was the only one that rejected it ignores history (more on this later) and does not make sense within our system of ratifying treaties.
"In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch. "
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/treaties.htm
Treaties like Kyoto were rejected in 1997 95-0 in the Senate on the grounds that they do not have binding goals for developing and developed nations and that they would therefore do economic harm.
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:S.Res.98:
When Al Gore signed Kyoto in 1998, it was purely a symbolic gesture meant to appease the environmentalists and the ignorant. It was purely political. - jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43I don't get it.
If its too late to stop global warming now, what difference would it have made had Bush signed a treaty a few years ago?
Just sounds like a way to bash Bush to me. - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40However, generalizing isn't very awsome. In fact, I'm getting really ***** sick of it...
- astroid0, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40Yeah, that kyoto treaty comment in the story was ill-informed at best.
- spunkz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
A newsweek article warning us that the Ice Age is coming... that Global.. Cooling was occurring. Between the time we began to keep records of temperatures and the 1940's the average temperature rose. Then mysteriously in the 1950's 60's and 70's there was a cooling down effect. Now the temperatures are rising again... that seems like a cycle! - SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22The earth is either warming or cooling ...take your pick. Either way, its not the end of the earth but rather another cycle the earth goes through ...another blip in the grand scheme of things. Blaming Bush for not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty is ignorant at best. The Senate voted against it 95-0 when CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT.
- falcon707, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32Of course! Bush caused all this global warming! He should make it stop! He's so evil... I can't believe him! [/typical democrat]
- fsnuffer, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27And what was the first car Gore went out and bought after losing the election - a Cadillac Escalade! I didn't know Gore was a Bush supporter
- artgon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Gotta love fear mongering.
- asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Haven't you read the cover of HGttG?
- tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Saying people drive old cars because they don't have a choice is a generalization. The founder of IKEA uses a 15 year old Volvo. Classic cars are also exceptions. Not everyone thinks cars are good investments.
Also, if you lived in an area with rough weather that drops a lot of snow every year, you might own an SUV too. I'm not saying this is always a case, but I'm just clearing up the generalization. I like how my other comment got modded down even though it states facts. Maybe people just see the word 'Bush' without 'sucks' and mod down. - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I dont think most people deny that the average global temperature is rising, they, like myself, just dont believe that people should take full blame. We may accelerate it to a small degree, but there is alot of evidence showing that the world goes through climate cycles.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Way to go! Attack my masculinity, it makes you look so smart! You should be on a debate team :D
- hlwoodcock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12OK, lets assume that earth is warming. The real question is... has it been caused by humans and can humans do anything about it?
One opinion (which was dugg recently) says it is not our fault... http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
Being a scientist (chemist to be exact) I am amazed by the fact that people claim to be able to predict all kinds of things that I know of a FACT are nearly impossible to predict. The political nature of this debate has little to do with science anymore and more to do with how to scare people and get grants funded. It's amazing to me that the least educated about an issue tend to be the ones that shout the loudest about it (on both sides)! - tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13People on this site will look for any reason to bash the president. Mac and PC fan boys unite as liberals. Any Bush bashing post gets tens of diggs while any post with a conservative lean will get modded down. The system works!
- longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12has it been proven that global warming is an effect of human technology? It is possible that it is just a natural cycle, and it would have happened without human interference. Or the third possibility is that it is a natural cycle and we just sped it up. Does anyone have any definitive proof of any of these?
P.S. if you do think that it is a sign of the coming of Jesus, and i'm not saying it isn't, my question is how is God causing it to happen. Just like if you beleive that God created the universe, science is about finding out the methods in which He made things work. Science and religion are not neccesarily opposing, but people today make them seem that way. - NoodlyAppendage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You have to admit, as an average, we're pretty stupid.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm not touching this argument with a ten foot pole for all the same reasons that there's no point joining into creationism versus evolution arguments.
When it all comes down to it, we KNOW the ill effects pollution causes and whether or not it is our impending doom, there is NO REASON not to reduce pollution on all levels at all levels in every way possible. You religious types are fond of spouting out things like "well, if there is a god and you believe you'll go to heaven. But what if you don't believe and it turns out there IS a god and you were wrong? So what harm is there in believing?". Well, same thing here. What harm is there in spilling less oil, using less chemicals and reducing our pollution levels?
And are you really going to take your stance on pollution from a government where even the environmental advisor is a former public relations person from BIG OIL?! Get real.
I used to be a staunch "bah, the earth pollutes more than the people on it ever could" person. I still feel that there isn't enough proof that it's human pollution that is driving things in the direction it is going. However, I also know that regardless of the broadness of any affect we have on the world, there is still no reason not to reduce our pollution. If for no other reason than it would be nice to breath fresh air and not turn into mutants from our own drinking water. - tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Every time a volcano erupts, it emits more greenhouse gas than humans ever have. Let's create legislature to ban volcanos.
