digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

$45 trillion needed to combat warming

news.yahoo.com — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tman84, on 06/06/2008, -57/+120More and more the Global Warming scam is becoming like a religion. Just like God, Global Warming needs your help and it needs that help in the form of your money.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 06/06/2008, -11/+35While I also believe man-made global warming, the initiative has some goals that I can definitely agree with, such as, "build some 1,400 nuclear power plants".

      Congress needs to clear the books of much anti-nuclear legislation, which has driven the cost of nuclear power sky-high. However, I fear that, if Obama becomes president and the Democrats retain control of Congress, this will never happen.

      Nuclear is the new green.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 06/06/2008, -15/+35sorry, meant to say that I believe man-made global warming is a fallacy.
        • EricSchC1, on 06/06/2008, -16/+7And thats why I dugg you down. Sorry! Saying that you think its a fallacy doesn't make it true or even prove-able.
        • brstilson, on 06/06/2008, -1/+12I believe the new comment system allows you to undo a digg or bury.
        • humperdeath, on 06/06/2008, -5/+7It is really true, that man is a small part of the 'global warming'. This is a natural cycle that has been going on for billion years. A single large Volcano eruption puts out 1000x more CO gas than all the cars ever produced ever did. (ie. Mt Pinatubo) Even the ozone hole grows and shrinks on a continuous cycle, always did, always will.
        • WasabiBomb, on 06/06/2008, -7/+4See, now, this is one of the reasons why I DO believe that we're causing global warming- because people like you keep bringing up false "facts" to refute it. It's very similar to "nicotine doesn't cause cancer".

          Volcanoes don't put out anywhere NEAR as much CO2 as humans do:
          http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?request ...

          The really sad thing is that your little factoid keeps coming up in every global warming thread.
        • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -5/+2humperdeath: "A single large Volcano eruption puts out 1000x more CO gas than all the cars ever produced ever did. (ie. Mt Pinatubo)"

          Source?

          "Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."

          http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli ...

        • jj2me, on 06/06/2008, -2/+5Finite. The earth and its resources are not infinite

          If we had no studies whatsoever, wouldn't one surmise that the changes man has made to the balance of the planet might affect the planet somewhat?

          117 people per square mile of earth. At what point would it be obvious, *even with no studies*, that man can affect the planet's balance? One person per square foot?

          I can never understand people that can be so sure that man-made global warming is a fallacy, given that common sense and practical experience show that too many of anything (e.g., too many people) by definition upsets the balance.

          And the cynical side of me says that deniers gain something. They want to believe in spite of common sense and studies. It's convenient for their lifestyle.

          And some percentage of deniers are fearful people. Fearful people need to deny. They are generally not problem solvers, so are uncomfortable with problems Denying allows them to stop thinking, and thus stop fearing yet another thing in life that makes them feel out of control.

          Being skeptical of man-made global warming is a fine and valid view. Certainty is impossible and is against all common sense--man's impact has been tremedous to the balance of this planet, thus man-made global warming could very well be true.
        • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2WasabiBomb. "nicotine doesn't cause cancer".
          I'm pretty sure that nicotine doesn't cause cancer (directly) but that rather all the bad stuff in the cigarette does.
          Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33023.php

          What was I going to say...
          Oh yeah. That study has very big errors. I mean, 34+/-24 and 31+/-22. I think it would be hard to show that those figures are statistically significant. If I could find where to read the paper rather than the abstract, I could tell you if it is. Damn not being at Uni anymore.
        • humperdeath, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Google. There are about as many sites claiming the global warming is man made, as there are sites claiming it is largely a naturally occurring cycle. So, pick a side.
          OK, here is a specific example: "Recent measurements at Mammoth Mountain indicate that the total rate of CO2 gas emission is close to 300 tons per day. This value varies on both short (days to weeks) and long (months to years) time scales because of changes in atmospheric conditions and in the rate at which gas is being released from beneath the volcano.

          Past eruptions at Mammoth Mountain, such as the phreatic (steam blast) eruptions that occurred about 700 years ago on the volcano’s north flank, may have been accompanied by CO2 emissions. Scientists think that the current episode of high CO2 emissions is the first such activity on the mountain for at least 250 years because the oldest trees in the active tree-kill areas are about that age. Carbon-isotopic analyses of the annual growth rings in trees near the margins of the tree-kill areas imply that the gas-emission rate reached a peak in 1991, subsequently declined, and then has been relatively stable since about 1996.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Historically, every time we've said, "well, I think you're nuts, but I like some of your legislation." we get things put into law that we regret.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 06/06/2008, -14/+20And unfortunately, this church of the Earth is mixed very heavily with the state. We must follow blindly what the "priests" (Al Gore, etc.) tell us to do and give them more and more money to take away our guilt and "save" us.
    • cypriss9, on 06/06/2008, -24/+16Global Warming is not a scam. It is not a political or financial ploy. It is evidence-based research from objective scientists. Whether or not politicians get their hands on it or not, this does not change scientific facts.

      Let me ask you: If you thought that man-made global warming and its consequences had even a 50% chance of happening, what kind of actions and policies would a truly altruistic person take?
      • drmangrum, on 06/06/2008, -11/+18It is a scam. For every scientist that says humans are the sole cause of climate change there is one willing to refute it. There is no smoking gun. Never was. The entire fiasco start when a politician got a piece of the puzzle and ran with it before the he saw the complete picture.

        Fact: The earth goes through heating and cooling cycles.

        The only evidence to support man-made global warming is correlated data. As has been said MANY times on Digg, Correlation != Causation.
        • gordeaoux, on 06/06/2008, -4/+10It simply isn't true that the only evidence to support man-made global warming is correlated data. The fact is that all other known causes have been eliminated as the sole driving factor for the current warming. When you say you don't believe in global warming, you are saying that NASA doesn't know how to read a thermometer.

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

          And I'd be interested in seeing all the scientists willing to refute global warming.
        • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -5/+5If Nasa could tell the difference between an inch and a centimeter than I would trust that they could read a thermometer.
        • drmangrum, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5@gordeaoux

          No, What I said was, I don't believe humans are the SOLE cause of climate change. You also don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Are temperatures higher than 40 years ago? yes. Are human responsible? Possibly, but if so , I don't think we're the only cause.

          "Leading" scientists told us we were going to have a global cooling trend in the '70's In the late 80's and early 90's it was all the rage for them to claim global warming. Just a few months ago, another report said to be prepared for cooler temperatures of the next few years. So which is it?
        • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5"It is a scam. For every scientist that says humans are the sole cause of climate change there is one willing to refute it."

          Source? Aside from the fact you mischaracterize most scientists as believing humans are the *sole* source of global warming I think you'll have a hard time doing it.

          You'll most likely point me to the Petition Project ( http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm ), which has been thoroughly debunked here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...

          Some choice quotes:

          "The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support.""

          "The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center.""

          "only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

          "environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce...and names of non-persons, such as company names."

        • BigManOnCampus, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2You need to listen to yourself more Gordeaux...

