digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at blog.wired.com

CO2 Pollution Could Erase Coral Reefs for Millions of Years

blog.wired.com — Coral reefs, nature's most lively architecture, could come tumbling down and it could take millions of years for them to return, if carbon dioxide emissions aren't cut quickly, scientists warned today. "What we're doing in the next decade could mean that for the next two million years, there are no coral reefs in the ocean."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/03/2008, -8/+19This is what a collapsing biosphere looks like.
  • srodolff, on 07/03/2008, -23/+14CO2 is not a pollutant. When are the leftwing whackjobs going to stop making stuff up?
    • thebellmaster1x, on 07/03/2008, -10/+24If by "leftwing whackjobs" you mean "educated scientists," i.e. not you, then sure.
      • vsujohn2, on 07/03/2008, -16/+8If by "educated scientists" you mean desperate professors looking for grant money and trying to keep their job, then why not.
      • jugger74, on 07/04/2008, -7/+4These are the same educated scientists that said we would be under 30 ft waves by now and that this year would be the hottest on record and in the 70's they were saying we were going into the next ice age. Never get your info from headlines do some actual research and you will see for your self this man made global warming is absolute bs... oh and never trust anyone who claims they are an "expert" humans are too stupid to understand 99.9% of what is going on around them, scientists even more so because they believe they have universal answers when they know nothing of the universe.
      • angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6@jugger74

        Please, do some research. The only thing you make evident in your argument is your complete ignorance of this subject. There are scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines dealing with this very subject. What do you think they do all day, drink coffee and twiddle their thumbs?

        That we are affecting the biosphere with our CO2/CH4 emissions is not at all in dispute (other than by deniers like yourself). What is in dispute is the effect it will have going into the future; those things that rely on computer modeling. Things like when the antarctic and arctic ice sheets/glaciers will melt, how high the oceans will rise, what the average global suface temp will be in 10 years, how acidic the oceans will be in 10 years and when the forecasted biotically driven ice-age will occur. Contrary to popular belief within denier circles, ice ages are necessary to stabilise both atmospheric composition and the global climate systems. After the last 250 years of mankind trying his hardest to conquer the elements, consider it a way for nature to wipe the slate clean.

        Although I believe we need a "manhattan project" style approach to deal with this problem, the largest threat to humanity we will face, the topic is so infused with politics, people trying to make a buck, deniers and paid shills trying to discredit the science making the mobilisation of any rescue effort so much more difficult. I would suggest you (and any other denier) read Collapse by Jared Diamond, a professor of geography and physiology, or Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute. Not lighthearted reading at all but both highlight the magnitude of the problems that we and our descendents face.
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4I am coming to the conclusion that a lot of the people here have absolutely no idea that there is any difference between having an opinion and providing facts.

        They spout ***** like "CO2" is not a problem" or "scientists just want grants" with no citation or evidence.

        Two min on google would show them how brain dead those allegations are, but I don't think it even occurs to them to check if they are talking out of their ass.
    • slmsaberhagen, on 07/04/2008, -18/+8Soon I hope.

      I don't think there is a day that goes by where there isn't an article that says:

      "Global Warming is killing/destroying [insert any object or life form here]"
      • yellowcakewalk, on 07/04/2008, -5/+12That's because a day does not go by when global warming is not killing/destroying [insert any object or life form]. Why do you guys hate the biosphere so much?
      • monoa, on 07/04/2008, -6/+15Why d' ya think that is, Einstein? I see two options for you:

        1. it's a hoax / lie / mistake on a massive global scale, with every national science academy of every industrialized nation on the planet in collusion, along with thousands of reputable climate scientists, politicians, world leaders and informed lay people

        2. it's real, it's happening

        I'd love to see your evidence for (1), because not one denier has every produced anything remotely convincing.
    • monoa, on 07/04/2008, -8/+15When are you going to pull your head out of your ass and read some science before making factual statements?

