digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Fox News: Trees Cause Global Warming

ecostreet.com — It’s what we ’ve come to expect from Fox News. These people are still in denial. Anything to keep from facing up to man’s and industry’s responsibility.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • j1337, on 10/10/2007, -8/+66Curses! I knew them trees was causin' this!
    • TridenTBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Cut them down!!!
      • 28dayslater, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15and burn them?
        • dicerandom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33And why do trees burn?


          Because they're made of ducks.
        • InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1I think the whole point is to not burn them but plant more trees and leave the absorbed carbon in the trees you cut down.
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow. Is that like "in order to save the village, we had to destroy it?"
          • Ryosen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't dig InvisibleMan down. His suggestion makes just as much sense as Fox's reporting.
      • rnknowles, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2eat more beef too! those cow farts are deadly global warming contributors
        • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2but then we'd fart something god awful. and this is how civilization ends
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4the bush administration, "we don't give a ***** about intelligence"
    • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You see folks, George Bush really does care about the environment. The drilling and deforestation in Alaska is actually saving the planet.
    • SystmBetatester, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Yes! Since i will most likely be dead before anything major happens i shall continue to drive my car! ***** you hippies.
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I hope you die a most painful death...and soon, just because your a jackass.
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Do trees cause 500 Internal Server Errors as well?
    • battletrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Cut them down! We don't need that oxygen stuff anyways!"

    • DirkBelig, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18I wonder how many Diggers spewing their own toxic byproducts here actually watched the video or did they just see "Fox News" and vomit their tired rantings and Digg up those who agree and bury those who don't?

      Fox News wasn't stating "trees cause global warming, cancer, and zits", they were reporting what was printed in Nature magazine. The second clip reported on what a scientist said and then an opposing view from a Sierra Club spokesman was offered. The report's conclusion was that more study is needed.

      If CNN ran these exact same reports would everyone be filling their diapers here? Of course not. "Fox News" has a Pavlovian effect here and the slobbering Digg herd is eager to obey the ring of the bell. If someone posted a story titled "Fox News Ron Paul Impeach ***** Wii" that had no underlying related article, it'd get 1000 Diggs in a heartbeat because the Digg doggs don't care about anything other than barking at the bogeymen.
      • dkoon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8I don't think they care. Fox = Microsoft = G.W.B., these 3 can never be right on anything, no facts, reasoning, or any logic needed.
        • Inflammo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Well by using your lack of reasoning, I can safely deduct that you are an ill-informed moron ;)
      • moock, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11There's a reason Fox News has that reputation.
        • DirkBelig, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6If Fox News reported that "water is wet, fire is hot, the wind is moving air, the sun rises in the East and puppies and kittens are cute," the Pavlovian Digg herd would post, 'THEY HAVE GONE TOO FAR!!!!!" a couple of hundred times in the comments. This thread is a perfect example of how there is little reason in the rabble here.
          • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I question anything a mainstream media outlet says. In fact, I question anything a human says. My first impulse is always to argue. Some might view that as anti-social, or just plain assholish, but I call it "critical thinking." I listen to conspiracy nuts and try to disprove as much as I can of what they say. I listen to the official explanation and try to poke holes in it.
            It's led me to the conclusion that all extremists are liars and/or idiots, that all moderates are confused and/or apathetic, and all moderate extremists are hypocrites and/or cowards. But it's also led me to the conclusion that what one person views as "extreme" is often a moderate, intelligent philosophy, while moderation is too often practiced to excess.

            So if Fox News, Jon Stewart, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Santa Claus or the Ku Klux Klan say that water is wet, the first thing I will do is cover my ***** with a reinforced steel chastity belt. Then I will squat down, stick my finger in a puddle, and think about it for a while.
          • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thank you for being completely redundant by reiterating what you just said in the main comment.
      • dasdef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you forgot 'iphone' and 'best evar'
      • aduzik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Some of us are at the point where Fox has lied about and distorted so many other things that we just don't believe a word they say.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddlin' trees!
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://digg.com/environment/BBC_Trees_do_indeed_contribute_to_global_warming_faux_news_right_for_once
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0facking double post! facking comment system!
      /wrists
    • sven007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow, does anyone know how chlorophyll works? takes co2 and converts it to O2 (but ONLY when theres sunlight). the reverse reaction occurs when there is darkness outside.
  • admiral101, on 10/10/2007, -24/+21Did not watch the video but in areas where the land is often covered by snow trees will absorb much more heat then the snow which reflects most light.
    • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Look at all these idiots digging this down just because Fox News reported it. Maybe they'll trust it from Treehugger??
      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/planting_trees.php
      • jjesusfreak01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4In some areas, trees planted helps, but in other areas, such as more northern areas, it hurts. Some of the carbon offsetting companies do this, which is actually kind of funny when you think about it.
      • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I've called BS on Treehugger.com on several occasions. Their hearts are in the right place, but sometimes the content is posted without thinking it through. In fact, you point out an article where the writer had to post a correction because he got the science wrong.

        Trees absorb CO2. Trees absorb light and convert it to sugar. That's photosynthesis.

        The bit I call BS on is the heat trapping bit. They're saying all of this based on a computer model. It's not based on any real data or actual observations. The model is far too simplified to be accurate.

        I've been to places where deserts and forests have rather hard lines between them. The desert zone is oppressively hot. A few feet away is the green zone. Over there the temperature drops about 20°F. Plants ABSORB heat that would be put back into the atmosphere. The study is junk science.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3"I've been to places where deserts and forests have rather hard lines between them. The desert zone is oppressively hot. A few feet away is the green zone. Over there the temperature drops about 20°F. Plants ABSORB heat that would be put back into the atmosphere."

          What? It sounds to me like you're just saying "it's cooler in the shade."

          Hey guys, we should ban black cars because they absorb more heat than white cars. Or does that mean that we're cooling the atmosphere by trapping the heat and we should therefore ban white cars?

          It's ridiculous how convoluted the entire issue of global warming is getting. That's why I'm sick of hearing about it. You can be as green as you want, I'm going to continue living my life and not worry about whether trees or breathing or farting will cause a fraction of a degree increase in global temperature over the next decade. This is a classic example of how stupid smart people can be.
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or, as Barbie says: "Math is hard". And, as rarson might add: "therefore, I'll pretend pi equals 3."
        • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6re: "What? It sounds to me like you're just saying 'it's cooler in the shade.'"