          "The fact is that all other known causes have been eliminated as the sole driving factor for the current warming."

          The key word there is "SOLE" driving factor. So what you're saying is that for the group of people who think that the climate system has only one major driving factor, they've eliminated all other known factors, and the only thing left which is probably the hardest to quantify is left. That is utterly meaningless. The climate system has COUNTLESS variables and COUNTLESS driving factors that in concert dictate what will happen next. By definition it cannot have a sole driving factor, making it impossible that Mankind is that sole driving factor. Since Man is one of many factors that drive climate, the onus is on the alarmists to prove that Man is the major driving force. They have not done so, they cannot do so. They cannot even effectively measure how much CO2 is coming from mankind. We know how much atmospheric CO2 has gone up, that we can measure. But this planet has CO2 stored in it's surface and water, and it has "breathed" CO2 in and out over it's life, so we don't even know for sure how much CO2 man is throwing into the air. We can only estimate based on consumption.
        • gordeaoux, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1BigManOnCampus and drmangrum: you guys are getting waaayyy to hung up on the word 'sole.' I meant (and you can infer this from it's context) sole as in 'primary' driving factor. Of course there are many variables and many complex systems.

          My point was two-fold: 1. That there is plenty of evidence to support human-caused climate change 2. Other factors alone cannot account for the recent global warming trend.

          "They cannot even effectively measure how much CO2 is coming from mankind."
          I don't know where you got that idea. NASA believes they can in fact effectively measure CO2:
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

          ""Leading" scientists told us we were going to have a global cooling trend in the '70's"
          To which I say "'Leading' scientists told us we were going to die if we didn't drill holes in our heads to let out the demons in the 1400's"
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr ...
      • utahnkid, on 06/06/2008, -3/+9That's scary logic man. The same kind that lets politicians sleep at night who raid homes without warrants, wiretap innocent civilians' homes, and hold "terrorists" without trial.

        If you knew that wiretapping, water boarding, and not wasting time with warrants before arrests could reduce the chances of a second 9/11 by 50%, what kind of actions and policies would a truly altruistic person take?

        The ends DO NOT justify the means my friend.
      • ErikHarrison, on 06/06/2008, -7/+1Just invest in green tech and shut the ***** up. Unless you are a climate expert, you aren't one. Using Digg as your informational source is laughable. What killed the dinosaurs? The same ***** that we are taking from the ground and putting right back into the atmosphere. I'm no expert, but that is more sane logic than the ***** that you two ***** above me just typed.
        • mcquitty, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Oil killed the dinosaurs? I thought oil was dinosaurs (and decayed plant material).
        • BigManOnCampus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1No dinosaurs for oil!!
        • Klaatu14, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0You're not an expert? I never would have guessed.
      • doctechnical, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6"Let me ask you: If you thought that man-made global warming and its consequences had even a 50% chance of happening, what kind of actions and policies would a truly altruistic person take?"

        I would spend money ON RESEARCH. Research into both sides of the argument, pro and con. Before I waste trillions of dollars of money on a "solution" I want to be 100 mother-*****-percent sure that their IS a problem.

        Let's keep doing research. The science is NOT settled, the debate is NOT over. And given the cooling trend that's happened over the past decade (this May was the coldest one in the past 20 years), I think we can afford to take the time to be sure.
        • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2"I want to be 100 mother-*****-percent sure that their IS a problem."

          Nothing is 100% certain in Science. If your threshold for action is that high nothing will ever get done, even when it is critical that action be taken.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Since it is true that nothing is 100% certain in science, the criticality of the perceived emergency isn't even 100%. In other words, even assuming science has models that say "X" will happen, the uncertainty also applies to the degree of the event, which compounds the error in trying to determine how critical it is to act.
        • init100, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2"Before I waste trillions of dollars of money on a "solution" I want to be 100 mother-*****-percent sure that their IS a problem."

          The problem is that science never gives you an answer that is 100% correct. By your standards, we should never do anything, since we are never going to be 100% certain.

          "And given the cooling trend that's happened over the past decade (this May was the coldest one in the past 20 years), I think we can afford to take the time to be sure."

          A local cooling trend where you live does not imply a global cooling trend. This May has been very hot here in Sweden.
        • utahnkid, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1init100: Are you slow or just ignorant? Science NEVER gives a 100% correct answer?

          What happens if I drop a ball ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME?
        • gordeaoux, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1utahnkid: so you can predict - down to the atomic level - the exact spot and time a ball will land ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME? The ball will fall to the ground every time (on earth) but there is a level of precision that is impossible to measure (impossible by today's standards) due to the uncertainty principle.
    • DavidJustus, on 06/06/2008, -13/+7It's nice to know that not everyone on digg has been brain-washed by network news/liberal propaganda/digg
    • Fallout911, on 06/06/2008, -16/+15Unlike God global warming is real *****.
      • gofalcons, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5Yeah, it is, but it's not man-made, *****.
        • angryredplanet, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1If you admit that it exists, then you cannot deny human activities, which we know release greenhouse gases, don't play a part in it's scale. That's like saying forests exist, but logging doesn't reduce their size.

          There is no scientific evidence that God does or doesn't exist. You can hold an opinion, but you cannot hold any certainty either way.
    • Slovenian6474, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4You can build an Annihilatrix for less than $45 trillion. Global warming cured...BOOSH!
      • humperdeath, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4That amount should buy one big-ass air conditioner, and blow the hot air up to about 38,000 feet, where it is always mighty cold.
        • init100, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Actually, the air at 38,000 feet has a higher potential temperature than the air at sea level. This means that if you take some air from that altitude and compress it to sea level pressure, that air would be warmer than the surrounding air. The reason for the perceived coldness at those high elevations is because of the low density of the air, nothing else.
    • Shiftgood, on 06/06/2008, -8/+6Soooooooooooo.... there is this thing... for ***** sake we'll call it the Carbon Cycle... and lets say, that it has a natural flow from the earth to the surface to the sky and then back down to the earth.

      Then say... we take all of the carbon out of the ground from these big carbon chain deposits we call... oil fields and we burn it and throw it up in the air. And not just a little... like... a lot... so much you can even see it. (and its only a gas)

      So now its sitting up there in the air, and the cycle cant work fast enough to put it into the ground.

      Then lets say, that these carbon molecules have a molecular resonance that say..... absorbs certain wavelengths... from... the sun... and keeps them. (you know, like magic and stuff, not science)

      wouldn't all this absorbed energy then be transfered into the surrounding environment? i don't think so! and you wanna know why? because of jesus. and pussy liberals. thats why. Because i hate other people (moreover; myself and my own life)... therefore science is wrong.

      *ok, just a disclaimer, i dont think thats the ONLY source of GW. im sure its a large combination of things including warming and cooling trends, solar output and some other stuff we havent even thought of/ are in control of.

      • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3I think most people agree that there is Global Warming, and those who know the science understand the theory. But they just aren't convinced that man-made processes have a greater effect on the atmosphere than natural processes.
      • Zarchon, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4ok, so let's say that you are right about global warming. Now, since our contribution is less than 3% of the greenhouse gases, let's say we do cut our emissions by 50%. How much do you think a 1.5% decreases in greenhouse gases is going to do to halt global warming? Then again, the world really isn't as overheated as you think. The last two years have been cooler than average.
        • Shiftgood, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Pre-industrial Revolution vs. Current (post industrial) % increase in GHGs.

          C02 = +37%
          Methane = +150%
          Nitrous Oxide = +16%

          and yes, i know water is considered the largest GHG, but it has a lifespan of days before it returns to the earth where as methane or CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for very long periods of time. Thats probably whats driving down your human emission percentage.

          besides.. you're looking at 2 years?! a very small slice of time. Thats like saying... what kind of food do you eat? oh well you had Fruit Loops for breakfast, that must be all this guy eats.


    • omababy, on 06/06/2008, -9/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
    • pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -8/+12is that like the evolution scam? those evil scientists are always trying to fool us.
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Evolution is a theory just like man-made global warming. However man made global warming is quickly turning into a new religion. "GIVE US MONEY AND WE'LL PROTECT YOU!!!!" It's all fear mongering, just like religion and this "war on terror". Those in government will do anything to increase their wealth and power and they know all they have to do is keep us afraid of everything to do it.
    • ICSU, on 06/06/2008, -4/+1Those money are going to be invested and spent on alternative sources. Just like you would spend them on oil and suddenly be ***** when it runs out.
    • xrevision, on 06/06/2008, -7/+5The temperature has dropped something like .7 degrees celsius over the past decade, while Carbon dioxide levels have only gone up.
    • Jorin, on 06/06/2008, -5/+3Global warming is like god. Good one.
    • hfactor, on 06/06/2008, -9/+7Is today Denial Day? I can't believe how much the anti-scientific movement in the US has already achieved...
      If you believe in "Global Warming is a scam" now, you'll regret it far more than you regret your belief in "Iraq has WMD" today. Read international newspapers, please.
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2"YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IT AND GIVE US MONEY AND POWER OVER YOUR LIFE OR YOU'LL BE SORRY BECAUSE OF THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!" Yep, sounds like religion to me.
        • angryredplanet, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1There is no peer reviewed papers or references to such in your comment. That clearly shows that there you cling to your belief even though the majority of the scientific data and scientific opinion indicates otherwise.

          So, who sounds like the religious fanatic?

          Do yourself a favour and get educated. You make yourself appear as a jackass otherwise.
        • gofalcons, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Here we go again with the peer reveiwed crap. Yes, like-minded people reading over eachother's work, I can see how that would be completely unbiased. For the right amount amount of money you can get anyone to say or do anything. I say again, if the government was giving me a huge grant to study global warming and it's effect on dogs licking their balls, I'd believe in it too. It's has nothing to do with science and everything to do with human nature and money. Try getting that through your head or you just sound like a mindless jackass.
          Oh, and by the way, for every one scientist you can get to agree with your religion, I can show you one who strongly disagrees. I don't blame you though, Christians have scientists who have "proven" Christianity is true too.
        • angryredplanet, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1"Here we go again with the peer reveiwed crap. Yes, like-minded people reading over eachother's work, I can see how that would be completely unbiased."

          They are not "like-minded" they are from the same scientific discipline. There is a big difference there. You and I could both be physicists but have vastly different opinions on the driving forces behind the uncertainty principle. Do you propose we throw in some amateurs to smooth out any bias? I say leave the science to the scientists.

          "For the right amount amount of money you can get anyone to say or do anything. I say again, if the government was giving me a huge grant to study global warming and it's effect on dogs licking their balls, I'd believe in it too."

          Your first comment is true. The only problem with your conspiracy theory is that there are too many organisations and scientists with the same consensus: AGW is real and needs to be addressed now. I'm sorry, but the whole "Government is bankrolling opinion for the drafting of a new tax" is just paranoid crack pottery. Given the amount of money the US spends on it's war machine and conflicts for oil, I doubt there's enough left to pay off most climate scientists and organisations.

          "It's has nothing to do with science and everything to do with human nature and money. Try getting that through your head or you just sound like a mindless jackass."

          What? My arguments are clear and are backed up by the consensus of scientists and the scientific data. Your arguments however are based on, well, nothing. That makes which one of us the mindless jackass?

          "Oh, and by the way, for every one scientist you can get to agree with your religion, I can show you one who strongly disagrees. I don't blame you though, Christians have scientists who have "proven" Christianity is true too."

          Now you are clutching at straws by using ad hominem to discredit me instead of my arguments because you know your conspiracy theory doesn't hold water and is based in nothing but irrationality. Christianity, or any other religion of choice, has nothing to do with this at all. You need to look at the evidence - it's not hard to find and has been dumbed down to a level where most can understand and absorb it.
        • gofalcons, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_t ...

          Took me five minutes. Nice try to discredit me by using the words conspiracy theory. Yes, the time for debate is over, let's stop looking at if we're causing it or not and just start giving them money already. Because giving the government money solves everything. Government is like Jesus, it's our savior and all we need to do is give money and believe in it and everything will be alright. I'm not wasting anymore time arguing with you, just google "scientist who don't agree with man-made global warming". Or else you can just keep believe the world is gonna end and the only way to save it is to pay. "THE RAPTURE IS COMING AND JESUS IS GONNA TAKE US ALL!!!!11 IF YOU DON'T BELEIVE HORRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!" Go ahead and believe and give money to your religion all you want, my whole point is don't try to force me to.
    • cmapes2, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2SEE!! Look how bad our SUV's are polluting the planet!

      http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

      Now we are even causing Pluto to have global warming!
      Quick, everyone give the government 100% control of their lives and all their money before its too late!!
    • Ortheos, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2How is man made global warming like religion when one can pull ones head out of ones arse, read a few hundred peer reviwed papers on the subject backed up by extensive on-site experimental evidence and data and know that in the past 100 years average temps have gone up due to human activity.

      I had to do this for my uni geography degree, nonetheless, even though it was tiresome and boring, it showed me just how idiotic so many people truly are. If you want to be a skeptic fine, but at least educate yourself beforehand, so you don't end up looking like a grade-A-Moron.
  • Rich711, on 06/06/2008, -20/+63So they need $45 trillion dollars so that they can force companies to produce less CO2 and in effect less product costing even more money. So what will the REAL total cost end up being?

    Then how much will it cost to combat activist lawsuits before we even built these 1400 nuclear power plants? And then there were the environmentalist that shut down California's wind power project because seagulls were getting killed in the windmills...
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 06/06/2008, -9/+27Tell the environmentalists to either not use power or shut up.....There are more than enough seaguls on this planet. Just ask any fisherman....
    • phatcat77, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Well screw that, I'm putting my 45+ trillion dollars into a fancy space colony were I don't have to worry about your crappy CO2.
    • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -6/+1"So they need $45 trillion dollars so that they can force companies to produce less CO2 and in effect less product costing even more money. So what will the REAL total cost end up being?"