      Try this short, simple article on CO2 for starters:
      http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6777
      • jugger74, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2That had zero scientific content in it you retard. I know that piece probably exhausted your minute attention span but jesus do some real research maybe something not involving google. The only fact listed in there was that CO2 has gone up since the industrial age began. Well to that I say there was times in earths history when CO2 was many times higher than it is right now look it up you'll see I am right. You will also see that the earth was much more filled with life of all kinds during these periods start with that and maybe you'll find yourself a clue.
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4jugger74 seems to think that the climate scientists who discovered and researched historic climate change somehow don't know about it.

        What do you think jugger? they 'forgot'? slipped their mind did it? decades of research and thousands of studies just sort of got overlooked in their excitement to research climate change?

        Yeah, that sounds likely. I beieve that

        or maybe it's just that you haven't a clue what you are talking about?
    • hmunkey, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12And what are your qualifications? Oh, you're a digger, I see.
      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -11/+2Yes, let's all put our faith in a "munkey"!
    • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -4/+12Water isn't a pollutant either.

      But let's ask Iowa and Missouri what too much can be like.
      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -12/+2It can be recoverable, just like too much CO2. The earth has a lot of ways to absorb excess CO2 into the biosphere, and the ocean is no exception.

        If there earth were not a self regulating system volcanos would have offed us all long ago.
      • nodong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10The whole problem is that the ocean is absorbing CO2, dumbass (superkendall). The PH level is actually, measurably changing. The acidity literally eats away at anything in the ocean with shells, which are basic.
      • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8"Just let the water run, the ground will soak it up!"

        Again, there are limits. Look at Iowa and Missouri.
      • jugger74, on 07/04/2008, -8/+1Gees ur super insightful and smart too golly i bet u got puuurtty theath.
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4"It can be recoverable"

        It can, but only after a lot of damage is done. So maybe we should just let those CA fires go too, after all, CA will recover.
    • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12tie and plastic bag around your head and get back to us about CO2
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10When there's an escalating surplus of carbon in the atmosphere, strange things begin to happen to our planet.
  • srodolff, on 07/03/2008, -16/+1http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/some- ...
    • MrBussi, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2because plankton = coral reef obv
    • angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Yes, "some" plankton (the one specimen listed in this article) thrive under higher concentrations of aqueous CO2 - lowering it's pH level. Unfortunately for this argument, the majority of biodiversity living in the ocean do not. Coral is the litmus test for oceanic health, and it's bleaching and dying telling us something profoundly important: clean up, or suffer consequences we don't yet understand.
  • Rassa, on 07/03/2008, -2/+21While I don't want to get into the debate over global warming, humans killing the planet etc. The world with no Coral reefs would be terrible!
    • hmunkey, on 07/04/2008, -7/+12There is no argument. It's people who think and people who don't think, but listen to their elected leaders blindly. George W. Bush isn't a smart man, so stop listening to his every word.

      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -9/+4Or believing your chosen cherrypicked scientists blindly. If you want to start pointing out blindfolds, better pat your own head down first.
  • malexan, on 07/04/2008, -3/+14I'm not 100% on board with the whole "humans are causing global warming" thing, but the overall cause is hard to not support since the outcome of successfully reducing pollution is good for all of us.
    • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -8/+4But to what extent is the question? I happily recycle and drive a small fuel efficient car, and limit trips and take the bus and buy local foods and so on. Those are all, as you say, great ideas and things we should all strive to do.

      But the climate change alarmists are looking for far more costly or alarming things to be done, that will put a lot of people out of work or frankly may do more harm than good. For one example, I read about a plan to put boats out into the ocean and dump vast amount of iron oxide into the waters to speed up the growth of alge to absorb CO2. Does not a simple form of what is basically terraforming the very planet we live on, not strike anyone as totally insane? I don't think we are smart enough to correctly judge long term effects from such huge scale changes to make it worth the risk implementing them.

      We should all do what we can to reduce emissions, but lets be reasonable about the steps we take.
      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -7/+3Easier to digg down I guess than to argue against a good point.
      • JHW539, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Where did you "hear about" that "plan?" The steps legitimate policy makers recommend (not the scientific industry - policy is not their realm as it is not supported or testable by observed facts, like climate change theory) are things like don't build coal plants, increase transportation efficiency, and eliminate super-greenhouse gases (much as CFCs have been successfully phased out). There is too much strawman-making being thrown about on this subject. Quit listening to the whack jobs on both sides and pay attention to the dull, soft spoken, and correct scientists and policy makers on the side of the fight.
      • Naieve, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1The problem being JHW, that the same people screaming about Global Warming are the ones smoking a joint while telling us about the benefits of Biodiesel.