          It is but that's not what I was saying. Greenery absorbs heat. It cools the air. Stand in the street. Stand in the grass. Big difference. Even if the sun is blazing down on you equally, then you're cooler among greenery.

          And if you're sick of hearing about global warming then why are you reading comments 3 layers deep in a Global Warming related story? Me thinks the geek doth protest too much. It's ok for you to not understand it all.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Uh, the street absorbs MORE heat than the grass, thus it is hotter.

            I'm sick of these retarded pointless arguments that go nowhere. I'm trying to talk a little bit of sense into these arguments that rely on posting mass quantities of information without evaluating it.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And they produce methane, a greenhouse gas that, while it only lasts 25 years in the atmosphere, traps heat significantly better than CO2.

      Still, I wonder what the overall balance between heat gains and losses is. I mean, it seems to me that trees trapping heat in colder climates would be beneficial to reducing heating costs - thus reducing CO2 emissions from houses that have a lot of them about.

      Overall, I think an actual gestalt is a bit more important than Fox's useless punditry - but then, I actually appreciate science whereas Fox seems to selectively use it as a tool for advancing an agenda.
    • tiberone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8"trees will absorb much more heat then the snow which reflects most light."

      okay that is not global warming.
      • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's not a greenhouse gas, but it is indeed global warming. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE
        • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Common knowledge" being "that which I type in UPPER CASE."
        • disparue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It is called albedo, and it can have a significant effect.
  • reeder, on 10/10/2007, -27/+99Wow, Fox News is out of control.

    Just disgusting.
    • evo8ftw, on 10/10/2007, -27/+9I find that if you find the truth disgusting you might as well just end your life now!
      • novask, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6The funny part is they may even believe this. I'm sorry to say, but I doubt anyone is this stupid, then again we are talking about FOX. Worst of all, the average Joe watching this will give them the benefit of the doubt and start buying into it.
        • evo8ftw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2So buying into the truth is a bad thing? You crack me up there is actual indisputable scientific data proving this. You are an ignorant waste of air.
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Which scientists are you suddenly respectful of? Would it be the thousands around the world who have dedicated their careers to studying climate change and who have published hundreds of studies supporting the anthropogenic origins of current climate change?

            Would it be the National Academy of Siences in the US? Would it be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Would it be the American Meteorlogical Society? The American Geophysical Union, The American Association for the Advancement of Science?

            Didn't think so. Don't hypocritically cite "indisputable scientific data" when you reject the very premise of the scientific method.
        • coyote1284, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1CNN, BBC, and Nature magazine also seem to agree with FN, are they out of control, too?
      • novask, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Bah this ***** comment system sucks ass. I meant to reply to reeder.
        • theOster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2doesn't it tell yoiu who you're responding to?

          disregard - i actually hate this comment sysetm (asnd i'm driunk)
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I hate to say it, but Fox has it right. See, all living things have to expend energy. Energy is never destroyed, just converted into heat. Trees, being massive living things FAR larger than ourselves, put out a fair amount of heat during the growing season (as does any other plant)

      Look up the carbon cycle. Without trees to re-fix the carbon into the ground from the air, we'd just suffocate in a short manner of time.
    • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hold on, hold on, hold on.
      They showed that one fact and then followed it up with some guy saying that climate change science is all junk because this bit of conventional wisdom[1] was wrong. They may not be lying, but that's a ridiculous way to arrange things. It seems intended to misinform. And that other guy in the beginning who seems to think he's rather smart, jesus. So you sandwich the fact between two opinions misrepresenting it. Yes, that's disgusting. Listen, I don't watch Fox so I haven't had a chance to form an independent opinion before but this is enough, especially topped off with the "We report, you decide" stuff there in the middle. I don't mean this to be against Americans, but if this is your biggest news corporation then something is broken.

      [1] It wasn't even completely wrong. Before the critical part, the narrator (or whatever) said that conventional wisdom states that the best place to plant trees is a tropical forest. That is exactly what this study reinforces. It doesn't say, "Don't plant a tree.", it tells you where to plant it. This is important. We're not fools to blindly follow conventional wisdom, let's check, double check the study (just like we should all studies) and then work it into our plans.
    • vvtf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0lol....are you really that stupid??
  • senorpoopypants, on 10/10/2007, -23/+15does industry have an affect on the environment. undoubtedly so. I don't think that they are trying to indicate that anyone is trying to avoid responsibility. It's just pointing out that the environment itself also has a significant impact on itself. To ignore that is as silly as saying that man/industry doesn't impact the environment at all.

    From SouthPark's "Goobacks" episode:
    Darryl Weathers: So, any ideas how we can stop the future from happening?
    Chet: How about we cause more global warming, so that in the future, the polar ice caps melt, and, and it ushers in a new Ice Age?
    Darryl Weathers: How the hell is global warming gonna cause an Ice Age?
    Chet: Well, you know, the... global warming could bring on like a climate shift or somethin'.
    Darryl Weathers: Chet, you are a f***ing retard, you know that? Even if global warming were real, which all proven scientific data shows it isn't, it would take millions of years for a climate shift to happen! You think an ice age can just happen all of a sudden-like?
    Chet: Well, I was just tryin' to be helpful.
    Darryl Weathers: Well help yourself to a f***in' science book, 'cause you're talking' like a f***in' retard! Now, come on people, we've got to think! Damnit, they took our jobs!
    • cdnbambam, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16But the environment was do just fine on it's own until about 100 years ago when humans discovered oil.
    • cyberwarriorx, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5@cdnbambam:

      So how do you explain away the fact that there was significant global cooling between 1945 and the late 1970's? It must be all those emissions too, right? Or the fact that in the medieval era there were periods where the temperature was even higher than now.
      • Warlon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3haha look at the hippies digg you down
      • coyote1284, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Vikings farming in Greenland!? We cannot allow historical fact to get in the way of our America Sux Crusade! Cyberwarriorx is an evil neo-con racist! (hehe, now no one will listen to him spouting facts damaging to our position)
        • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Vikings farming in Greenland" debunked.
          Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of the land. Not to mention that the vast majority of land under that ancient ice cap is rock (and permafrost in the far north).
          http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/22437/993
      • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"The fact that in the medieval era there were periods where the temperature was even higher than now."