      No, that's the total investment amount needed by both government AND the private sector. Try actually reading the article next time. Less than $0.50 per day per person.
      • Rich711, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3So does that also cover the expense of every person that loses their jobs as companies make cut backs to afford this new expense or the layoffs that come when companies have to cut back production because they're met their CO2 cap and have to outsource the work to exempt countries or developing countries who's cap has more room like India, China and Russia.

        What those of you who dont understand capitalism dont understand is businesses dont need anyone telling them they should produce less CO2. CO2 is a result of fuel burned which is most companies biggest expense, the more efficient a company is the more profit they make. It's why factories in capitalist countries are more fuel efficient in the first place.

        And why giving capitalist countries CO2 caps so they must outsource production to developing nations (with less efficient factories ) is even worse for the environment. And why even former Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore was been against CO2 regulation and Kyoto from the beginning.
        • EtherGnat, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1You do realize this article had nothing to do with cap and trade programs right?

          Also, if you accept that C02 emissions are harmful (and I have no desire to debate that here) then it's no different than regulations that prevent lead based paint in toys or dumping toxic waste into the river. Making a profit is not a blank check to do whatever harm you like to the environment.
        • Rich711, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2No I don't accept that CO2 emissions are harmful. Al Gore's own chart has been address to prove the opposite. That temperature increase occurs before global co2 increase. Temperature drives co2 levels so co2 levels can not be the main driver of temperature. If greenhouse theory is true, which has yet to be proven co2 can not be the major contributor. (water vapor being the most likely)

          By yet the UN, specifically developing nations, and left minded politicians demand that it must be co2. Why? Methane has been argued to be as much if not more damaging contributor to greenhouse gas theory. Yet no one suggests we cut down on eating meat. It would be a lot easier to eat one less meal of meat each day then to buy a Hybrid or $20 lightbulbs.

          Because regulating CO2 regulates fuel consumption, fuel consumption is directly related to EVERY businesses production. Giving politicians the power to control the production of every single company. This doesnt make you suspicious the dogmatic statements of the 100% consensus? Or the insistence that any scientist who disagrees must be in the pocket of big business? We can see just how many government grants are being given to the scientist who demand it's CO2. Or the hilarious claims (if it wasnt scary how many people buy it) that we are 20 years from a point of no return, or the fact that Al Gore has said this for over 20 years. Or that if it is the greatest threat to the planet yet Al Gore stopped talking about it all through the 90's. You'd think someone running for President might want to warn the planet, or did he forget for 10 years?

          Global Warming is the hoax ever played on the planet and the sad thing is in 10 years why nothing has been changed or its shown to have reversed Al Gore will probably con himself another nobel prize for "saving the planet"
    • Greengoo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4***** THE SEAGULLS
    • kingp, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4"WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY....GOOD NIGHT!"
  • zelig, on 06/06/2008, -31/+82Does the media EVER get it? Just a few years ago, nuclear power plants were going to destroy mankind. Now, we must "build some 1,400 nuclear power plants". A few years ago the earth was going to freeze, now it's going to boil. Bran was good for you, now it's bad. It's not so much that they "report " these "facts" to us, it's how emphatic and worked up they all get about it. The polar bears are disappearing, the glaciers are melting and Manhattan will soon be underwater, and while we're at it, let's award Al Gore the Nobel PEACE Prize. Gonzoland.
    • bmac1009, on 06/06/2008, -6/+20It's all about hype. Not too long ago the world was going to freeze. Worse yet, now there are trillions of dollars at stake and hippies around the world are uniting.
    • rebump, on 06/06/2008, -1/+17Wait. Bran is bad for you now??

      • jerwin, on 06/06/2008, -0/+10No, it's OK now, I just checked. Earlier this morning it was bad for you. Last night it was one of the causes of global warming, turns out that was just a typo.
        • inigomntoya, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Yeah - I think I read a hippie blog with that on it too. Something about emitting methane...?
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5Amen.
    • EricSchC1, on 06/06/2008, -7/+2Hype or not, pretending the problem doesn't exist or assuming we had nothing to do w/making it what it is, doesn't excuse us from not making ANY actionable changes. Even if humanity has nothing to do w/the planet's climate change, a prudent (Bush Sr., anyone?) individual would plan for the worst or attempt abating the worst case scenarios.
      • PoopStick, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2you cant fix what you dont control.
        • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1No? What a fatalistic attitude. Why build earthquake-resistant buildings then? Earthquakes are beyond human control.
    • DavidJustus, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1AND ITS ALL OUR FAULT!!!
    • Proletariat, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7you forgot coloring dye in food. we're supposed to be afraid of that too.
      • inigomntoya, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7I don't know what it is, but something about food with artificial coloring just makes it taste that much better!
    • beerncheese, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Man, I hate that media guy. He is such a hypocrite.
    • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Journalists are *****, good point. Nuff said.
      • EricSchC1, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Random people forming an opinion based mainly on political rhetoric or aversion to the informative bodies like the media are ***** too. I trust those guys w/degrees in science, experience in conducting objective research and wear lab coats to work. You know, those guys who are being quoted by "***** journalists" in articles like this one.
        • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah right. Atmospheric science is made-up theory-based, show me the experiments. Ones that aren't running on best-guess software on supercomputers. I studied science and do research to this day, the people at the college of oceanography and meteorology --where climate and atmosphere science and climate change were listed---were laughable idiots, just like the fratboys in marketing and communications. And why do they need a lab coat if they just sit at a computer?
    • paker, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2He forgot the ozone layer was depleting a few years ago. I think it repaired itself.
  • bmac1009, on 06/06/2008, -28/+57"That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy."
    This is a joke, just like man-made global warming
    • EvilCapitalist, on 06/06/2008, -9/+19Don't you get it? That's exactly the point! Whatever it takes to undo the most successful experiment in governance in history... the goal of the modern liberal.
    • DavidJustus, on 06/06/2008, -1/+9Where have you guys been while digg was being taken over by said liberals?
      • inigomntoya, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I am curious about the increased number of people who "get it" as well.
        Is it because this article is in "News" and not "Lifestyle"?
      • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1World Economy is about 60-66 Trillion---let the 1billion+ population countries pay.
      • bmac1009, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0I'm on break from law school. the people who are these opinions are usually out working.
        "Keep working, millions on welfare depend on you".
        Cheers Justus
  • BigBlueCarbon, on 06/06/2008, -8/+45only $7500 per person
    or rather 5000 euros per person
    c'mon north korea, sudan, other 3rd world countries, cough it up!
    • bmac1009, on 06/06/2008, -3/+3All while the world economies are 'trucking along'. Ha...and to top it off, oil prices are at crazy levels, raising the costs of doing everything!
    • ICSU, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4"Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries..":

      Key word - investment
      • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Not sure why you are dugg down. It is most definitely an investment, one likely to have significant returns.
  • EvilCapitalist, on 06/06/2008, -29/+62What the liberals couldn't steal through confiscatory taxes, they'll rob through catastrophically ruinous regulations.
    • sodade, on 06/06/2008, -11/+5Oh I am so sorry Miss Rand that the evil government is going to prevent you from ***** dioxins on everyone.
      • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -1/+10Curses foiled again, I'll get you and your little dog too!
        It's okay to steal money, as long as it's for a "good cause".
        • inigomntoya, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6And don't forget to add - and from someone who is "rich"
        • sodade, on 06/06/2008, -4/+3I guess I don't see punitive taxation for a company doing ***** things as being "stealing" - if we taxed EVERYONE based on the sum total of all the positive and negatives of them doing business then we get to the REAL cost of goods/services which allows for a REAL free market.
        • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3@sodade
          Cool! as long as I can be the one who decides these sums of +/- ! I've decided you impose a buttload of costs on other people, now give me all your money!