        Yes, let's start a whole new co2 producing industry that will ensure our continued addiction to oil for the foreseeable future. And here is the kicker, while they talk about algae being so great, and I will admit it is much better, we are watching the rain forest get chopped down at breakneck speed to make biofuel. Sorry, they are all a bunch of ***** idiots.

        I'm all for SANE and WELL REASONED movements toward lessening pollution, but those aren't being talked about.

        If these same "environmentalists" hadn't spent the last 30 years helping ensure no more nuclear plants were built, we would have a totally containable energy industry to fall back on. Then we could put our resources into more nuclear plants and hydrogen fuel cells or electric cars...
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1"But the climate change alarmists are looking for far more costly or alarming things to be done,"

        Climate change proponents are looking for actual solutions to a very real problem, not just feel good actions that we can rationalize as having done our part.

        The solution is defined by the problem, not by what you are willing to do to 'solve' it.
    • jugger74, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3That is why it is so important not to buy into this crap you look at who is pushing it and it is governments and look what their solutions are taxes and credits. Give me a break so while you can't afford to drive your car to work or heat your home, the big corporations will spend billions trading carbon credits to let them pollute even more. Wake up people start using some critical thinking ask the right questions and you will see how wrong this is. While they have everyone arguing about this BS things that are really destroying the planet like GMOs which are altering the biosphere forever causing deadly chimeras. Governments around the world playing with all manner of bioweapons, The US spreading D.U. around the middle east like it was icing sugar these are things that are destroying the planet as we speak. What tax or credit is going to fix that get out and fight against the real *****!!
      • angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Although your mind seems set, don't let politics shape your opinion. This is a scientific problem with political implications, not vice-versa. Without trying to belittle your opinion, the results of wars and GMOs are small scale compared to the implications of sudden global climate shifts.

        The real problem is, the extent to which your government might choose to combat the problem may be more than what my government is prepared to do, creating tension and a tit-for-tat type CO2 stand-off. This problem is global, not local, and that's why there needs to be an empowered international body to plot the course.

        Carbon taxes and credits are just political tokens and won't do much to solve the problem. They're just drivers for efficiency which also make investment into renewable technologies more attractive.
      • jugger74, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Firstly, in order to belittle my opinion you would have to have an understanding of the true nature of the situation.There is ZERO as in not any conclusive evidence that CO2 is harmful to this biosphere, if you have some show it now. The closest thing they have are these computer modeling programs which are disproved on a daily basis they can and are manipulated to get the desired results.Secondly, you obviously have done no research on GMOs or you would not be able to sleep at night, the chimeras spawned from them are quite capable of wiping out much of the human race and life on earth for that matter. Lastly, this is a well orchestrated ruse being perpetrated on the dolts of the world of which there are many. I don't know where you get your info from but since you are on Digg I will assume primarily Digg submissions. Here is an actual scientific paper outlining the true causes of global warming. BTW this was the scientific consensus before all this man made global warming and carbon tax crap started up.

        http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/ ...
        Here is a good article laying out the reasons carbon taxing won't work.

        http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/ ...


      • angryredplanet, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"the chimeras spawned from them are quite capable of wiping out much of the human race"

        In all honesty, I wish they would. As morbid as it sounds, there are far too many humans on this small planet. We are the real cause of so many problems and the detractors of real solutions. We need something to keep our population under control. Nevertheless, down to business.

        The sun is indeed the most critical part of our climate but the point you are missing is that so does our atmospheric composition. This can be exemplified by the Krakatoan volcano. In 1650 it underwent an explosive eruption, ejecting millions of tonnes of ash and particulate matter, CO, CO2, SO2, NO2 etc. According to records made in England, France and other places at that time, that single Indonesian volcano caused a dimming of sunlight and a dip in temperatures for decades. This is an extreme example which is only backed up by science as it stood during that period, but it serves to emphasise and correlate with what's happening today. That we are putting things into the atmosphere, changing it's composition faster than at any other period and WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. Additional to this fact is that, like the event involving Mt Krakatoa, IT MUST HAVE AN EFFECT ON CLIMATE.

