Users who Dugg This
Standing My Ground
4846 Followers
Social Network Software
148 Followers
Connor Livingston
5772 Followers
NeosopheusFeb 2, 2012
"A study out of Harvard proving..."
Too bad science does NOT prove anything.
NeosopheusFeb 3, 2012
It is pretty hilarious to get dugg down for speaking the truth.
larkstewFeb 2, 2012
I read that the definition of an ice age is when there's ice at the Earth's poles, so we're already in an ice age. And to be more specific, since the glaciers have mostly retreated, we're also in an inter-glacial age.
sleestakslayerFeb 2, 2012
That is correct. Over the last 2.5 million years, there have been about four major advances, the last being only 20,000 years ago.
sandylandersFeb 2, 2012
Not to mention ice at the poles have not always been around during earths history. There have been 5 ice ages where ice at the poles has existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
NeosopheusFeb 2, 2012
"A study out of Harvard proving..."
Too bad science does NOT prove anything.
NeosopheusFeb 2, 2012
FTA: "Though his work suggests that orbital configuration contributes to the loss of glacial ice, Huybers was quick to emphasize that it is only one factor among many.
“It could also be that orbital forcing causes a rise is atmospheric CO2, and that it’s the increased CO2 that drives the loss of ice sheets,” he said. “In all likelihood, both CO2 and increased summer radiation contribute to deglaciation. They’re both expected to push the climate system toward less ice.
“Another important aspect to consider is that the orbital configuration we now have is almost exactly where it was 20,000 years ago, during the Last Glacial Maximum, but this time we’re near a glacial minimum,” he said. “If you think about what the difference is between then and now, it’s not the orbital configuration, it’s the CO2. I think that’s important to keep in mind, because it shows that glacial changes are not a simple function of the orbital configuration.”"
All you people who think that this "proves" that man has nothing to do with climate change need to reread this again and again and again until it sinks in.
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
i farted yesterday and the earth wobbled even more
my bad, but the gas increased the warming so that should cancel out the ice age my wobbled earth fart created
4 out of 5 scientist in the car agree (the 5th just sat there, head out the window)
so your welcomeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusFeb 2, 2012
Too bad you are not a scientist, but just another armchair expert. Nice try though. By the way, it is "you're," not "your."
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
maybe it is when you crap yourself
but not me honey
jjvorsFeb 2, 2012
Talk about going out on a limb! Paging James Taranto!
dougnic55Feb 2, 2012
yah but we will burn ourselves off the faceof the planet before this happens...
jacleseauFeb 2, 2012
I still have to wonder how much the pattern of ocean currents today also influences glaciation. For example, if the Gulf Stream changed, all of Britain and Scandanavia could become like Northern Russia, without any change in the Earth's tilt or precession.
jhw539Feb 2, 2012
If you're really curious, there have been studies done on the influence of ocean currents on glaciation (those thousands of traveling buoys aren't drifting around for nothing!). One of the more interesting tests of a climate change model was, based upon it's ocean heat transport model and existing satellite climate data, it predicted the existence of an unknown ocean current - and followup tests did indeed find the current existed.
You'd probably have to hit a university library and look at the journals though. It's not a subject deemed interesting enough to get a very lay-person narrative treatment.
melthornalFeb 2, 2012
It also changes where life can live in the oceans. The water around the glaciers are generally the most nutrient rich water in the ocean (similar to how the ground in a dessert is the most nutrient rich). The currents then push that water and nutrients around the oceans. When the currents change dramatically, it changes where and when sea life can live.
megastarmediaFeb 2, 2012
eeek!