          Yes, you can FORCE a FREE market *head-scratch*
    • pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2are you referring to the war on terror?
    • zombies187, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2It's a ***** number.
  • Kanuhduh, on 06/06/2008, -6/+27Let me pull out my checkbook..
    • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -4/+12Don't worry, they don't need your cooperation, they're just going to take it by force, they'll have committees and ***** to make it official, so they can pretend they're not just your everyday muggers.
      • inigomntoya, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5No kidding - at least Jesse James used a gun...
        • mcquitty, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5And you had a great story to tell how you got robbed by him.
        • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3True, but the gov't has guns too, better than ours even.
          Don't pay your taxes, and refuse to go to your tax evasion hearing ... see what happens.
    • Greengoo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Pay to the Order of: The World
      Amount: 45 Trillion and 0/100
      Date: August 19, 2184

      There, check written... now to make sure I'm dead by then.
      • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Now you're ready to be a government official! ... spending money you don't have / that isn't yours.
  • sheprd69, on 06/06/2008, -10/+13It is these same ideas that got earthpro.info banned from DIGG! Be careful, and make sure you agree with them - or they will come after you!
    • BECoole, on 06/06/2008, -5/+12LOL! You are right! You can't even submit that URL!
      Digg diggs GW alarmists only.
    • mike17032, on 06/06/2008, -2/+10Wait, you cant submit that URL, but we get 15 huffingtonspam stories a day? What the *****?
  • whoreable, on 06/06/2008, -5/+7I got 5 on it.
    • diggopolous, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2How about if we all just turn on all of our air conditioners at the same time full blast? That should cool things down.
      • cmapes2, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1...Or it would just make everyone's houses cold and cause rolling blackouts caused by excessive strain on the energy grids.
  • abran1984, on 06/06/2008, -14/+28Wow, so how many people are going to get wealthy from that windfall?

    Who pays for all this *****? We do. Hell no
    • nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -9/+6It's called capitalism. Companies make the nuke plants and turbines. It's not taxpayer funded you schmuck.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/06/2008, -7/+7It's called capitalism. If companies are regulated to reduce emissions, they have to pay for those changes. Guess how they recoup that money? Could it be... higher prices passed on to us, the consumers? Nah, they'll probably just eat that loss.

        Also, companies don't spontaneously and for free produce nuclear plants and turbines.
        • nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -7/+3It equals out, all the new tech, plants, etc will employ more people.
        • mcquitty, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6Yeah.. employed by a lie and an arbitrary number put on carbon emmissions.
    • enki25, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Well I guess you could say we all get "rich" by still having a planet that is capable of supporting human life.
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2You know, that sounds an awful lot like "If you'uns believe in Jesus and gives yo moneys to him, he gonna save you, and make you awf'ly rich in de next life" Nice try, I believed that lie for too long, you're not gonna get me again religion. *which is what the theory of man-made global warming" is.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 06/06/2008, -13/+39That's a helluva price-tag for something that cannot guarantee results.

    You want to save the world from potential catastrophic climate changes? Give me the 45 trillion, and I'll build you bunker seed banks spread out throughout the globe. I'll build you new irrigation and all-weather farming systems, and research home energy production solutions that will enable the survival of mankind through whatever direction climate takes.

    In other words, ****** THAT*, An ounce of adaptation is worth a ton of bureaucrat-delivered "salvation".
  • HMTKSteve, on 06/06/2008, -8/+8Yay! Build more nuke plants!
  • KMye, on 06/06/2008, -2/+12Time to invest in uranium...
  • ozymandias2012, on 06/06/2008, -8/+25This article is misleading, it should read "America will need to invest $45 trillion" not the world.
    • 9bpm9, on 06/06/2008, -0/+12Yeah, the nation that isn't even leading the world in pollution anymore should be the only one to do this. Smart.
      • pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -5/+3per capita we are still #1.
      • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Smart and realistic.
      • angryredplanet, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1You guys have been there so long, cumulatively you'll find the US has done much of the damage.
    • nbyn, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Ha! Joke's on them - $45 Trillion? in 2050 dollars, that's like $1 million in today's money.

      Just put it on my tab my good man!
  • kingygk, on 06/06/2008, -15/+40This is one reason why we should vote the democrats out of congress in 2010. We cant afford to fix the worlds problems!!!
    • DavidJustus, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4thank you mr. paul
    • n3demonic, on 06/06/2008, -7/+6Yeah! Let's use that money to cause them instead!
    • enki25, on 06/06/2008, -6/+5Yeah, let's ignore the problem because it's too expensive. It would be much more fun to continue partying until the end of the human race.
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1"THE WHOLE WORLD IS GONNA END UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THIS AND GIVE US MONEY!!!!11" Hahahaha. It's so funny that so many "enlightened" people on digg bash religion every chance they get, and then buy into one at the same time.
    • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2"We cant afford to fix the worlds problems!!! "

      Who said anything about the US footing the bill? The article talks about global investment, and even states that developing countries will 60% of the 45 trillion. Am I the only one that read the link?
      • utahnkid, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2I'd suggest reading over your comment at least once before posting it as well...
  • itstodd, on 06/06/2008, -6/+13no, its not about the money....
  • Ryan0617, on 06/06/2008, -18/+11░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░
    ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░
    ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░████░
    ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒██▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░░██░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████░░
    ░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░██░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    I want my tan!
    • EricSchC1, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Too bad your great grandkids will have one whether they want one or not.
  • mx13punk, on 06/06/2008, -11/+4$45 trillion, or a global community willing to set squabbles over money aside and do something good for the future of our children, and our sorely ravaged world.
    • Beanbones, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3I suspect you don't really know what money is, or rather, what money represents. I don't mean any offense by that, as sadly, too many people these days have forgotten about the meaning of money.

      If you understood money, you'd understand how pouring this astronomical sum into a singular cause will affect not only our children, but our children's children, and many more generations to come. For your own benefit, I'd suggest you inform yourself about what money really is.

      Money isn't just currency. It isn't just power. It isn't just wealth. It is the standardized equivalent of human effort. Without money, there can be no free society, as without money, there can be no fair exchange of my best efforts for your best efforts. Without money, there is no rule of law, no rule of free trade, but only the rule of the gun.
    • Zarchon, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2yes yes, think of the children. /sarcasm
    • mcquitty, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Think of the children. How many children die from dihyodrogen monoxide each year? Should we ban it?