        The scientific article you linked posits that Cosmic Rays are the driving factor behing the Earth's climate. Here is a graph showing mesured cosmic rays over the last 50 years:
        http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/im ...
        All in all, pretty constant with a few peaks and troughs. It has more variance that solar irradiance and sunspot activity but nothing really out of the ball park. Here is a graph showing NASA's measured global average temperature over the same time period:
        http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/im ...
        They don't really line up, do they?

        For good measure, here's a scientific article refuting that cosmic rays are a serious driver for our climate, claiming that less that 2% of our climate variability over the last 35 years can be attributed to cosmic rays:
        http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294 ...
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1@jugger74 - a 5 yr old paper that has long since been debunked is your evidence?
        Sunspots and solar cycles repeatedly debunked by scientists
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
        http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-f ...
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
    • Jorin, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I think you should be. That's all I can really say about it.
    • AllyOfReason, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1"...since the outcome of successfully reducing pollution is good for all of us."

      So by that logic if we all stop driving cars, thus reducing pollution, it will be good for all of us? Give me a break. Read up on the Kyoto protocol, it definitely won't be helping any civilized nations.
  • bosssmiley, on 07/04/2008, -16/+14Overblown. Coral reefs survived more severe climactic variations than the ones we're experiencing now. Life is tougher than we give it credit for. Recurrent die back and niche recolonisation ftw.
    • hmunkey, on 07/04/2008, -8/+13And what are your qualifications? Oh, you're a digger, I see.
      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -11/+5Right back atcha. Only in your case, we are supposed to believe a "munkey". At least the Boss can spell "Smiley" correctly.
    • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -6/+9Yeah, and the dinosaurs used to pump all their waste into the oceans.

      It's happened before. Right?

      You do realize things are a BIT different this time, right?
      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -9/+1Actually the dinosaurs didn't pump anything anywhere - the ultimate Green population, and an asteroid got them in the end.

        So inadvertently you have shown we should actually be putting funds into something we know can cause global catastrophe (astroid detection) rather than speculative cures for a possible problem that MAY manifest in twenty or thirty years!
      • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9If you're wiling to spend money speculating on an asteroid strike that may or may not come, why won't you speculate on a situation that you're watching unfold in front of you?
      • angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5@sk

        The problem is manifesting NOW. Open your eyes and take a look around you.
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I think the point is that the dieback will include humans, and the recolonization won't. If that is not a concern for you then carry on.
  • scamerica, on 07/04/2008, -21/+6Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

    Guess he never met these guys:

    Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
    Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
    Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
    Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
    Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
    Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
    And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
    • monoa, on 07/04/2008, -3/+18The list can be summarised by the author of it, Lawrence Solomon: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." - http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=12d ...

      1. A detailed look at this list:
      * Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
      * Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
      * Prof. Paul Reiter is a medical entomologist (he studies insect-borne disease) and therefore has no training in climate science. He has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.
      * Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is a retired aeronautical engineer. He has provided no evidence to counter the accepted scientific consensus, and seems mainly concerned with the effect of turbulence on climate models.
      * Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
      * Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.
      * Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
      * Dr. Tom V. Segalstad - he provides no evidence for his claim re. "most leading geologists". He claims "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 .... is small" and has, again, provided no evidence for this claim which runs counter to all other measurements (atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315ppm to 387ppm in the past 45 years). He collaborates with the discredited Dr. Jaworowski on many of his published articles.
      * Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"
      * Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature...". He now says "The cause of
      this climate change is unknown".
      * Dr. Richard Lindzen is also a member of 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which receives major funding from ExxonMobil. He also works for 'Cato Institute' - again funded by ExxonMobil.
      * Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - his claims that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change have been discredited - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb ...
      * Dr. Richard Tol, an economist, does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, he has merely debated the economic impact.
      * Dr. Sami Solanki - "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."
      * Prof. Freeman Dyson - "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
      * Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change and says "there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much." - http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

      2. Many of the people on this list are taken from the discredited Heartland Institute - http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-scientist- ...

