What is Digg?153 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+59So you've pretty much never taken any science class ever, right?
- jayloc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34The link goes to one of those web-embedded players that refuses to stream if you don't have windows media player. I dug up the link, so you can download it directly:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/media/denial.wmv
If you download it, it plays fine in mplayer. - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29"It would probably be best if we actually tried to speed global warming along."
It's not something that would come and pass. It takes centuries for greenhouse gases to decompose into harmless elements.
Also, there are pre-historic greenhouse gases trapped in polar ice blocks - their release would accelerate global warming. If we help it along it might even be our problem rather than our grand kids'. We still haven't had ANY snow this year in Ontario, CANADA(!). Now THAT is scary! - otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27You see, antifederalist, we live on a Planet. Our Planet is called Earth. Much of Earth is covered by water, in fact, most of it is. Water is an interesting substance, and plays a large role in how weather changes. Though you may not believe it, clouds are actually water vapor.
In addition, water has a very high specific heat capacity, which is the energy required to raise the temperature of a substance by 1 degree (C). So increasing the temperature by even one degree, of a large body of water, is by no means insignificant (not important). As I mentioned earlier, water plays a huge role in weather. So you can imagine how important it is if the temperature of the water increases. Weather changes, water levels increase, and as a result, many other systems change.
I hope you were able to conclude that temperature-change is important. - YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Suggest you look at the size of Siberia on any map. The Siberian permafrost is a massive methane sink. Methane in the atmosphere is at least five times worse than carbon dioxide. Once all that Siberian permafrost releases gigatons of methane in the atmosphere, we are faced with an atmospheric feedback loop we can't stop. The Ross Ice shelf is on the verge of collapse - once it goes and the Greenland ice sheet melts, ocean levels will go up at least 3 feet. People, wake up!
- Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28Oh! Why didn't you say so,..the very credible scientist "Penn" says "*****". That's it,. --I'm convinced! I won't even bother verifying that understanding with garbage sources like NASA, the European Space Agency or the useless "United Nations". If Penn and Teller say so, that's good enough for me. Mmmmmmm pork rinds
- WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Great submission. Very educational.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Why is it ONLY EVER Americans who don't think global warming is occurring?
I guess the puritanical christian right nutjobs including their puppets in the govt actually want to screw up the earth in the misguided belief that it will accelerate the 2nd coming of their christ. Other than that, and the reluctance to change their poullting lifestyles I can think of no other reason why the rest of the world can see the imminent danger but america can't (or won't). - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Before anybody comments, they should at least watch the documentary. It addresses many of the 'uncertainties' people are bringing up in the comments. Please, just watch it and THEN comment.
- Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22What's next? quoting South Park episodes?
oh, wait... - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17"Saying 'but 99% of climatologists agree that global warming is real' is not a positive point. It means that those 99% are not working hard enough to find and correct any flaws in their and others theories."
How do you think they came to their conclusions? - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Watch "An Inconvenient Truth". It's broken down so even a mentally challenged five year old can easily grasp it.
- jayloc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Also, It's too bad mr. antifederalist didn't actually watch the documentary. One of the main points they try to make is that climate change is to important a discussion to be the point of partisan politics the American and Canadian governments have made it into.
I'm sorry you feel so sore about this issue. I just hope you don't live in a low lying city, or in the future dust bowl of the the central US/Canada, or near any coastlines which see hurricanes on a regular basis. - GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Lol, scientists. What a bunch of hacks. First they try to tell me I'm made of atoms and molecules, and cure diseases. The next minute these guys try to tell me there is such a thing as "Global Warming". Next thing you know they'll be telling me the sun is using nuclear fusion to make photons. Hah, everyone knows the sun is made of burning oil. Stupid scientists, you just hate our freedoms.
- thesteampunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@mrfoo
"I have witnessed former smokers dying from cancer. I've yet to see the sea levels drown a city or extreme heat wipe out a species. Lets keep that argument though. What if no one had ever died from cancer brought on by smoke use? Would you be so certain then?
Yelling the liberal agenda until your red in the face doesn't make it anymore true."
Let's say that many people die of cancer from smoking but we never find out. Does that mean it isn't true? Please spare us your backwards talk. It's harmful to those of us who actually would like to move forward and find truth. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24If you had any idea what it takes to move the thermometer even one degree Celsius, you would be as concerned as those who do.
But think of it this way: One degree Celsius per year means that someone who is a teenager today would die of hit stroke long before natural causes came into play. Zero C is where water freezes, while 50 C nearly boils human beings. - DarthBibble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wow, I'm not done watching this yet, but it's great. I wish we got great documentaries like this in the US.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9its also on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en - MattZed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ anonydigg
"We still haven't had ANY snow this year in Ontario, CANADA(!). Now THAT is scary!"