      How many people, who were once children, die of heart disease each year?

      How many children die in car accidents each year?

      But, you want to think of the children about something that may or may not ever happen?
  • radish01001, on 06/06/2008, -16/+17Good thing we've been so frugal with the war money.

    oh, wait.
  • trixterIreland, on 06/06/2008, -6/+14ok, so that is more money than exists in the world, who is it to be paid to? What happens to the rest of the world when that is paid to a small group and everyone else is poor? Wouldnt that demand a socialist government, in charge of everything because no one can afford to do anything on their own?

  • 9bpm9, on 06/06/2008, -12/+31,400 nuclear plants? I see a few meltdowns in the future.
  • ColonelJessup, on 06/06/2008, -13/+4I just farted.
  • zacharytelschow, on 06/06/2008, -22/+40Global warming is a sham.
  • FDDIcent, on 06/06/2008, -16/+10Why do all the comments blame the democrats here? This report is from Japan on a study that took place in France. When did all these right wing ***** jobs start spamming irrelevant comments on digg just to push their own ideals.
    • madk, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4I only count one comment that blames the dems.
    • utahnkid, on 06/06/2008, -3/+4"Why do all the comments blame the democrats here?"

      Where's that rock you just crawled out from? Did you not know that man-made global warming is vastly supported and pushed by the left wing, liberal, democrat side of things?
    • CyphreDias, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3The Democrats hang their hat on Man-Made-CO2-Based-Global-Warming more than the Republican. Both Dem and Rep parties are crap. In fact, both parties are a fraud for the most part. I recommend "The Constitutional Party", because if you want to know what they believe... READ THE CONSTITUTION. The definition of all the other parties seems to drift and migrate until the party is less than a shadow of its former self. Ron Paul is the champion of The Constitution and I think he should do a third party run for The Constitution Party. Only problem is you can't get on the ballot. That's the scam!!!!
      • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Of course you can get on the ballot. Every state has a process for getting on the ballot, all it takes is work.
  • metric7, on 06/06/2008, -15/+7"The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency"

    ***** those frogs.
  • Teku, on 06/06/2008, -6/+17Well, do you suppose the jobless environmentalist bums could front us the money?
    • mcquitty, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Hey ELF, your turn to foot the bill!
  • ExGhost, on 06/06/2008, -7/+17So we can all starve, but at least the environment will be fixed!!
    • angryredplanet, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Without an environment we will all definitely starve.
  • JFreedomseed, on 06/06/2008, -12/+18None of this has anything to do with global warming. There are plenty of scientists out there and plenty of scientific data to refute this whole "crisis." Perhaps there is some warming, but this is just another cycle similar to those which have been experienced many many times in the past (including our own lifetimes). I've seen several studies which suggest we're actually cooling.

    What this really is is a an attempt at global governance. Government wants to be in charge of everything, and what better way to get people to give up their liberties than to create crisis after crisis. Terrorism, global warming, famine, etc. The news media's job is to keep us all scared so we'll gladly give up our freedoms to let government take care of the latest crisis.

    Those who give up a little liberty to gain a little security don't deserve either one.

    To see the other side of the "global warming" issue, visit the Freedom Force International website.
    • gordeaoux, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2Well, if you've glanced at a couple internet articles that hint at maybe the earth might be getting a wee bit of a draft, I'll believe it. Except that NASA says you're full of *****.

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/

      While it's true that constant fear can lead to constant control, there's no need to be afraid of global climate change. Most of the solutions would not only benefit individuals (lower energy bills from conservation and efficiency) but corporations, should they invest in clean energy. Money may be lost in the transition, but moving our power grid to renewable sources will not only save cash in the long run, but eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Wait, I'm sorry, can you remind me again who NASA is funded by?
  • phorty40, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5$7500 per person? pppffffft!
    How far is the moon again?
    • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Don't forget, there are Nazi's on the dark side of that there Moon!
      www.ironsky.net
  • zebco, on 06/06/2008, -8/+1I wonder if we can get a refund on the Iraq war? It's a shame that it wasn't sponsored by Wal Mart...we could probably at least get an exchange.
  • dan.stryker, on 06/06/2008, -17/+31Tax all obama supporters, make them pay for it!
    • pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -4/+12fine, as long as all mccain supporters are taxed for the war.
      • salinemist, on 06/06/2008, -2/+7Fine by me, especially since we've won.
      • Greengoo, on 06/06/2008, -2/+545 Trillion...

        I think the war was just a LITTLE bit cheaper than that..
    • SolarUpNote, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Zing!
    • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6Obama supporters are either on parole or plain broke. They think money is paper that is simply denied to them by an unjust system.
      • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Correction: Obama supporters are willing to pay, do you take bling?
  • suzywang3000, on 06/06/2008, -6/+7Net Present Value of Federal obligations less revenues = roughly $45 trillion (when including SS, Medicare, Medicaid)

    http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

    asking for $45 trillion for global warmongering is like asking Mike Tyson to pay penalties of 100% on the taxes he owes.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/06/2008, -7/+4How much is it going to cost to combat the next ice age, because that's what we ought to be worrying about. Which sounds worse to you, most of the industrialized world covered by a kilometer of ice, or 4 degrees warmer weather? Take a look at the ice age graph of atmospheric CO2, notice how bad things happen when it falls below 230 ppm? Notice how that ice age repeats every 80-110k years? Know what killed the dinosaurs (hint, it wasn't global warming)?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmospheric_CO2 ...
    • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0If that happens then we invade Africa
      • Barackalypse, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Africa is a hellhole, aside from perhaps Egypt and South Africa there isn't a functioning modern society on that Continent.
        • scamper22, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0so you're saying we could easily overrun them?
          heck, you're saying we'd be doing a favor by turning them into a functioning modern society.
    • Rich711, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2are you talking about Al Gores dis-proven CO2 chart? He's already been forced to admit he misrepressented the chart before he was allowed to release his "documentary" in the U.K.
  • soflasooner, on 06/06/2008, -6/+11Sounds reasonable. Or at least as reasonable as the junk science that is the basis for the man-made global warming scam.
  • reaper527, on 06/06/2008, -7/+10i am a fan of the fact that all these hippies that were against nuclear power now see it as a save all.
    • nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -4/+4Yes because all environmentalists think exactly alike. Moron.
      • EtherGnat, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2::sigh:: People have a stereotype of environmental scientists, but it's not true at all. I work for an environmental organization, and while there are a few people here that might fit people's hippie stereotype it's just not typical. My Executive Director voted for Bush twice and is a die-hard Republican. Our Assistant Director is conservative, a big investor in the stock market, and was a college Football star (another of our scientists is a former wide receiver for the Houston Oilers). One of my coworkers is an evangelical Christian.

        The staff is different nationalities, sexes, has vastly different political affiliations, backgrounds, etc.. The only commonality is that they're all smart, dedicated, and they believe in what they are doing. If they didn't they could easily find better paying jobs elsewhere.