      3. Who should you believe? The handful of discredited or misquoted scientists on this list or the thousands of credible scientists in *every* national academy in every developed country on the planet who say dangerous climate change is happening and is largely due to human activity?

      4. "...no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...

      5. There is another, equally dishonest and discredited, list of 31,000 'scientists' who deny anthropogenic climate change will cause "catastrophic heating". It's known as the 'Oregon Petition' and has been debunked as oil-industry propaganda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

      So, the entire list is composed of lies, misquotes and discredited claims - and this is all the reality deniers have available to them, along with wilful ignorance and dishonesty. Again, the author of the book, Lawrence Solomon, says: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."

      scamerica keeps pasting this list even though he knows it is fraudulent. That makes him some combination of dumb, deluded, dishonest and deranged.
      • scamerica, on 07/04/2008, -10/+1Dr. No: Unfortunately I overestimated you, you are just a stupid police man...
      • ultraJesus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Pwned.
    • IAmCuteKitty, on 07/04/2008, -4/+2TL;DR
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Scam, get a hobby or something, you have too much free time. Learning some science would be a great hobby, try it.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/04/2008, -5/+26An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere means more dissolved CO2 in the oceans. More CO2 in the ocean means more carbolic acid in the ocean. More carbolic acid in the ocean means a lower pH. Lower pH means bad news for corals and a host of other things.
  • coffee200am, on 07/04/2008, -11/+5We must tax everyone to prevent the use of fossil fuels and make petrol at least $21 dollars a gallon.../s
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2That's not going to be a popular choice.

      They love their cars too much.
  • scamerica, on 07/04/2008, -18/+5Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

    Guess he never met these guys:

    Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
    Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
    Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
    Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
    Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
    Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
    • scamerica, on 07/04/2008, -11/+2Beware of the stalker monoa and his lies
      • FasterGun, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5This article isn't even about global warming. Shut the ***** up.
      • SonnyW, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3Stop spamming your ***** already.
    • staplemonger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5If you're going to copy and paste the Publisher's statement for the book "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon, a book that takes quotes highly out of context at the best of times and lies at the worst, you might as well cite it so we can see where you're pulling your information from.

      People really bother me when they say "The Earth goes through NATURAL changes. We are a small part of the problem, not the cause.

      Unless dinosaurs had large stockpiles of CFCs, Nitrogen triflouride, and millions of smoke stack factories lying around I'm not exactly sure the Earth has gone through changes like this before. Doesn't mean she can't, but let's not pretend like we're riding a normal geological/climate cycle right now.

      Even if all of this is the work of fear mongers and scientists with shoddy logic and worse facts, a 1% chance that coral reefs could be destroyed for the next 2 million years bears immediate looking into. They're too beautiful and incredible to risk us ***** them over.
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Wow. Impressive. A list of a bunch of people who are not climatologists i.e. aerospace and mechanical engineers, solid state physicists -- ooh, and a Star Trek character!
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Hey, Lawrence Solomon is one of the great comic writers of our time. I just LOVE the way he says the most outragous things that a lobotomized hamster wouldn't believe and he never cracks a smile - awesome! Way better than Homer Simpson
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Hey, go easy on Scam

      It can't be easy knowing you have nothing to offer but lies and *****. How do you think he feels going around posting something that he knows is totally bogus and having people throw it back in his face all of the time? That's gotta be hard on his self esteem.

      And even though many users have debuked his stuff over and over he still finds the discipline to post it some 143 times now. That's gotta take ... something. I guess

      Yeah, it's gotta take something, and Scam clearly has that something.

      Whatever it is.

  • IAmCuteKitty, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hnylJ2scVU
  • 420ilerBuzzed, on 07/04/2008, -16/+6More fear mongering... I'm all for the environment, but for ***** sakes people - the earth goes through NATURAL changes. We are a small part of the 'problem', not the cause.

    Al Gore and the rest of his Chicken Little Crew have an agenda too folks - don't kid yourselves.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 07/04/2008, -14/+11Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is an essential ingredient of life on Earth.
    • bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -2/+17So is water.