We contribute, but not in a significant way. The "hole in the ozone" shrinks and grows naturally every year. Facts fight facts. - Factionrider, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15-Diggs on the bush comment. Why would bush signing the treaty have helped if global warming is too far off to stop anyways?
- forgetfulca, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12erm, yeah. Ok, I'll stick my head in the lion's mouth.
During several of the last few ice ages, the earth's co2 levels were FAR higher than they are at present. Please explain that as it relates to the co2 that mankind is supposedly responsible for. Before, during and after, and yet things still froze. It's not politic to suggest it in this climate (har har) but perhaps co2 is just one leg that global temperature stands on. The problem is, no one has any idea how many other legs there are. Airborne h2o, solar energy, solar flux, the earth's albedo (all of which must be estimated, don't forget.)
For an idea of what I'm trying to get across take two regular magnets, and try to get one to rest on the repulsion of the other. That is just 2 chaotic variables. I've listed 5 above, and I'm sure there's god knows how many more.
Who knows, maybe it IS us and our coal burning industrial revolution? But I don't think anyone 'knows' that.
This message brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood devils advocate. Skepticism is healthy, keep that in mind. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9well put
like you, i am not a bush supporter. thankfully, i'm not an arrogantly ignorant anti-bush howler monkey, either. bringing up bush and the kyoto treaty shows two things:
1.) lack of understanding of macroeconomics (which could be aided a little by reading your post a few times)
2.) desperate to blame bush for everything possible.
ooooh yeah, the consequences of the industrial revolution and corporate America's capitalist nature are ALLLL dubya's fault
get real, kids.. and slickricks: nice post - Chapter80, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"Glad to hear we're too late to stop it, so we can quit debating it and get on with our lives!"
Geez, as environmentalists, we should all cringe at articles, sensationalized headlines and incorrect summaries like that. - snowbooch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12i agree, not to mention drawing conclusions about a billion year old planet is pretty hard to do with 100 years of data...durrrr haha
- bluntsage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Assuming all the Kyoto signers adhered to their targets (which they haven't), it would've moderated the temperature by about 2.4 - 4 degrees over 100 years. Nowhere near enough to stop global warming. Just a "feel-good" treaty with no meaningful effect.
Face it. Earth is warming. Oceans are rising. Plan accordingly. Earth doesn't care about you. She's built and wiped out 99% of everything that's ever existed. You're next.
Here's to whatever takes out place. Cheers! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11LAME. Stop blaming Bush for all your idiotic "scientific emergencies" - you stupid enviornmentalists all need to get a life and go back to your little corner and shut up.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The Polar caps on Mars are also shrinking, Jupiter is developing a second Red Spot, and Saturn has greatly increased storm activity. I bet George Bush is responsible for that too! (before you say it: check out my posts concerning the fourth amendment, I'm not a Bush fan)
- scotty1024, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Environmental issues in China are seriously out of control. Westerners flying into China regularly start having burning eyes and breathing issues during the descent into ShangHai/GuangZhou/HongKong and the smell of the car exhaust just gets worse as you head into town from the airport. The other thing you notice when you get into the daily lives of the Chinese is that almost all household thermal energy for cooking and heating water, comes from bottled propane. There is very little infrastructure for piped residential/commercial/industrial natural gas distribution in China. All those little puffs of propane escaping during the bottling process really add up when you have tens of millions of bottles being filled every single day.
The Chinese were able to avoid using obsolete technology for cellphones Internet etc because the more modern technology is cheaper to deploy. But they've unfortunately not been able to follow the west into deploying emissions controlled hydrocarbon systems.
Modern gasoline engines and propane heaters cost more than non-emissions controlled prior versions. The problem is compounded further by the Chinese not being able to afford to deploy even high quality non-emission controlled products. And then compounded again by not being able to maintain those systems. Most gasoline engines are never tuned in China and reach incredible levels of gas in-efficiency and pollution within 2 to 3 years of being placed into service.
Another issue where economies of scale catch up with them are cigarettes. They smoke a couple Trillion cigarettes a year in China. That's a Tr, not a B! We're cutting back on cigarette use here in America for the health consequences for everyone, and not just for the smokers. In China, if they had the Clean Air Act, their EPA would be cracking down on cigarette usage as a leading cause of air pollution. As it is their health care system is just now awakening to the Health Care Crisis that is looming from Cigarettes and Pollution.
Of course one could engage in gallows humor and point out that at least they're helping themselves with their population control policies via their energy policies.
Negroponte is leading the charge for the $100 laptop, but someone needs to lead the charge for the cheap hydrogen economy that can be deployed globally in all countries of all development levels.
It needs to happen soon or we'll be less worried about drowned polar bears, whom are drowning for unknown environmental causes and more worried about our own choking lungs for reasons we clearly 100% understand. - mwalters, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I'm sure the 6 to 8 cylindar cars don't use nearly as much gas as an SUV"
That makes such little sense ... my mind is boggling ... - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@osjpr
Do any of the graphs you have available span a few billion years? There is evindence both in ice and rock, that show that the water level has risen and dropped dramatically over the years. The reason for that is the thawing and freezing of the ice caps. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11We don't even know that we are causing global warming. There are theories that suggest that it is simply a natural climatological cycle.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You global warming run for the hills people are TOTAL LOONY LOONS! We just DO NOT KNOW what will happen or what is really NORMAL for the whole course of nature.
