What is Digg?382 Comments
- reeder, on 10/10/2007, -26/+99Wow, Fox News is out of control.
Just disgusting. - MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -16/+81Fox News causes Global Warming. All that hot air, etc.
- kiwikultist, on 10/10/2007, -12/+74Great... now the US government is gonna launch a War on Trees
- j1337, on 10/10/2007, -8/+66Curses! I knew them trees was causin' this!
- SwissCamel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+53They do when you set fire to them.
- Taedirk, on 10/10/2007, -18/+61Dear Fox News,
Shut the ***** up.
Yours Truly,
Everyone else - AlexWills, on 10/10/2007, -4/+46The same CO2 that they absorbed in the first place.
- dicerandom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33And why do trees burn?
Because they're made of ducks. - TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36How about you watch the video again and see the included comment, directly quoting the study:
"In a press release published three days before the Editorial Report aired, the study's authors pointed out that human-caused emissions -- not natural emissions -- "are responsible for the well-documented increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane since pre-industrial times." The authors added that plant emissions do not contribute to "the recent temperature increase known as 'global warming.'" - TremorX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Better stay indoors, we're at Foliage Alert Level Alpine
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19which is re-absorbed when the plants (or in this case leaves) grow back.
- TridenTBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Cut them down!!!
- cankillar, on 10/10/2007, -14/+28Deciduous trees have an effect on the environment, because rotting leaves produce huge amounts of CO2.
- 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!!! - 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.
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15The 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.
- 28dayslater, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15and burn them?
- 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.
- Alegoo92, on 10/10/2007, -27/+39It'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. - 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." - wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Take that conventional wisdom
- 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. - EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Do trees cause 500 Internal Server Errors as well?
- 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. - DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14but i thought there was no global warming. make up your mind fox.
fox news causes global stupidity. - 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.) - moock, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11There's a reason Fox News has that reputation.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Theres a reply link for a reason. See, I just used it.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/ - battletrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Cut them down! We don't need that oxygen stuff anyways!"
- marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10TOLD!
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's funny, conservatives blame business "cycles" whenever they ruin the economy, too.
- 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.
- soichih, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12There 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - zeusthemoose, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9***** moron
- WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6He said "the", not "a". He was asking for a description of where the ad hominom fallacy in this case.
Maybe google can teach you to parse articles. - 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.
- 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. - Parker307, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7What is the ad hominom fallacy?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 ) - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Note that Fox's critics generally watch it via YouTube - no advertising dollars there.
- DannySpace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why is everybody always so down on Sasquatch? Hasn't he suffered enough?
- samcrut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't watch it. I just read about how they ***** up again on the web.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 368 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is