      Let's ask southern Iowa how too much of a good thing worked out.
    • ch4os1337, on 07/04/2008, -9/+5Im breathing that ***** out right now, and so are you.
    • staplemonger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+12So is oxygen, but homolytic cleavage of an oxygen molecule can form a dangerous radical species that can start a harmful chain reaction in a living creature. Just because the ingredient is necessary in some steps doesn't make it good in others.
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Too much of it is a problem, though. Too much oxygen is a bad thing too. What we need is a balance.
    • rz8472, on 07/05/2008, -4/+2ExxonMobil, is that you?

      Seriously, your words are exactly those of this oil company ad I saw a while back.
      • Jacare, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1lol exxon and all other multinational oil companies couldn't care less about the C02 global warming debate, i dont think you fully understand how oil is used in practically everything there will always be a market for oil.
    • Shadow503, on 07/05/2008, -3/+4Not sure why you're being dugg down for stating scientific fact. . .
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Welcome to Digg - in climate change threads nothing gets you dugg down like mentioning real science, facts or evidence.
    • Jacare, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1lets take the environmental movement as far we can and get rid of as much green house gases as possible! so since we cant reduce the C02 emissions of the ocean lets kill all the plant life! after all thats the next biggest producer of C02 and we must curb industrial and civilization C02 emissions and put a ban and a death sentence on boiling/heating liquids because 70% of green house gases are WATER VAPOR so in this new green world we have to walk everywhere, we cant cook what little food we have, we are cold, hungry, probably horny....wait that sounds alot like what it would be like to live in undeveloped country in africa!(except they can cook what little food they have) and we all know how well thats working for them
    • angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Pollute: Contamination, Befoulment - The undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities

      I think we can safely assume that in this context, CO2 is indeed a pollutant.
  • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -12/+2Climate Change: A 20 Year Perspective

    http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/climate-chan ...
    • JHW539, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8What an idiot - cherry picking a single point in time and a single stratospheric level temperature point and thinking it means jackshiat against the legitimate statistical analysis and thousands of datapoints being investigated (and strongly challenged by every PhD and scientist who'd love to win a Nobel and be showered with money from the deep pockets of the oil industry by finding factual observations challenging the well supported and accepted climate change theory).
      • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -5/+2Almost as stupid as cherrypicking a few years in a huge history of climate and then saying we're going through a crisis of global warming.

        Watch those stones, we can see you throwing all too well.
      • JHW539, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5You have no knowledge of the mountain of facts, observations and tests that led to the current theory of climate change, do you?
  • Downwritemad, on 07/04/2008, -7/+10Starfish are killing the coral. Huge numbers of starfish are bleaching the Great Barrier Reef. We should start hunting them.
    • ch4os1337, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4Can you make them into anything?
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2Nature is killing nature! Oh my. Surely that justified man's destruction thereof.
    • angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4No, the starfish don't cause bleaching. Coral bleaching is caused primarily from higher oceanic temp, pH level and overexposure to UV light. It causes the coral to expel the microscopic algea that gives coral it's colour, making it appear bleached. Most often bleached coral will die, however they can recover but they grow slower, are less virile and are susceptible to disease.

      These Crown of Thorns starfish are coral predators that digest coral polyps.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starf ...
      They are a different type of threat that has been caused by runoff of agricultural fertilisers.
  • Pirate45, on 07/04/2008, -8/+7I blame the sun =p
  • rock774, on 07/04/2008, -10/+6Bull *****
  • stakepie, on 07/04/2008, -6/+9I don't understand. Why would so many coral reefs still exist after 150 years if they're all likely to disappear in the next 10 years?

    I bet if you go back ten years ago you'll find articles in Science saying that by 2008 all of the world's coral reefs will be gone.
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/04/2008, -5/+3Sensationalists, my friend.

      They seem to be everywhere these days. And people blindly follow them. Yes, we should be concerned about the Earth, but everything isn't going to end in X amount of time. Humans are not the enemy.
    • khouros, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3"I bet if you go back ten years ago you'll find articles in Science saying that by 2008 all of the world's coral reefs will be gone."

      "I bet..."