        The National Climate Data Center of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says you are a liar.

        "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today...has turned out to be incorrect."

        "What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

        They have a nice graph of historic temperature means over the past 1,000 years, too, if pretty pictures make it easier for you to understand.
    • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To cite South Park as a source, in opposition to:

      The National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, The American Institute of Physics, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (note that all the government agencies mentioned are on record supporting the model of anthropogenic climate change even today, after 7 years of the Bush administration),

      not to mention
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
      Royal Society of Canada
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Academié des Sciences (France)
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
      Indian National Science Academy
      Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
      Science Council of Japan
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society (United Kingdom)
      National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
      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

      Oh, AND the literally thousands of scientists specializing in climate research from over 200 countries who contributed to the consensus report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

      ALL of whom agree that humans are the primary causes of current climate change -

      But but but Trey Parker and Matt Stone said!!!!!!
    • Bodhinature, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No, they are not trying to shift responsibility, but they are linking global warming to trees, which is twisting the science. Puppies exhale CO2, a greenhouse gas. Do puppies cause global warming? Should we kill puppies? Trees do not cause global warming because they emit a percentage of methane. 600 million cars on the road everyday and a billion cows eating and ***** and farting, that's a different story.
  • BassMastr, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4I wonder how much money Fox makes on people sitting around all day watching trying to point out every mistake they make? Interesting...
    • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4probably not much. if they gain a reputation of inaccuracy, they will make less money because fewer people will watch their channel.
      • BassMastr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Sadly what do you think gets more viewers...sensational media or the truth? If the the truth was the answer then the other wouldn't exist...think about it.
    • BassMastr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually they make a butt load off people who hate them. They gain ton of viewers (which set their ad rates) b/c they are hated so much. Go ahead and digg me down, but remember what i said b/c it's true. You really want to hurt fox then quit watching and whining...
      • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't watch it. I just read about how they ***** up again on the web.
        • coyote1284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Strangely enough, you don't hear when CNN and BBC run the exact same story...
      • BassMastr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's good that you just take other peoples word for it...how healthy.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Note that Fox's critics generally watch it via YouTube - no advertising dollars there.
  • kiwikultist, on 10/10/2007, -12/+74Great... now the US government is gonna launch a War on Trees
    • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Incorrect. FOX News reacts to and spins what the government does. Not the other way around.
    • TremorX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Better stay indoors, we're at Foliage Alert Level Alpine
    • Renton, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5As long as they can keep tunnelling funds to Halliburton.
    • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Too late... You just didn't know about it.
    • coyote1284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0We haven't finished the War on Weather, yet! Where are we going to get the manpower for yet another unwinnable war!?
  • SwissCamel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+53They do when you set fire to them.
    • deedee321, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Amen brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -33/+17Just what we've come to expect from digtards...ignore the facts presented and go for the ad hominem fallacy.
    • Parker307, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7What is the ad hominom fallacy?
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Excuse me? The study they cited implied nothing about the current climate changes--it simply pointed out the processes in trees. They acted as if cutting down a tree would help, when really they absorb more greenhouse gasses than they emit. Plus it's a small percentage compared to human-induced methane. In fact, they even mentioned cutting down trees as a solution to global change.

      They spun those studies and quotes so much, I am dizzy. They even ended it with the typical attack on anything science: "We just don't know for sure." (While correct that a fool believes science already explains everything perfectly and completely, it takes an even larger fool to believe that the science we have now is worthless.)
    • shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1show me your facts and ill show you mine.
  • cankillar, on 10/10/2007, -14/+29Deciduous trees have an effect on the environment, because rotting leaves produce huge amounts of CO2.
    • AlexWills, on 10/10/2007, -4/+46The same CO2 that they absorbed in the first place.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah, because trees just absorb CO2 and do nothing but wait until they die so they can release it again.
    • Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19which is re-absorbed when the plants (or in this case leaves) grow back.
    • elipabst, on 10/10/2007, -7/+46H2O + 6CO2 --> C6H12O6 +6O2
      Photosynthesis. That was 5th grade. I'm guessing you were sick that day.
      • ch4os1337, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1ya humans breath out more co2 then all the factory's and cars combined
        • BrewBeau, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2problem solved. Don't regulate industry and keep the gas guzzler. Just quit breathing everyone!
      • chanc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4C6H12O6 +6O2 --> 6H2O + 6CO2
        Respiration. Plants also respirate, I'm guessing you were sick that day.

        (If you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_respiration )
    • ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7The biggest producer of CO2 is the ocean. Humans are in the single digits in producing CO2.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801907588689853310&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle+part+1&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
      • iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Are you retarded. Of course natural sources of co2 produce more than humans; the whole idea of climate change is that natural causes have been there forever, but small difference that humans are now causing will offset the balance.
        • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Except that is utter *****. The fact is, CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. CO2 in the atmosphere itself comprises a minuscule portion of the overall greenhouse effect on earth and man's contribution to that CO2 is a tiny fraction of THAT. On the other hand, water vapor has a *huge* greenhouse effect... and in case you didn't notice, many of touted energy solutions put out water as a waste product.

          The simple fact is that CO2 levels vary widely through history. It has been many times higher than it is now. This "offset the balance" crap is nonsense. THERE IS NO BALANCE. The level of CO2 is not now and has never been remotely stable or balanced. It plays such a minuscule role in our climate that it simply does not matter.
          • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We know CO2 levels have varied widely throughout history. In fact, we've come to the realization that there's a direct correlation between CO2 levels and *drum roll* GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS!