KapsiotFeb 2, 2012
I'm sure the global warming wackos love this.
sixgunFeb 2, 2012
Actually they probably wouldn't, because their argument is that man is the cause of global warming. Not orbit changes.
melthornalFeb 2, 2012
Actually, no. The study of climate shows us that humans are accelerating the process. There is always some trigger that pushes changes in climate and along with it changes in glacial formation, and this time it is humans being stupid. Other events could be caused by volcanoes, meteor impacts, et cetera. Study of climate change never said humans were the sole contributors, or that there weren't other factors. It says that humans are accelerating it needlessly, and that nobody knows what will happen if the process is accelerated beyond a certain point, and we don't even know where that point is.
tomasiiFeb 2, 2012
And the study of climate does NOT show us that humans are accelerating the process. There is still no conclusive data and in fact the "climate scientists" have conspired to cover up any findings to the contrary.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
melthornalFeb 2, 2012
Conclusive data. You're a moron. There is no conclusive data that Earth even exists. There is no conclusive data that there is gravity. There is no conclusive data for anything. I'm so sick of morons like you, who don't understand what science even IS, going around saying stupid s**t like that. Go put your head back under the sand.
tomasiiFeb 2, 2012
Thanks for the scientific reply. I assumed that at least one climate alarmist would try and use so called facts instead of name calling. Actually, I didn't assume that. I knew that you would take the name calling attack mode because that's all you have. Thanks for being such a predictable liberal.
savetheseaFeb 2, 2012
regardless of temperature, humans are drastically changing the planet.
Look up ocean acidification, coral bleaching, the ocean gyres, the loss of large fish in the oceans, etc. Some are by-products of global warming and some are a result of the same elements that cause global warming or climate change.
Why would "climate scientists" have conspired to cover up any findings to the contrary? Please do not give me the bulls**t "funding" argument, I need something a bit more believable. And why is climate scientists in quotations? Do you find that field of study valid?
tomasiiFeb 2, 2012
Just because you don't like the argument does not make it valid. We have at least two significant "cover ups" of that suggests finding contrary to the one "climate scientists" are looking to find.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 3, 2012
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
ammattikiFeb 2, 2012
Nobody knows for certain either way if we are going to experience irreversible climate change. There is a chance it will happen, and a chance it wont.
But if we do nothing and it does occur millions of people will die and our economy will be f**ked.
If you were the president and you knew that there was a 50/50 chance of this happening, would you spend the money to save millions of lives?
tomasiiFeb 3, 2012
50/50 is another made up statistic. Why would I want to base my decisions on fantasy?
melthornalFeb 3, 2012
Hey, tomasii, learn basic science. Whenever you say 'conclusive data' when talking about science, it shows how ignorant and/or stupid you are. Conclusions are the things in faerie tales, not reality.
I am also glad to see you are clinging so strongly to the 'cover up' bulls**t. Even if a tiny handful of whogivesaf**k scientists covered up something, it doesn't mean jack s**t about EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. Even if a good study gets rejected by a big name journal, it will always get accepted by a smaller name journal. And the people who read those journals, and generally a few thousand read each, will review the data and methods, conduct their own studies, and eventually the larger journals will be forced to publish it. That is the way science works.
Everything you said just makes you look like an ignorant child. When you act like an ignorant child, you get treated like one.
tomasiiFeb 3, 2012
Ok more name calling from an obvious pimply faced middle schooler. At leasts you have learned how to curse in your school, good job. Yes, I agree you look like and are certainly an ignorant child.
ammattikiFeb 3, 2012
All that I was saying with the 50/50 was that there is a chance that it will occur and a chance that it wont. You cant really tell how likely. But since every single climate institute around the world agrees that global warming is likely to occur 50/50 is probably pretty generous to the climate skeptics.
Even someone like you who is skeptical has to allow that there is a chance that global warming will happen. Lets say it is 10%, are you willing to bet millions of lives on that?
tomasiiFeb 3, 2012
Well, it sounds bad to say are you willing to chance a million lives, but of course chance is built in to everything we do. I guess that I believe that if they cycle of warming that has been going on since creation is going to happen taxing people or selling carbon tax credits isn't going to stop it.
ammattikiFeb 3, 2012
But you have to admit that there is a chance that you are wrong. There is a chance that every single climate institute in the world is right, and you who is not a climate scientist is wrong.