      Jesus.
  • xombiefarts, on 07/04/2008, -6/+3Due to the Human virus...So much potential...only disappointment. :(
  • LoveWidescreen, on 07/04/2008, -16/+12THIS JUST IN:

    Humans are the cause for every evil ever brought upon the earth! Tunguska blast of 1908 blamed on global warming! Humans caused Mars' atmosphere to disappear! Dinosaur extinction blamed on the internal combustion engine!

    I'm so sick of this ***** where some way, some how we're responsible for every damned issue on the earth.

    As per the late, great George Carlin:

    "Over 90%, over, way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does. We're so self-important, so self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?"
    • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5Got news for you man - Tunguska was Bush! Not satisfied with destroying the whole planet in our time, he developed a Time Machine (never question how someone like Bush can both be stupid and an evil genius at the same time, he just is) and went back in time just to kick a few more trees in the ass.

      Damn that evil man!
    • cspivack, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Carlin followed that up by saying that while the Earth will be around for a long, long time, we won't be. The destruction of coral reefs will also destroy the ecosystems within them. If the oceans get ***** around with, and we can't get food from them anymore, that's pretty bad.
  • bigteebo, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5Surely there were forest fires(from lightning) which pumped CO2 around, and no firecrews to remedy it(before humans came around). Um, we're still here.
  • Nintendesert, on 07/04/2008, -11/+5What a bunch of *****. But hey, if people want to believe that CO2 levels have never been as high as they are right now, then go ahead. But this is just more fear mongering *****.
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Nintendesertseems to think that the climate scientists who discovered and researched historic climate change and CO2 levels somehow don't know about it.

      What do you think Nintendesert? they 'forgot'? slipped their mind did it? decades of research and thousands of studies just sort of got overlooked in their excitement to research climate change?

      Yeah, that sounds likely. I believe that.

      Or maybe you just have no idea what you are talking about.
      • Nintendesert, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Agendas, bias, people being bought off. Oh, that's easy to believe when it comes to big evil oil and war contracts but sooo very unthinkable when it comes to an even bigger money making and wealth distributing industry like Global Warming.
  • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+15gotta love the armchair climatologists on digg who show up to refute the findings of actual scientists.
  • goodinohio, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4I knew we should have banned Captain Planet.
  • beauley, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3Will the world ever become cleaner, our air, oceans and streams less polluted ? Will man with his past great accomplishments find a way to reverse what it has exhausted into our ecosystem ?
    http://www.socyberty.com/Issues/We-Live-In-A-Pollu ...
    We live In A Polluted World
  • DiggGeek24, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2Simple solution more CO2 we need to plant more tree or create genetically tree that absorb more CO2.
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Planting more trees will not help. They absorb more sunlight, causing the global surface temperature to rise. The only real solution is to produce less carbon.
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Friendly amendment, it depends on the background soil colour. If it is light then trees, esp confirs will increase albedo. The equation is more balanced with deciduous trees on dark soils.

        But that in no way alters your main point, it is correct
    • superkendall, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1Nothing like destroying all current trees to make way for artificial trees in order to save the corals!
  • Anonchrist, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10Everyone that is saying that the world has a way of balancing out is right... The oceans are balancing out our C02 problem and preventing Global Warming from developing by absorbing the CO2. The problem is that we are going to maintain the unnatural dumping of C02 into the environment and it will increase the acidity of the water. I am tired of the argument that fires destroy natural habitats on a far greater scale than our air pollution. The fallacy of that argument is that every fire eventually goes out and we have no intention on stopping.
    • superkendall, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1You assume higher acidity is the ONLY affect of oceans absorbing more CO2. You ignore all the very real aquatic life that lives there, like alge.

      How do YOU know more CO2 will not cause a huge increase in alge, followed by something like a jump in endangered whale populations with more plentiful food? That idea is just as outlandish as suggesting all the coral reefs will vaporize.
      • yakski, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4Its called scientific investigation... you know ... you do experiments and look at the results... I am sure this is a foreign concept to you but it is where factual evidence is determined ... and it is generally well demonstrated that what you are trying to say is.......... drumrolllllllll.... complete unabashed *****!!!! While it might seem like more CO2 would be a great for various plant life.. it is quite the opposite for the vast majority of plants.. they have evolved to live in a very narrow window of CO2 levels... sure algae and trees could evolve to love more CO2 over thousands of years but not over decades of ever increasing levels... the brain is a terrible thing to waste kendall (and all you other anti- or non-scientifically oriented people out there)!!!
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"How do YOU know more"

        Science, knowledge, facts ... you know, stuff like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#P ...
      • Anonchrist, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Yakski has already responded with the point I was going to make.