            Jesus, why do these idiots keep telling us ***** we already know that actually proves our point? "You see, CO2 only causes about a third of the global warming that water vapor does, and so if CO2 concentration increases, and that causes the temperature to go up, then that causes more water to evaporate, leading to even more of a temperature increase... wait a minute... uh, I mean COWS! METHANE! OH, YOU WANT US TO SEW UP OUR ASSHOLES SO WE DON'T FART ANY MORE! ECO FASCISTS!"
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3WhiteRaven debunked:
            http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40
      • LittleDas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Actually the ocean is the single largest sink for C02 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink#Oceans
        as C02 in the atmosphere becomes carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate in the ocean which is then deposited as carbonate shales

        just so you know, articles in respected scientific journals are vastly more credible than videos you found on youtube.
        • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But but but the makers of YouTube videos are unperverted by money, fame, evil, bias, and poor education like those creepy scientists with their fluorescent fluid-filled beakers, weird hair, and Experiments Gone Horribly Awry!!!

          /sarcasm
  • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -17/+81Fox News causes Global Warming. All that hot air, etc.
    • wassim2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Plus, all the blondes on there reflect sun rays back into our atmosphere.
  • mntbikeracer1, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8Actually if you ass hats knew anything overgrown areas can affect CO2 emittance and thus global warming, comparable to human sources probably not but it happens none the less.
    • vvtf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0......digger...please! Don't confuse the dopey liberal moonbats with the facts.
  • wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Take that conventional wisdom
  • bariswheel, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11It's not Fox News. It's Fox 'News'. Submit your stories correctly please.
  • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -27/+40It's an article with an interesting pov.. Just because it doesn't support conventional "HUMANS CAUSED IT ALLLLL" wisdom doesn't mean it's wrong.

    I also want to bring another point up I posted before.. It's historical fact that during the 1400s and for a few hundred more years the arctic ocean was warm water. I think because of this evidence, it's possible that global warming is in fact a natural cycle.
    And also when talking about g/w to my sister, it was mentioned that the areas where temperature has long been monitored are cities: which are increasing more and more with concrete paving- which raises the temperature of the air around it.
    • soichih, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11There is no evidence of "arctic ocean" ever being warm other than some unreliable indications from a few artifacts such as "Vinland Map". How do you account for deep layer of ice there which is at least 100k years or more. With current rate of melting, it is estimated that all of that will be gone by 2060. If warming during 1400 was real, it was no where near as warm as we are talking about it now.
      • ch4os1337, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1no actually it was hotter then it ways today. and the ocean is ***** big, it takes 1000s of years for the the whole ocean to be effected by any global change
        • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Somehow (and this might just be my ovine nature leading me to doom once more), I tend to believe oodles of scientists with doctorates over someone who can't even find the "shift" key and misspells "was."
      • elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Didn't you get your alarmist update? The polar caps are going to be gone in twenty years, now! It was on Digg yesterday, so it's true!
    • hamandcheese, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Firstly, passed coolering and warmings were cyclic: They were minute shifts in our orbit around the sun; that is why the temp rised before the C02. Now, as if the fact that C02 levels are higher than they have been, almost two fold, for at least the last 1/2 million years isn't enough, the C02 is actually coming /before/ the temp, causing it to rise from the green house effect, which is basically physics. This hasn't happened before. Therefore, its incorrect to say that globalwarming /like this/ has happened, because passed warming had quite different causes.
      • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2You're the type of person people on the caution side of this argument shouldn't want support from. Try learning a little more and appreciating how complex this issue really is. And I sincerely hope English isn't your first language.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Passed? Past? Learn the difference before you try to sound intelligent. Might want to add "coolering" to the dictionary as well.

        "They were minute shifts in our orbit around the sun; that is why the temp rised before the C02."

        As if these shifts won't continue to occur.

        "Now, as if the fact that C02 levels are higher than they have been, almost two fold, for at least the last 1/2 million years isn't enough, the C02 is actually coming /before/ the temp, causing it to rise from the green house effect, which is basically physics."

        Basic physics has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. As far as I know, Isaac Newton had no idea what the greenhouse effect is. More importantly, you claim CO2 is higher than it's been in the last 500,000 years. Naturally, my question is who gives a ***** when it was obviously even higher (than it is now) before then? Oh, right. Because now you state that CO2 isn't following temperature anymore.

        "Therefore, its incorrect to say that globalwarming /like this/ has happened, because passed warming had quite different causes."

        Because you say so. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that you've given me absolutely zero reason to.
        • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Basic physics has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect."

          As a physicist, I have to say that you have no idea what physics is. If you are talking about temperature and heat, then you are talking about physics, thermodynamics specifically.

          You should have taken your own advice about trying to sound intelligent.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Perhaps if his post was worded in proper English, I would be able to understand what he was trying to say, but the way I read it, he was saying that statistical analysis of temperature and CO2 trends has something to do with physics which, it doesn't.

          Or did you not even read his post and just went off the cuff about one little sentence taken out of context?

          Re-reading my post, I suppose I worded it extremely poor, and you're correct, I'm wrong in the literal statement "Basic physics has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect." But what I really meant was the trend he was describing.
    • Renton, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14The Earth does have a natural CO2 cycle, any scientist will tell you that. But industry increased the level of CO2 to higher than it ever was in human existence. Don't watch Fox news all day and make up half-assed hypothesises, go on wikipedia or something and do some research.
      • rajun50, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1yeah, go on wikipedia for your facts... almost as reliable as Fox News.
        • Renton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia is one of the few sources I know that _doesn't_ have a bias. Fox/NBC/ABC/KYW all have their own agenda and push their own opinions. Some more subtle than others.
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wikipedia totally has a bias in some articles and it's very apparent.

          The nice thing about Wikipedia though is that they have links for all the sources. So obviously Wikipedia is plenty accurate if the particular article has solid sources cited.
        • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you read something like a biography of some obscure junior high student that somehow has escaped notice, yeah, Wikipedia has a bias. In other areas, like issues that are the subject of current debate, I find that Wikipedia is very conservative in its presentation of facts and evidence, generally as up to date as any book I've ever read about the given subject, and almost always more balanced than any "news" source. Maybe those criticisms applied to Wikipedia a few years ago, but not anymore.
        • FLLawLibrarian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, folks. It is a good starting point, much like Google. If ANYONE can edit Wikipedia, then it simply can not be viewed as fact. Use your head and do some actual research... or better yet ask a librarian to do it for you.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And CO2 contributes to all of *what* percentage of the Earth's warming effect?