Even the ****oldest* ***ice core sample is estimated to be **only 750K years old**. That is still a blink of an eye in geologic time. It can only tell us about recent times. That is not enough to establish normality. How do we know that the last 750K is not abnormally cold or abnormally warm or abnormally volatile? We don't. Consequently, there is no reasonable baseline to establish "normal", unless we make the anthropocentric leap to conclude that our own short time on earth establishes normality.
What we do know, is that there have been repeated wild swings in global climate and CO2 levels (along with other atmospheric gases). Atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today's levels at the end of the Triassic and the beginning of the Jurassic [http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Triassic/climate.htm]. According to this site [http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html]:
***So, if anything, the currently levels of CO2 are abnormally low.**** However, our anthropocentric bias causes us to see it a normal. Our anthropocentric hubris also assigns importance to our own actions.
BTW... Here [http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html] are the current concentrations of greenhouse gases.
I don't dispute that we are in a warming trend. Objective evidence establishes that we are. But nature has an established history of going through these gyrations without our help. Are our actions adding fuel to the fire? Perhaps. But the evidence simply does not conclusively establish that man alone is the moving force behind warming trends generally or this one specifically.
The fact that the left wing loonies can't get 3 words out of their mouth without trying to attack some political opponent and make political points is all this libertarian needs to know they are kooks using this an excuse to futher their liberal attacks and refuse to even accurately discuss the science of global climate.
Take your loony alarmist crap to your next left-wing cry baby session or some leftist anti-israel protest march, and leave the real work to scientists who have a clue. - tyme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The article doesn't say that we're too late, that's just the submitters opinion - apparently. Sensationlism on digg, oh no!
- Etobian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The Bush administration, however, has shown no willingness to address the warming crisis in a serious way and Congress has not been much more encouraging."
Not been much more encouraging? The Senate voted 95 to ZERO for Kyoto. Not a single liberal Democrat voted for it. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I am MUCH more afraid of Time magazine AND people who believe anything repoted in it, than I could ever be of Global Anything.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So what? What do we do now? As long as global warming is unpreventable, then we have to find ways to survive it.
I'm not talking of trying to prevent it (duh, it's unpreventable!), I'm talking about resisting its negative effects, like changing the land to the Lowlands or other places that are going to be drown, taking measures for the wildlife which gonna loose their ecosystem and many more things we CAN do.
At the end, what do we have technology for, if not first and foremost for our survival? For flashy mobile phones or other *****? - thecontinental, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7ah yes, bush's fault. we've been screwing up the environment for that last 80 years, but what bush should have done in the last 6 years in office would have saved the planet.
- BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It also means that if you are getting into the hydrogen power industry, you will have a job the rest of your life. In the next 40 or so years we need to develop large scale underwater mining opperations, and housing. So, if you have any interest in visting Venice Italy, go now.
- fanboydcs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9oh yeah its bushes fault... Are you serious? The earths climate fluctuates, its not like this hasn't happened before, it will continue to fluctuate. God these people are idiots.
- TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Kyoto Treaty isn't about protecting the environment, it's about distributing wealth. Anyone that tells you different is lying.
- trancelgic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I understand the anti-SUV opinion, however, until my 6' 7" body can FIT in something smaller, I have a Trailblazer. I also live 2.5 miles from where I work, so I barely drive. Maybe if cars were a little bigger.......
- Amigaice, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Never mind a volcano makes more pollution then we every could and the Ozone hole is shrinking. When did we start thinking we can control the weather. All these bush haters think he has a weather machine that can take out the earth at any time.
- joshrt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Everybody panic.
- moridin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Not that I hate the environment or anything, but isnt signing a treaty that won't reverse anything a little ironic? At the very least the title and the summary are...
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13The very evidence of Global Warming will dissipate just as fast as Global Warming.
NASA has a far better chance of landing some shuttles on an asteriod headed straight for Earth. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6if we're too late now, then bush signing some treaty up to 6 years ago wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
- longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6not all of us, just those who decided to congregate near the oceans. We in the midwest will be high and dry.
- TwoSlick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The global temperatures change:
Hourly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
AND over the centuries!
To say that the global climate must stay static, and never go up or down, is just plain stupidity. Global warming AND cooling has been going on for millions of years. Guess what.. even if the "feedback loop" goes crazy, the temperatures will come back down, and possibly go into another ice age. I guarantee it. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Reading the proceeding excerpt makes an interesting point. If that small of an area actually accellerates the temperature that much, maybe we can just cover a lot of stuff with white? Cut down all trees and replace it with white cement or a tarp ;) Just kidding about chopping down the trees, but if they are actually citing something like that as significant, I don't think it's such a bad idea...
Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.
One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 277 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