        Oh, and our organization has been very positive on Nuclear energy and intelligent storage of nuclear waste for as long as they've been around (17 years or so). The problem with nuclear power isn't the true environmental scientists, it's with the public that panics any time they even hear the word nuclear.
  • thpate, on 06/06/2008, -11/+13Global Warming is BS
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Endangered_Global ...
  • drmangrum, on 06/06/2008, -2/+10I'm all for investing in green energy, but throwing out a number like 45 trillion seems like it was drawn out of thin air. The fact they are using global warming as their trigger word makes this seem even more suspect. Looks more like the alarmists are trying to get more money.
  • Shiftgood, on 06/06/2008, -12/+4Blame the democrats! RablerabBlerableRablerablerable!
  • levelred, on 06/06/2008, -5/+345 trillion divided by 300 million americans is more than enough to buy us energy efficient cars.. with money to burn... that is $150,000, and if we add Japan that is $105,000 per person... enough for us to be energy efficient.. Well that is just wishful thinking!
  • mhowardx, on 06/06/2008, -9/+2how many facts do you guys need to know that global warming is real, why don't you just turn on your television some time and actually watch the history channel or the discovery channel, they have enough shows to actually educate your dumb brains the truth, for god sakes i still can't believe how many people will not except the facts.
    • jerwin, on 06/06/2008, -3/+5Yes, your (energy sucking) tv is an excellent place to get all of your facts about global warming. Which, of course, leads me to my point: man-made global warming is a hoax being stuffed into all of the little pointy heads that get all of their life facts from tv.

      Try using a little common sense sometime. Then explain why the ice-covered island Greenland is called Greenland. Then go on and explain the thousand-year old civilizations they have found under all that ice. Lastly, explain how all that climate change happened without our help.

      • gavin422, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1This is one of the most inane comments I've ever read on Digg.

        You're basing your whole argument on the NAME of an island that hasn't even been inhabited for 2000 years, which composes a tiny fraction of the history of the earth's climate. Not to mention that you go on to tell people to use "common sense" instead of science. OK, let's all use our common sense to understand the hopelessly complex mechanisms of global climate. I'm sure we can work it out in our heads.
        • jerwin, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Well, once again, you can't just take the words you read, you actually have to know something about what you are reading, otherwise you get things like global warming insanity.

          Greenland actually used to be a lush and green island with a thriving population. The climate changed 2000 years ago and now it is an icy grave. My point is that climate change is what this planet does and it doesn't care a hoot what is affected. There is nothing we can do to make the planet stop doing what it does no matter how much we scream and rant or how guilty we make ourselves feel.
        • init100, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2"Not to mention that you go on to tell people to use "common sense" instead of science."

          The "common sense" argument is also one frequently used by creationists. "The eye is too complex to have evolved by chance. It's pretty obvious that the eye is designed. Use common sense!".
        • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1So we shouldn't buy into that religion, but we should buy into yours is what you're saying init100?
    • Proletariat, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6maybe you should turn off the your television.
    • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4"how many facts do you guys need to know that global warming is real" ...well articulated point there.
    • xirtap, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Wow, remember when everyone on digg were shouting for someone to do something about this awful threat called 'Global Warming'? I call this the "Digg sheep cycle". Once a theoretical idea starts to gain popularity everyone on digg knows everything about it. If you disagree you get burried and end up with ~500 replies all explaining to you why you're wrong. Once the same theory hits the mainstream media they start hating it.
      I've created a formula for the amount of hate an idea(Like global warming) should have according to this "Digg Sheep cycle": (Mainstream media popularity)/(Digg popularity)
      • gavin422, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Yeah. This is unbelievable. The last time I saw this many anti-Global Warming people, I was watching Fox News.
        • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Here we go with the old party politics lines. Politicians are genius, divide and conquer. Make people divide themselves with politics and then they'll never pay attention to how much money we're taking and power we're giving to ourselves. If Obama stops this war *which I'm pretty sure he won't* then we'll just spend all the money that war to fight a new war, a war against global warming. If you haven't noticed, both parties are full of the same welfare-warfare, big government politicians. The "conservatives" made the government huge and the democrats won't change that, they'll just keep adding to it. In the next eight years, we'll get a republican who'll do the same thing, all the while we're squabbling about what party is right and why the other party is stupid rather than focusing on the issue.
    • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1F*ck your tv.
  • EnricoCabredo, on 06/06/2008, -5/+5just drop a giant ice cube into the sea.

    itll solve everything until we make robots
    • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2I propose that we raise a generation of super kids.
    • robotto, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2dugg for futurama reference
  • EricSchC1, on 06/06/2008, -7/+6While I think $45 Trillion is a grossly unrealistic amount of money to allocate to anything, the notions expressed here (mostly stated in the form of "I know my position is scientifically accurate, but I'm not gonna cite sources) that man-made global warming is a myth and that we have no obligation to evaluate and change how we do things is grossly shortsighted and sounds like conservative knee-jerk rhetoric. Ok, so don't spend $45 trillion, but *****, doing something is better than nothing, especially when not one of us posting here can prove 110% they know man-made global warming is a myth.
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2"the notions expressed here (...) that man-made global warming is a myth and that we have no obligation to evaluate and change how we do things is grossly shortsighted and sounds like conservative knee-jerk rhetoric."

      The reason is simple. Denying anthropogenic global warming benefits their lifestyle. By claiming that AGW is a scam, they can continue to drive their gas-guzzling SUVs without feeling even a little bad about it. The reasoning goes like "If I deny it, it doesn't exist".
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, we need to change our lifestyles and give the government money! That'll solve the problem. All the while you're AGW preachers are living fat riding home to their mansions laughing at how much money they swindled from us. But it's ok because they paid some dude to plant some trees so they're "doing their part". Gimme a ***** break. "GOVERNMENT IS OUR SAVIOR!!! WE NEED TO GIVE GOVERNMENT MONEY OR BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO US!!!! GIVING AWAY OUR MONEY AND DRIVING MORE EXPENSIVE CARS AND CHANGING OUR LIFESTYLES WILL SAVE US!!!!!" Replace government with any other religious figure and you've got any other religion.
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/08/2008, -1/+1"not one of us posting here can prove 110% they know man-made global warming is a myth" - STOP! You folks are the ones who want to destroy our economy, jobs, living standards. The burden is on YOU to PROVE a.g.w. is TRUE by 110%. Also....

      Many of the following have links to and/or contain results of studies that dispute some or many aspects of anthropogenic global warming:

      Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change: "Global warming" is not a global crisis (3-4-08) http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866

      Report: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (March '08) http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835. ...

      U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (12-20-07) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...

      New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears (8-20-07) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...

      Questioning the Global Warming Science: An Annotated bibliography of recent peer-reviewed papers (Jan '07) http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/docum ...

      Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (9-25-06) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...