Many people buy fire insurance on their house, the chance that their house will burn down is less than 1%.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to buy insurance against that chance that you are wrong?
tomasiiFeb 3, 2012
Not when the insurance is with a corrupt government. And of course climate institutes have been under fire for "questionable" tactics and results, so I still maintain, the insurance is worthless in the face of cyclical climate change.
ammattikiFeb 3, 2012
But you admit that you might be wrong?
tomasiiFeb 3, 2012
It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. And just so you know, I do think it is a good idea to conserve energy, and not waste resources. I just don't want the government forcing me to pay more taxes and to use inferior and sometimes more harmful technology based on alarmists tactics
ammattikiFeb 3, 2012
Nobody is saying that we need to overhaul our economy.
But there are some small things we can start doing to mitigate the risk.
Get rid of Tax payer subsidies for oil.
We know that oil is running out, so giving tax breaks to companies working on alternatives will help lessen the impact to the economy when this starts to bite.
tomasiiFeb 3, 2012
I am ok with not giving subsidies to companies that are enormously profitable already but the government has not had luck with companies like Solyndra, and the others that took those subsidies and then went bankrupt. Another example is the Volt, which is turning out to be another government subsidy boondoggle for the taxpayers. The technology is not there and yet the government is forcing the technology upon the manufacturer without demand for the product.
ammattikiFeb 4, 2012
I agree that we have to be careful where we spend tax payer money.
The Solyndra bankruptcy has been used as a poster boy for climate deniers. Sometimes investment in technology pays off and we get an improvement in the overall technology, sometimes it doesn't.
There is demand for the technology behind the Volt, but as you said the technology is not there yet. So we need to develop it.
tomasiiFeb 4, 2012
It wasn't just just Solyndra. There was at least one other and maybe more with ties to the Obama administration that were given millions only to go bankrupt soon after. And the light bulb fiasco. Now you need a hazmat suit to clean up a broken Florescent light bulb that costs much more than the more wasteful incandescent bulbs. Not to mention the idiocy of high speed rail. The market will create the demand and then the private sector, when they know a profit can be made, will advance technologies. Since it seems you have faith in the government and I have faith in American private businesses, maybe there can be a way they can work together, without corruption on either side, but I don't have faith in that happening.
ammattikiFeb 4, 2012
Yes I agree with you that private business is much better at innovating than government.
That is why we should put a price on Carbon pollution. If businesses want to pollute they should factor in the cost that will be borne by our society.
tomasiiFeb 4, 2012
Or save themselves money by creating technology to reduce pollution. The tax will only lead to more wasteful spending by a hugely bloated government.
Thanks for the cordial discussion. This has been so unlike most on digg.
KapsiotFeb 2, 2012
Well, if we're facing another ice age - who cares about global warming? They'll cancel eachother out and nothing will happen.
bluto36Feb 2, 2012
so i can keep eating beef and driving 70 mph
and belch all i want?
sweet!
melthornalFeb 2, 2012
Actually, if you had ever paid attention to the theory or the science behind it, you would already know that climate change predicts the next ice age occurring sooner than it normally would.
NeosopheusFeb 2, 2012
Apparently you did not read the article because it is NOT saying what you are implying. Try again.
ammattikiFeb 3, 2012
The article does not mention Global warming at all.
The ice ages it is talking about have a cycle 20,000 years. We many get another ice age in the next few thousand years, but global warming will occur in the next 20.
jimijamFeb 3, 2012
Humanity has survived Ice ages before. I think we'll be lucky to be around as a species when the next glaciation occurs.
swarooppatilFeb 3, 2012
I think Ice Age will better than Global warming..! my computer on fire all day so its needs to be cold..!
jaketyson85Feb 2, 2012
man seeing the scientists come out like this makes me wonder if there is any truth to the polar shift, emp waves, and maybe even planet x / nibiru (altho not to confident in the last one).