        I love these qualifiers that are tacked on when talking about CO2 levels: "...in human existance." "...in the last half million years." "...in recent history." You honestly think I don't notice you're purposely choosing a time frame that exaggerates the impact of your statement?
        • Renton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's because several hundred million years ago, a vast amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to volcanic activity and such. The sky was literally orange. And the Milankovitch cycles (the orbital changes of earth that affect CO2 levels at intervals of 100,000 years) were different than the ones of our era. Most of that carbon was adsorbed in plants, which died and was buried underground for millions of years until it turned into oil. By burning fossil fuels, we're putting that same carbon dioxide back into our atmosphere.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Do you ever consider posting some sources for your information, or do you expect everyone to automatically agree with everything you say?
          • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thinking people can look it up.
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Alegoo, I got to be honest with you. I realize you're trying to be discerning and I commend you for that but what is happening to the earth today is of an entirely different nature than anything that's ever happened before. It's incredibly serious. So much so that your future life and the lives of your family and friends may well depend on your improved understanding. Push past the politics and the personal views if you can and take a real look at the statistical information that's out there. What you're seeing today in the news is just the tip of the iceberg and things are escalating more quickly than scientists can properly measure. Not only might the natural world around you change so drastically that it becomes unbearable, but the infrastructure of our society will break down. The food will not be shipped to the grocery stores because the food won't be being produced on the same scale, the trucks won't be being maintained because their maintenance is dependent on the shipment of oil, on the production of parts and materials. The roads themselves will crumble in ruin because we won't have the resources to maintain them. Everything about your life, including whether or not you are even capable of surviving, is up in the air right now. And it all depends on whether you're willing to understand the real nature of this problem.
      • siZors, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1One of the most truthful things that I have read today
      • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I would like to add that the economy does not depend on people defending it against the threat of "eco-terrorists." If capitalism has proven anything, it is that human ingenuity will continue to advance amazing solutions to the problems posed to it, so long as government or the mob do not restrain the exercise of enterprise.

        Our economy (in the US) is currently in a Bad Place, and why? Because of ridiculous loan terms and the financial meltdown of countless individuals and organizations. Can anyone honestly say that legally demanding greater efficiency, greater personal responsibility, and an emphasis on frugality and sustainability is in any way inimical to capitalism?

        I view people hostile to the idea of immediate ecologically-sound policy with the same despair with which I view the corrupt upper class in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other oil-glut countries, who have squandered an incomprehensible amount of money instead of investing it in building a genuine, powerful economy for their people and themselves.

        I've bought catalogs and done the math -- I can build a house with no monthly water, heating, sewage, or electric bills, with every one of the frills of any other modern home, and every bit as attractive as any McMansion, for close to the cost of a normal home's construction, and even less if you are facing paying for power lines, water lines, and so forth out to a rural home. It pays for itself in five years or fewer, and after that it's pure profit and complete independence from natural gas, water, and electricity price transients. The money saved from those bills can pay your mortgage off in less than half the original term.

        I'm hardly a hippie moonbat -- I @#$%ing hate granola and I've never worn sandals in my life. This is just good economic sense. Reduce your dependence on as much as possible, and increase your assets as much as possible.
        • Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1the economies good now, what are you talking about?
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think anyone will disagree that there is a natural cycle to the earth's climate. What the jury has not settled yet is: are we contributing at all, and if we are, what type of negative impact is it having? In other words, we cannot help the earth from doing it's thing, but we can alleviate (or at least lessen) our contribution, because when temperatures fluctuate too much, even during natural cycles, farms die, droughts happen, people die, etc.
  • scottykempf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Lets cut down all the trees before they kill the planet. Oh, wait......

    Coming up at 6, When Trees Attack!!!
    • Dgen_X, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I read that the trees are already in this country...and they're organizing!

  • gODfall, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8global warming is just the earths cycle..or is it just a different way of saying ice age?
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4dumb humans are apparently part of the earths natural cycle. Whether the current warming is being fed by natural causes is a good argument. But whether humans are inadvertently creating an ever escalating global nightmare for our near future is not a good argument. It is an uncontested certainty. We are not just a contributer. By an overwhelming margin we are the actual cause.
  • Blarbo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Trees release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they are cut down, and capture carbon dioxide when they are alive. Anything else is just reflectivity with which we have no control.
    • InvisibleMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Trees release carbon dioxide when they burn or rot, not magically when they are cut down.
      • Blarbo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well duh.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Psst, InvisibleMan: Trees die when you cut them down.
        • ldkronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I've got lots of dead trees throughout my house (in the form of furniture) and none of them seem to be burning or rotting.
          • natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's a good thing they weren't, like, processed or anything but just magically became construction-quality lumber...
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ha ha ha, you guys are funny. Digg up kronos for supporting your argument and digg down nate for countering it with facts.

            Have you ever heard of "furniture refinishers?" The repair and restore the finish that is on virtually every piece of furniture made. That is why your furniture doesn't rot, because it's finished to prevent exactly that. That, and it's not exposed to the elements. I dare you to cut down a tree and leave it where it lay and see if it rots.

            I don't understand why you guys keep this up. Do you not care about facts at all? You just care about being right? Whoever has the most diggs wins, huh? Too bad reality isn't democratic.
          • ldkronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1natedouglas: I think you might have missed that fact that most wood that is cut down IS processed into construction quality lumber. Very little of it is used for burning, and even less gets cut down only to let it sit there and rot.

            rarson: the reason furniture doesn't rot isn't because of the finish, but simply because they are kept free of moisture. Wood won't decay if kept dry. Yes, the finish can help serve that purpose, but for the most part that isn't even necessary if the wood is kept indoors. I have plenty of unfinished wood in my house...some of it cut from raw tree limbs with no finish applied. After more than 10 years, I'm not seeing any rotting on it.

            I'm not supporting or refuting the premise of this article. It seems quite questionable, but the theory has some merit. I can't say whether its right or wrong. I was merely trying to clear up facts. You seemed to be saying that trees decay by virtue of being cut down. I was merely suggesting that is not entirely true.
  • SaII, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11next thing they'll say is liberals and commies have sex to make super anti bush ppl
    • Brassbud, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2That would explain the Kennedy family.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Most of Digg is ultra left liberal. And no one on Digg has ever had sex or ever will. so that blows your comment out of the water.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Right, that's why there's so many Ron Paul supporters on Digg, because he's ultra left liberal.