... I guess that you didn't see the weather reports in London, Ontario where they got hammered with ~50 cm of snow(not sure of the actual number). And out west in BC where they are getting lots of snow. Also, how come in the last few years we have set and broken many snowfall records in Southern Ontario? Wasn't the globe getting warmer then as well?
While I strongly believe that there is a problem with global warming, the lack of snow this year cannot be used as an example to show that this is an imminent problem. - OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow, the CBC has some pretty amazing servers. I downloaded that in about 2 minutes, with my download speed sometimes topping 2 megs a second!
If you care:
http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=downloadspeedypt6.png
WAY TO GO CBC. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You did know that both Penn & Teller are both members of the Cato Institute?
I'll let you look into it yourself, but I'll give you a few clues:
Chevron Companies,
ExxonMobil Company,
Shell Oil Company
Tenneco Gas,
The American Petroleum Institute,
Amoco Foundation and
Atlantic Richfield Foundation
are all funders of the Cato Institute. If you look at other "*****" topics you'll find many have similar corporate funding (passive smoking, gun control and other ***** episodes are directly aligned with the motives of the Cato Institute)
Penn & Teller=***** - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12All the deniers on this list should at least watch the documentary.
It's true that climate change has happened before. However, it has never happened at this rate. Virtually all climatologists agree on this. Those that don't are very probably on Big Oil's payroll.
Denying humanity's impact on global warming these days is akin to burying your head in the sand. In any case, it's better to err on the side of caution, especially when the risks are so great. - JupiterLander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Saying 'but 99% of climatologists agree that global warming is real' is not a positive point. It means that those 99% are not working hard enough to find and correct any flaws in their and others theories."
don't you mean 99% are not working hard enough to fit you already preconceived notions if global warming is happening or not. besides I doubt it is really 99%, that's what is great about the scientific method somebody is always out there trying to disprove everyone else even if the majority of scientists say that it is happening, if a CREDIBLE group posts data saying otherwise it will be tested and retested. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11An Inconvenient Truth = $5 DVD rental
Sitting, watching and thinking = $0, 1 hour 30 minutes
Taking action to save ourselves from extinction = priceless - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Saying 'but 99% of climatologists agree that global warming is real' is not a positive point. It means that those 99% are not working hard enough to find and correct any flaws in their and others theories."
You are correct that argument to authority cannot be the final word in any debate. But you are wrong about scientists not working hard enough to find and correct flaws in theories. This is an indication that you have no idea what actually goes on in the world of science or what real scientists are like. All the scientists I've known are inveterate questioners, and never accept any theory, their own or anyone else's as a given unless they have thoroughly vetted it. And even then they remain suspicious. They are also opportunists who would jump at the chance of being the One who turned science on its head.
It's still a possibility that someone could do that, but until then all signs point to a large number of scientists being correct in their assessment of anthropogenic global warming. - Digitalfuneral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Very good. I find it damning that the "scientists" that backed the tobacco industry against cancer are now backing the oil companies on global warming.
Its amazing what money can do to people. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@blackmariah:
"So what you mean is the environment is a constantly changing entity that can't be predicted with any level of accuracy and the impact of any single thing can't be measured due to the presence of an untold and incalculable number of variables that must be taken into account."
You are confusing climate - the average behavior of the system over extensive periods of time - with weather - what the weatherperson on the news predicts for tomorrow and the day after. We have 800,000 years of ice cores measuring climate change, as well as 1,000 years of daily weather records, correlated against CO2 levels for those periods, which scientists use to construct their models. One measure of the accuracy of a model is its predictive power, and when new climatic data is reviewed - whether from the far past, because the ice cores analyzed have moved progressively older - or when models are compared with the current era, for which we have daily records - has matched predictions.
"I just love how anyone that has any doubt about OMGlobal Warming is a DENIER. No skeptics. Just DENIERS. Like we're denying the Holocaust or some *****. "BUT OMG!!! AL GORE SAID IT'S REAL!" Whoop de *****. I never said it wasn't. I just highly ***** doubt that you can single out any one thing as being THE ROOT of climate change."
Actually, the issue is not whether Al Gore says it is real or not. He, and many others, have merely reported publicly available information about an overwhelming consensus among scientists around the world, based on publicly available data which you can look up for yourself. It is scientists - specifically, climate scientists experts in this field - who have said that it is real. As for "singling out any one thing", I choose to take the word of the world's leading scientists from every developed nation over whatever political talk show hack or oil-company spokesperson you take your propaganda from. YMMV, but your mileage will still spew the same global warming crap that will effect you as much as the rest of us.
Denial of existential danger in the face of overwhelming factual evidence as interpreted by credible, peer-reviewed experts is, in fact, similar to Holocaust denial, and will have similarly catastrophic results. I am here today only because my grandfather refused to listen to his fellow Austrian deniers and got his wife and their daughters, including my mother, out of there just barely in time. The rest of the know-it-alls burned in the camps.