      There's lots more too, I just don't have time to get to them right now.
  • ghank, on 06/06/2008, -10/+22Even if Global warming is a "sham" WHO THE ***** CARES? Pumping trillions of tons of poisonous and toxic chemicals into the air and water is a ***** BAD IDEA. I don't give a rats ass what the temperature outside is, I just want to have clean air to breathe, and water that doesn't smell like ass. Clean energy should be our #1 priority, but unfortunately it all comes down to "who's gunna pay the bill"?
    • CyphreDias, on 06/06/2008, -9/+4To the extent you pay taxes and those taxes are redirected to elites, it is to this degree that you are a slave working for those elites for free. The global warming ideology is being used to make you more of a slave and more regulated. It serves to enforce a "class" system where you are on the bottom. Anything based on a lie is a bad idea to support.

      This article is based on several false assumptions:
      1. FALSE - Global warming has been proven to be happening - FALSE
      2. FALSE - CO2 has been proven to drive the warming that is occurring - FALSE
      3. FALSE - It’s been proven that Mankind produces enough CO2 to be a significant influence on the Earths atmosphere - FALSE
      4. FALSE - It’s been proven that climate models can accurately predict climate change with significantly reliable dependability. - FALSE
      5. FALSE – Actors and politicians have fully studied what they are supporting - FALSE
      6. FALSE – Actors and politicians can be trusted to tell the truth. - FALSE

      Global warming is not happening. If global warming were happening, it would not be the result of mankind’s CO2 emissions, it would be the result of sun cycles interacting with cosmic rays which then interact with a great many other atmospheric elements which include evaporation and cloud-cover to name only a few. Even if the popular greenhouse gas theory were true, CO2 is a TRACE-greenhouse-gas. This means that other greenhouse gases are thousands of times more relevant than CO2. Water Vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas. Additionally, CO2 does not precede temp rise. Temp rise precedes CO2 increase. This most likely means that as the Earths temp rises the oceans begin to release CO2. The suns cycles and the suns energy relating to cosmic rays has been shown to explain observed climate fluctuations. "MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING" IS THE INTELLECTUAL ENGINE TO DRIVE THE INTRODUCTION OF WORLD GOVERNMENT AND A WORLD CARBON TAX!!! George Orwell must be turning in his grave.
      • textrant, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1'4. FALSE - It’s been proven that climate models can accurately predict climate change with significantly reliable dependability. - FALSE'
        That is the most important point of all. They can't even build a weather model that predicts rainfall (on equal levels as found) in the tropics. Nor do they include El Nino (don't know how to do the silly n^~) or other major climate driving processes.
      • danfive555, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1I'ts really a business cycle, engineers are ready to bring new technologies to market. This is just part of priming the pump, converting the masses, and selling a new product. Great! new product, capitalism rules, but ***** the fearmongering or paradigm shift to hippie tree-hugging values.
      • Ymeg, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1If you have information to refute this, please do so. This is just what I've heard.

        For the sun cycles thing, that happens over thousands of years. The current data has it on a much smaller scale.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -3/+4"Even if Global warming is a "sham" WHO THE ***** CARES? Pumping trillions of tons of poisonous and toxic chemicals into the air and water is a ***** BAD IDEA."

      So pumping $45 trillion into this sham is good?
      • robotto, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1I think he means finding better energy sources
        • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2And we're researching and working on that. It has started with hybrids and will be evolving from there.

          Nobody is questioning that we are going to need something better. However, there seems to be a mentality among some (based on what I read on here on a regular basis) that if we don't find a new energy alternative by 8pm this evening, then we're totally ***** and there's nothing that can change that. Rather than just accepting that it's not a simple process that will offer a fix as of yesterday, people seem to want to run around in panic.

          Besides the last thing I want is to see some "solution" just steamrolled out and thrown into the market, only to find out 10 years later that this "god send" poses big problems of it's own. Thanks to CFL lights we have longer-lasting, more efficient light bulbs. Yet, thanks to CFL's one breaks in your home and you've got mercury contamination. Seems like there was a little short-sightedness in rushing that one out into the market in the name of energy efficiency.
      • ghank, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1100 years from now when our children and grandchildren have inherited this world, do you think any of them are going to give a crap about $45 trillion, if they have a "clean" environment to live in?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2And imagine how the environment would look now if our industries still functioned the same way they did in the 1880's.

          Advances in technologies usually produce cleaner and more efficient ways of doing business.

          I'd argue that we'll have a cleaner environment 100 years from now regardless of the $45 trillion or not.
    • mtekk, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2"Pumping trillions of tons of poisonous and toxic chemicals into the air and water is a ***** BAD IDEA"

      Since when was CO2 one of these chemicals?
      • ghank, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Tell you what bud, lock yourself in a sealed room filled with CO2, and you tell me how "toxic" it is.
        • mtekk, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1That is not a proof of toxicity. You need to breath 02 to live, when you use it all up you die, if there isn't any available you die. A toxic chemical such as cyanide will have adverse affects on you body, even if plenty of 02 is available.
        • PolishLogic, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Lock yourself in a room filled with anything other than oxygen and you'd have the same result.
  • bgrah449, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Top headline from Drudge reaches front page? Digg is branching out.
  • MattCalmus, on 06/06/2008, -2/+0So what you're saying is that it's a lost cause.
  • garths, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I'll do it for half that.
  • sleepyjjk, on 06/06/2008, -6/+6In my opinion, spending 45 trillion is a worthy investment. Not only will we do less damage to the environment, but this will also create more jobs and also boost the economy. This will create alternative energy sources that we will need anyway, regardless of whether Global Warming is true or not.

    Why is everyone so riled up on spending on our future? This can be looked upon as a good thing in terms of jobs and creating different energy sources.
  • duckyinc, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2It's not unrealistic if you consider how much time we have to pay it.. and it seems like most of you don't believe in anything that hurts your lifestyle -.-
  • neoq36, on 06/06/2008, -5/+2$7500 a person
    wow that's about how much we will be spending on gas a year
    tell the oil companies to pick up the tab
    they can afford it
  • mzx639, on 06/06/2008, -9/+6What a f-ing joke! Global warming is a HOAX!! Humans are NOT CAUSING global warming! It's a natural cycle of the planet, it wasn't caused by humans and it won't be stopped by humans! Can humans stop tidal waves, earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, hurricanes, the spin of the earth?? NO! And we can't stop global warming either!!! And the fact is there IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_ ...
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2"it wasn't caused by humans and it won't be stopped by humans!"

      You AGW deniers are almost as insistent as the creationists. "There is no global warming, but even if there is, it isn't caused by humanity, but even if it is, there is nothing we can do about it."

      Why do you think that something not caused by humanity cannot be stopped by humans? Seriously. Is there some natural law that prevents humans from stopping natural phenomena?
      • gofalcons, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Actually you AGW believers are as bad as creationists. Creationists claim they have science to back up their outlandish claims too you know. But the solution is always to give money, change your life, and give power over yourself to something else. Meanwhile most of the preachers in these megachurches *as the church of global warming is* live a plush lifestyle because they've done something that makes them different from you mere mortals. Like how Al Gore buys "carbon offsets" *sounds like indulgences from the old catholic church days doesn't it?* so he can keep doing whatever the hell he wants, but no, you have to change your whole life. "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE AND GIVE MONEY, HORRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU" Sounds like religion to me.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 102 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.