        Aside from that, his point is that Fox News is in the business of lying, so of course they're going to be wrong.
      • doublethrow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Saying Fox News is in the business of lying is like saying the Mafia is in the business of killing people. Both are in the business of making money, so thanks for watching!
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
    "Enter Frank Keppler. Working with colleagues from Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, Dr. Keppler has discovered that plants may give off significant amounts of methane just by growing. And the amount they give off appears to rise with temperature. The results have stunned many researchers because no one expected methane to form biologically out in the open air, where oxygen abounds."
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Great. So, anthropogenic climate change is causing Plants to release increased methane. Just great.
    • Nat3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1notice how you get buried...the main site has the word ECO in it...***** spinsters
  • fortressgame, on 10/10/2007, -18/+19"I also want to bring another point up I posted before.. It's historical fact that during the 1400s and for a few hundred more years the arctic ocean was w
    warm water. I think because of this evidence, it's possible that global warming is in fact a natural cycle."

    dumbass - just because there is a natural cycle does not mean we aren't causing the current problems, and that there is not serious consequences to what we are doing.

    my god, your ignorance of the science is astonishing.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Theres a reply link for a reason. See, I just used it.
    • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3"just because there is a natural cycle does not mean we aren't causing the current problems"

      What /current/ problems?
      • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3KMye, I'm guessing you don't live in a region that gets pummeled by hurricanes very much. Drought? Flooding? Bet there's some record snow falls coming up in January.
        • cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hurricanes, drought, and flooding have been going on for thousands of years. Record snow fall? By record, you mean only since they've been recording these things.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5fortress...doesn't mean there is any indisputable evidence to show that we ARE causing it either.
      • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It doesn't necessarily imply that there is... but there is, and you would know this if you had merely skimmed over the latest IPCC report.
        • cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0IPCC estimates a trivial 0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C warming during the Twentieth Century. Both the GHCN-ERSST Data Set and the HadCRUT2v Data Set record the period of the 19-teens through mid-1940s as having a global trend of +0.13 °C/decade for a net warming of 0.45 °C -- leaving a mere 0.15 °C ± 0.2 °C net warming potential for the post-WWII period of significant carbon emission from fossil fuel use.
        • cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hrm, I'm dugg down for presenting IPCC facts.
    • wdoyle0447, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3fortressgame: and what educational qualifications do you have on the subject? I suspect you just spew whatever you here from Al Gore and the rest of the environmentalists. In case you haven't heard not all scientists agree that global warming is real contrary to Al Gore's comments. Always remember numbers can be made to lie to fulfill the agenda of any group. Always be skeptical.
      • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3re: "In case you haven't heard not all scientists agree that global warming is real contrary to Al Gore's comments."

        Um, actually, they do. All the ones who I've seen that heartily dissented from the accepted theory were traced to political coercion.
        • cerealman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1All the ones who I've seen that heartily agree with the theory were traced to political coercion, too.
  • agann, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5positive proof of global warming [Picture]
    http://www.picturesinn.com/_positive_proof_of_global_warming_Picture
  • Taedirk, on 10/10/2007, -18/+61Dear Fox News,
    Shut the ***** up.

    Yours Truly,
    Everyone else
    • handy7390, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Speak for yourself and stop assuming all the global warming freaks know what they are talking about. Do some research idiot. Man is responsible for 2%, yes, 2% and of that is divided up by country then by offending machine. China is #1 and vehicles are so far down the list. ***** you idiots. Man "is not" responsible for global warming. THe earth is going through a typical expected cycle. I have done my research, now do yours.
    • joekool61, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0you must be one of those "well spoken" liberals!
    • jonnyboy1544, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dear Enviros,
      Al Gore isn't a scientist and global warming isn't as simple as you think.

      Best,
      Jonny Rational
  • HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Well it IS a documented fact that it would be better to cut down old growth forests and plant new ones.
    • Parker307, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It would be better if you were trying to cause allot of extinctions. And where is this forest study documented? Or is it just that two trees where measured and the conclusions were extrapolated from that to entire forests.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I understand the point your trying to make (the new forests would capture more CO2, and we would keep the wood (captured CO2)).

      Two basic problems there: The increase in CO2 captured would be a delta of the old and new forests, not the whole of the new -- the old forest was *STILL* absorbing CO2.

      Second problem: Do you really want a planet devoid of nature? If we mow down the old-growth forests, and replace them with tree-farms, you'll have a monoculture, no habitat for animals, insects, birds; no diversity of plant life, shrubs, understory trees and on and on and on.

      Old growth forests have value that isnt being considered in this argument.

      We have to greatly reduce our consumption, and try and live in a sustainable balance. We have to preserve some measure of the nature we have left -- if we dont, we will loose our humanity, and jeopardize the natural systems that we rely on.
      • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Thanks for being the only person to actually acknowledge the truth in what he was HUKI was saying. I think all he was pointing out was that fact, not actually saying we should do it. In fact, I think he was assuming that cutting down old growth to reduce carbon was such a ridiculous idea that no one would actually think he was proposing it. But, when you hit the intersection between digg and the ignorant, rabid part of the environmental movement, who knows what stupidity you'll find.
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0It's also been documented that ones head doesn't actually fit up ones ass. Never the less, you seem to be capable of defying that logic as well.

      I take it you're referring to some study talking about co2 output from trees or something? Do you have any idea what actually happens to landscapes and forests when you clear them?
      • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2CO2 output from trees? You're the type of ignorant idiot that's pushed the truly educated and concerned environmentalists like Patrick Moore out of the mainstream movement. He's absolutely right younger forests absorb more CO2 per year than a mature old growth stand. I don't think he was ever actually suggested we cut down the OG, though.
    • feckineejit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2HUKI shut the ***** up
    • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1After the old forest is cut down, the wood will eventually rot and release all its carbon dioxide into the air thereby negating any gain from the new forest. What your stating is just horse ***** made up by people who want to profit off the lumber.
  • nicksauce, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1500 internal server error
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10Any one with any common sense knows trees do not cause global warming. Before widespread human impact through deforestation occurred on the earth, there were far more trees and more tree coverage, and the temperature were LOWER. Trees capture sunlight and convert the light and heat into 'stored energy' through photosynthesis, which falls to the ground and is compacted. All those oil reserves that power your cars today, are these stored carbohydrate molecules that trees captures and stored. You take away these trees, and the energy hits the ground, warms the ground, and irradiates through the night (like blacktop pavement, for example) increasing the ambient heat.