"Learn the difference or go ***** yourself with a knife."
I suggest you practice what you preach and educate yourself minimally about the actual science, and actual empirical evidence, in this case - or, indeed, violate yourself with the sharp edge of your ignorance. - rhombus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@antifederalist: I am your worst nightmare. I am a tofu munching, tree-hugging hippie who owns a firearm and I am prepared to use it. Specifically, I will use it on you if you come anywhere near my home, my friends and my family asking for food, fuel or shelter -- or, more likely, making threats.
I hope you've stocked up on ammo. I sure have. I have to be prepared for nutjobs like you. - linkbeat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11It's amazing how popular dismissing the globar warming subject is. After watching "An Inconvenient Truth" there were all kinds of people circulating that Oregon scientist hoax that supposedly refuted evidence shown in the movie. Many of the ski resorts in North America are feeling the hurt more and more every year (including the one out my window,) and after my visit to Glacier National Park this summer I've seen some pretty sad evidence first hand.
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7While you sit around on your ass scoffing at the doomsayers, the Earth gradually rises in temperature, weather patterns become ever more erratic, huge swathes of species are driven into extinction and millions of people and made refugees.
I don't want to be proved right. I want to be proved wrong. But I do not want to take the risk. Let's err on the side of caution and try to protect our planet. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels are now over 380 parts per million.
Average global temperature can be directly correlated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif
(there are other graphs around, just search for CO2 + temperature)
There are many other factors, but this connection between CO2 and temperature is blindingly obvious. Man-made carbon emissions have meant an increase in CO2 levels of over 100ppm over in 30 years, something on a scale which has not ever happened in the last 400,000 years (at least).
The globe is warming. How can anyone believe human intervention is not responsible? - JHW539, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Regarding the Penn and Teller BS, if it is the same one on environmentalism that I watched, it was a scathing rebuke of nutty fringe environmental groups like the Rainforest Network. Quite enjoyable light entertainment. It did not even lightly brush on the legitimate proponents of global warming (the UN, or all the first world National Academy of Scientists for example). Making fun of young 'uns opposed to hydrogen dioxide use is a far cry from rebuking the facts that climate change therory tries to explain and predict: The warming of the globe, satellite temperature records, recession of glaciers, ice core data and prehistoric atmosphere samples, etc.
Global warming deniers insist loudly, "We're just too stupid to possibly explain all this data, but I'm sure your most feasible explanation that fits all the facts known, aka theory (like gravity and evolution) is wrong." And then they act indignant when we look at them like they're idiots. Sigh. - shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Global warming is not a belief, it's a scientifically backed and very well supported theory.
- uberneoconcert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5that is not a sensationalist comment; he did not say the permafrost will release next year or in the near future. he was simply spelling out one factor in the global warming models. telling us there will be multiple devastating hurricanes IS sensationalist. remember what we were told last year? no one said that those scientists or even dr. gore that they were sensationalists. we're now hearing predictions for awful hurricanes next season. THAT is sensationalist.
- fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Is it just me or is anyone else really embarrassed that we (Canadians) were major proponents the Kyoto accord and under the insightful leadership of our wonderful new p.m. have backed out of it completely and towed the American line? Honestly it is worse than the US policy which has at least has been uniformly wrong. We're liars.
- rsvguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4OK Mr rationalist, how about some links to the irrefutable Global Warming science?
Why is the fact that anthropogenic CO2 amounts to less than 0.3% of all global warming gases being played down?
Sure we're putting far more CO2 into the air, however the rise in global CO2 concentrations is affected far more by forest fires and volcanoes than humans. Humans contribute just 3% of CO2 into the environment.
I've seen the argument that as the temperature increases the air has more capacity to hold water vapor and so this results in a positive feedback loop, this should be exponential in character, however the temperature increases have been approximately linear. Why is global temperature not accelerating out of control right now? Why isn't each successive year hotter than the previous one?
I accept that global warming is happening, I just can't see how we humans can be having the impact we're supposed to be.
If you can answer the above questions without resorting to abuse I would be interested in hearing what you have to say. - aran86, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8it's not so much people denying it's happening, it's how much man is the cause.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Suppose your thermostat is set too high, so you go to turn it up even higher. Does that make sense? Just because there are natural cycles doesn't mean we need to be making them worse. And there are other effects besides global warming, such as the acidification of the oceans due to CO2 absorption. I'll bet that goes in cycles too, but should why should we make it worse?
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If you actually were interested in separating fact from hype and deception, you would know that all of those questions have been answered, exhaustively and repeatedly, in the process of evaluating the evidence and peer-reviewing the conclusions within the scientific community. You would also know that all of the answers to your questions are available freely online.