    Apply a simple man's test: where is it cooler to stand? Out in the open sun, or underneath a shade tree? The more trees around your house, the cooler it is. Hold in your hand and find out which is cooler... a working leaf that has been sitting in the sun all day, or a piece of tin or a rock? Obviously, the leaf. Its working to capturing those photons and using the energy in photosynthesis, thereby reducing ambient global temperatures.

    Further you burn fossil fuels and you release these stored energies, and all the black top you lay down further captures this energy and irradiates it out during the day and night.
    • handy7390, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Common sense? Do YOU know the causes of global warming? H2O is #1. CO2 is #2, and Methane is #3.
    • KMye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4While I agree with you that trees are good for a variety of reasons, including lowering atmospheric CO2, if they're in the right latitudes at least, it's arguments like yours which make the /public/ side in support of agw caution just as laughable as extreme deniers. Like someone who claims CO2 has *no* impact on global temperatures, you've some facts wrong, and are trying to use your intuition in others places where scientific studies have already proved your assertions wrongs. Ahhh, ***** it, no more gw debates for me on digg, I can't take it.
  • brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5...but dead and dying plants (maybe they mean termites too) actually do release CO2... admittedly a moot point when you account for their obvious benefit. The statement here is not false. Are we also going to dump on the media when they talk about the effects of volcanos and other natural phenomenon?
  • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -12/+12Actually the science that points to people being the cause of global warming seems like it is not solid science. Believe it or not it seems like this is disinformation. Here is a massive report that debunks Al Gore's claims:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf

    The truth is that the Sun seems to be largest cause for global warming:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You'll still be thinking that when.., oh right, you'll be dead like the rest of us.
    • mriegger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Solanki

      "But the same research has been quoted as being evidence for global warming in a News release from the Max Planck Society[11] where he is quoted as saying:

      "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
    • ch4os1337, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3thank you, for posting this
    • bones09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Monckton's report has been debunked numerous times. Here's a tidbit of what The Guardian had to say about him:

      "He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth"."

      You can read more information on the author and the actual article here:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1947245,00.html

      Physicist Mark Trodden at the "Cosmic Variance" blog also points out a part of Monckton's article that should even tip off those of us who aren't scientists (the first paragraph is a quote from Monckton's article):

      " The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann’s law, lambda’s true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN’s scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that’s 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN’s computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

      Now here’s where you should smell a rat immediately. Could it really be the fact that an important ingredient in the frightening implications of climate models is that scientists from many institutions are deliberately violating the laws of physics to arrive at the conclusions they desire? Well, possibly, I guess. But you wouldn’t want to entertain such a far-fetched hypothesis until you’d done a rudimentary check of the actual methodology, accompanied by, oh I don’t know, a scientist perhaps."

      http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/11/14/the-perils-of-poor-science-journalism/
  • bluefaced01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Kill the trees, save the earth!
  • Brassbud, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3True or not, Global Warming in politics exists solely to convince the public that their money would be better off in the hands of someone else.
    • samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Oh, sure, me installing solar panels and becoming self reliant so I can be independent is all about me giving away my money. riiiiiiiight.
      • doublethrow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0You won't do that, because you'd rather sit behind a keyboard and b1tch about how unfair the world is.
    • joekool61, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0AMEN brother!!!
  • omenmedia, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Dead servers cause global warming.
  • PacketScan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Fox... WT? I'm Floored...
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Holly crap what utter f'ing nonsence.. What the hell are they smoking.. I want some :)
    • addicted68098, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually inhaling, fumes from SUV exhaust and massive quantities of tag perfume.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0They are giving he results of an independent study you stupid ***** moron.
  • sanfelice4, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6has anyone ever seen Dennis Miller talk about global warming on the Half Hour News Hour? It was absolutely ridiculous, fox news should be ashamed to have someone on air speak on a topic they are so uninformed on...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ
    • handy7390, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1You are uniformed.
    • jkhoch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Dennis Miller is a comedian and an unemployed sportscaster. He's probably about as qualified as Al Franken and Janine Garofalo to speak on the subject.
      • Thadster, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3And Al Gore is informed? Whats he up to now? Oh yes, shucking carbon credits like a circus carny. Cashing in on the hysteria called Global Warming...he is a great swindler...
        • DUSTOFF101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hey! Dont put down the digger's lord and savior here!

          May the purchase of many carbion offsets be your only salvation!
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14but i thought there was no global warming. make up your mind fox.
    fox news causes global stupidity.
  • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Don't let them divert your attention. Focus on upending the political regime. Be smarter than they expect you to be.

    "Arguing with a fool is just two fools arguing."
  • atb12688, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I believe that solar activity is the cause of the recent warming. There are many natural sources for CO2 that have been around much, much longer than humans.

    If you only use science and data that support your claims of course it is going to seem legit...
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Solar irradiance forcing is in all the models. It cannot account for the warming trends. Read the latest IPCC report.
      • joekool61, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1so your reports are correct, but our reports our always wrong???
  • DannySpace, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5DAMNIT! I'll do my part and start chopping down as many as I can ASAP! We have to all work together to stop Global Warming... Thanks for the heads-up FOX!
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And dont forget all those bad things Iranians have ever done to America. Dont you remember that attack of 1995 when the Iranians bombed the White House? Remember? We must stop their evil ways.

      Meanwhile, let's give 20 BILLION to Saudi Arabia, dont forget a whole 30% of the 911 terrorists DIDNT come from Saudi Arabia! So Saudi Arabia deserves this money!