Of course, since you deliberately insert parroted bits of misinformation and careful propaganda in the midst of your "questions" (such as suggesting that the data set is "40-odd years" when in fact it is the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature which is the issue - evidence of the correlation going back 800,000 years, and a dramatic spike in co2 levels starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - and, since I was around 40 years ago, I assure you we already had steam technology in the 60's.
The "facts" you spread here are, in fact, smug, conservative propaganda tidbits you copied and pasted from denialist sites. You are nothing like a "skeptic". Skepticism is an essential part of the critical thinking toolkit, aka the scientific method. Skepticism does not mean cynicism, nor does it apply in cases where one starts with a conclusions and then cherry picks data, uses emotionally-loaded terminology, distorts analysis, takes cites out of context, and outright fabricates conclusions. Rather, skepticism is why it took several decades of peer review and continual demands for additional evidence before a broad, global consensus emerged among the leading scientific experts in the field that, in fact, anthropogenic climate change is real and is an imminent threat to the Earth's climatic equilibrium and a threat to human civilization at its current standard of living.
The time is long past when too many are fooled by clever dissembling and ideological cant. You can't fool all the people, all the time. The inconvenient truths are becoming known, and deniers exposed.
Of course, you could just be completely and utterly ignorant, but, given the specific wording of your "questions", it seems more likely the less charitable option is the correct one - that you are a deliberate dissembler. - bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I used to like watching penn & teller. but that endangered species episode really turned me off.
they used a disabled women as arguement for their cause. wow. that's low.
I'm sure i can use a cripple to win my side of the arguement in any debate too. - dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11I think people need to identify two things.
Global Warming and Man's Impact on the earth's temperature.
I believe the globe is getting warmer, that is irrefutable. I don't believe humans are causing the vast majority of it. Climate studies show that the temperature of the earth has never really been constant. It always increased and decreased. Using the logic that since the earth's temp is going up, we must be causing it, is like saying: since the earth got cold during the ice age, man must have caused it.
I do however believe that we need to be better to our environment, more for air and water pollution than for temperature reasons. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think people who don't believe global warming is real are just too scared to accept the reality it can bring. We're not talking rocket science.
- spootwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that everybody needs to wake up. When the news says the icecaps melt in 2040, it doesn't mean relax and mark December 31st 2040. Have you ever watched an ice cube melt in water? Did it just hold out till the last minute?
Just suppose the sky started falling this minute...how much time would I have to duck for cover?
Also, yes the earth has been hotter before...but have you ever been a dinosaur? - sievo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I caught it when it was on tv, great doc. Some of the cbcs stuff is great, makes me happy to be a canuck
- Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats not closed-mindedness, thats pure ignorance. Even the deniers (finally) admit its happening, they just question if humans are the cause.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There is a place all you "non-believers in global warming" can go - right alongside the non-believers in the Holocaust, evolution, and a round Earth.
Unfortunately, no matter how far out you are, you won't escape the reality-based consequences of....reality. - dd240sx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11but we still contribute alot to cause global warming.
North America is the highest fossil-fuel, CO2 emitting region of the world with 1.73 billion tons of carbon in 2002 - neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It is true that Greenland was green-er when the Vikings ruled Europe. But back then there wasn't 6.5 billion humans on the planet pumping greenhouse gases into the air, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere so much so quickly. The warm period occurred over hundreds of years. This warming is happening in decades, faster than any warming in 400,000 years. Is that reason enough to be concerned?
- philophile5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's really dissapointing that so many people seem to think the complex nonlinear dynamics of global climate change can be summarized with isolated anecdotal trends. Is this simply related to the fact that the average tv weather anchor is a vapid dork and thus people conclude they can forgo the rigors of scientific study if they've stored up a bunch of cheeky one-liners? There are literally oceans of data to be pored through and a large number of scientists from various disciplines tasked with studying this data. My very neophytic two cents: Statisticly speaking, the odds that the relatively few overhyped contrarians in the scientific community who question the human connection to global warming are overwhelmingly more likely to be full of it than the vast majority who conclude otherwise. When you add to this the fact that CO2 reduction equates to a profound economic detriment for many rich and powerful people, it's easier to make the case that the contrarian voices are probably not speaking for the best interests of humanity. There is still significant work to be done to digest the scope of the changes taking place, but at this point there's not much left to debate as to whether climate change is happening or whether human CO2 production is implicated.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But, the people in this are 'deniers. Its not meant to be an offensive term, but rather an adequate adjective for people who "deny" that humans are having an impact on global warming. A skeptic would say: its possible we have an influence, its just not certain. But the people in this video aren't skeptics, they're saying: 'no its not possible that we have an influence.' Cool it on the CAPS LOCK.
"Learn the difference or go ***** yourself with a knife."
Why the hell are you so emotional about this? -
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