      Our true enemies are IRAQ and IRAN... Of course, obviously...because they.... uh..... well.........

      damn Americans are stupid. I thought Germans were dumb in the 40s for believeing hitler when he said Dutch terrorists had attacked Germany... guess I was wrong.
  • evo8ftw, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I am willing to bet not a single one of you wacko global warming nuts can tell me what releases the most CO2 in to the atmosphere!
    • DannySpace, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Your mother?
    • DukeMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I believe the answer is O'Reilly's big mouth.
    • bushoncrack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3right wing ***** offs in their hummers?
      • Thadster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0John Edwards in his 30,000sqft house? His multiple SUVS?
        • DUSTOFF101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey! Do as I say, not as I do! Besides, he's buying "Carbon Offsets!"

    • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Plant life takes in the most CO2 and releases the most as well but that is a closed cycle system so their is no increase of CO2. Humans dig coal and pump oil out of the ground and burn it but humans don't take any CO2 out of the atmosphere so we are increasing it.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Read this http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide and shut the ***** up.
  • drlha, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981. This is an old Republican Party chesnut.
    • munen123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5ronald reagan the worst president until this one...

      monkey boy sure was good at reading those lines they put in front of him.

      actors make good usable presidents; also lazy coke snorting, draft dodging, drunks make good presidents too....
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21981 he was still snorting coke and prety much well into his Alzheimers. Yeah, go Republicans. Great leader there.
  • hufflepuff17, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3fox is absolutely right, those freakn liberal hippies have been trying to hide the truth all these years with their tree hugging, and i hope we all know global warming was always a made up story just like the other stories they have made up before about sasquatch
    • DannySpace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why is everybody always so down on Sasquatch? Hasn't he suffered enough?
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3At first I laughed. Then I realized you were serious, and I felt sad for you. Then I was unsure if you were sarcastic or not.

      Thank you for making me experience a great mixture of emotions. I give your comment a 8 out of 10.
  • limeaid, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3When are you idiots going to stop pushing this global warming religion
    give it up - join the rest of the population - stop blaming people and industry for all your problems
    My favorite part is how you manage to bring a news channel into it and make it a partisan problem
    You wonder why no one takes it serious

    thanks
    HTH
    • zeusthemoose, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Um sorry to break it to ya diggeroo, but a majority of the population believes in global warming. No one is taking YOU serious.
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/opinion/polls/main2731709.shtml

      thanks
      • limeaid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's not about global warming - its about what's causing it
        take your little piss ant polls you idiots are always quoting and file it with the rest of the tree hugging disinformation you pipe down people throats
        You don't know what's causing it - you don't know if anything we do can make a difference
        once you realize that and stop making it a party line issue maybe everyone can work together to towards a common goal
        HTH

      • Thadster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So thats why algores live earth was such a flop right? What about DiCaprio's movie? Flopping as well. The Global Warming jig is up. The consensus of scientists? Half now are backing away from the hysteria. Global warming might be taken more seriously if it was presented a little more believably.
    • DUSTOFF101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FTA: Nearly half of Americans believe global warming is having a serious impact now

      So how do you get "majority" from "nearly half"? *****, i wish more things worked like that! "What do you mean I have to pay in full? I paid the majority of it! Nearly half in fact!"

      And 1052 people represents a nation of millions? Do you really give any "poll" by any media that much credit?

      You have to remember, no matter which side of the "line" you are on, they are only selling advertising. How do you get people to look at your sponsors? "Report" on sensational topics. "Global Warming" as it's marketed currently is a scam.
  • NewOntario, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Look at it this way. When the polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise, hopefully these kinds of idiots don't know how to swim.
    • Thadster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Yeah a maximum of 20 inches of water along the coastline over 100 years, what fool could cope with that?
      • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Many Coastlines erode naturally more than an inch a year. One such is Cape Cod near me. That has nothing to do with global warming and it is still much more of a loss of coastline than you mentioned. You clearly know nothing.
  • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6the 1st segment was about methane. the significant way for trees to cause lots of methane is when they are clear cut and left to rot away (attracting termites). this happens a lot right now in parts of South America. they clear out some of the pesky rain forest so they can have more feedlot cattle. look it up, places like McDonald's get most of their beef from South America these days.

    the 2nd segment implied that if we eliminate trees, that the sun's energy would be reflected off things like mountains and go back into space and therefore lower the global temperature. that's insane. a "nuclear winter" is effectively the same thing, and it's really bad. there is no thermostat for the Earth that can be tweaked at our whim.
  • InuX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1o man, i can't wait to hear what Bill Oreilly has to say about this...
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's YOUR fault Bill Oreilly will say for voting against Bush and being unpatriotic by doubting anything fox says or Bush says.
      • Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0WTF?

        Spoken like someone who pays no attention to what actually happens on FOX.

        Saying O'reilly is pro-bush, is the height of ignorance.
  • addicted68098, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I don't care about global warming, I believe we are polluting the air in a dangerous and unsubstantiateble way,
    • ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm in the same boat, whether global warming is real or not all the ***** we're pumping into the atmosphere is literally killing people and causing all kinds respiratory health problems. Although. I do believe global warming is quite real and I'm sick and tired of the continued attempts to keep spreading disinformation in hopes of making people think there's still a real debate going on about it.
    • Rileyper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What do you mean by we
  • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Their agenda is so blatant it's ridiculous. They aren't trying to get people to support trees = global warming... they just want people to believe that there is a great deal of doubt about anything and everything related to global warming. Once they have that they can repeat phrases like "We just don't know about global warming to take definitive action and it isn't worth destroying our economy on such an unproven science". Then they can continue their gluttonous lifestyles without condemnation.
  • odweeds, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2***** off fox news!!!!!!!
  • DukeMojo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So according to Fox News, global warming doesn't exist but trees cause it. Nice.
  • SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3OH NO! I used to belong to an organization called the "Tree People" and we went around to schools and enlisted kids to help us plant 1 million new trees in the Los Angeles area. I guess you can also blame me and the innocent school kids for Global Warming now. Or maybe it's just that FOX News isn't aware that trees provide shade and keep places cooler, instead of absorbing and holding all of the sun's heat (shade is a must for concrete jungles like Los Angeles).
    • doublethrow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That the hell are you doing on Digg. This board is for complainers, not action takers. Please leave.
  • Bostocks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love the animation in the second clip where it shows how Canada could be completly frozen over if we cut down all the trees.
    • maxhrk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that what i thought... just as you said. hmm.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.