        PS.
        I never said magically disappear; sealife that can not develop an exoskeleton in acidic water will move closer to less acidic coastal water and will gradually be wiped out. (According to reported research.)

        I do not assume higher acidity is the ONLY affect of oceans absorbing more CO2, but C02 is on the rise, the oceans absorb it, and it does increase acidity.

        Even if more C02 caused an increase in algae in addition to destroying an entire group of the food chain, how can you say that would be a good thing.
        (Diversity = Good) It is what keeps that balance I was talking about going.

        And one last thing, I do not care if anyone changes their life based on initial findings of something like this, but don't dispute people passing on news from well informed people without being more well informed on the subject than others.
  • govsucks, on 07/04/2008, -12/+7Nutball environmentalists COULD set the progress of mankind back 200 years by hobbling the very things that have brought us forward to the point that we can even CONSIDER green technologies.
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5You have no idea how fallacious your reasoning is. I could try to explain it, but you probably wouldn't get it.
      • AllyOfReason, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2He's got a point, you don't. Why bother commenting?
  • scamper22, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5To most people...its 'who care's about the coral reefs'
    Now maybe these things are warning sides (canary in the coal mine).

    Yet, you don't get human action with 'save the coral reefs'. You get it by saying 'Miami is going to be flooded'. The air you breathe is toxic...

  • coffee200am, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2The earth has never changed. The earth has never been warmer or colder. The earth is always the same....Man is the only reason it is changing..../s
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1coffee200am seems to think that the climate scientists who discovered and researched historic climate change somehow don't know about it.

      What do you think coffee200am, they 'forgot'? slipped their mind did it? decades of research and thousands of studies just sort of got overlooked in their excitement to research climate change?

      Yeah, that sounds likely. I believe that.

      Or maybe you just have no idea what you are talking about.
  • kore64, on 07/04/2008, -5/+3CO2 is not Pollution!
  • reddog093, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1Wall-E conspiracy theory!
  • Parker307, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3There is this thing called the greenhouse effect. It's why your car gets really hot inside on a summer day. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That means it acts like the glass on your car letting light in which turns into heat and gets trapped.
  • skunkworker, on 07/05/2008, -5/+3Why doesn't everyone just stop inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2?
    Cause that would magically stop the CO2 "pollution problem".

    Every day the average person exhales about 360 Liters of CO2
    One gallon of gas puts out 229.4 Liters of CO2.
    So thats the equivalent of 1.56 gallons of gas used by every person, everyday.
    But overall just in oil worldwide, humans exhale more then 2.8X what is put out by gasoline, not counting power plants or other things, just gas.
  • Jorin, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4I don't know why so many diggers shirk any responsibility for how ***** up the environment is. Do yourselves a favour and watch Manufactured Landscapes, then try to convince yourselves we haven't made some massive mistakes with our environment.
  • pjr12345, on 07/05/2008, -3/+3What a load of crap.

    CO2 is a naturally occurring and NECESSARY substance. The only reason the whacko, leftist elites (followed by their idiotic throng of emotional marionettes) are attempting to label it as dangerous is to take more control of, money and freedom from the rest of us.

    How 'bout all you fools who've bought into this crap hold your breath until you pass out (away)? Think of the "good" you'll do for the planet.
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1"CO2 is a naturally occurring and NECESSARY substance."

      Who said it wasn't? Please give references to climate change science that says otherwise.
      • pjr12345, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Hey Homer, Explain why I should "give references" contradicting my statement?

      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Oh sorry, I actually mean exactly what I wrote - I can see how that might have confused you. But I'll spell it out for you.

        Your claim is absurd, but just to be fair:

        Give references to climate change science and that says CO2 is not natural and/or not necessary.

        I have been following climate change science for 20+ yrs and never seen any climate change scientist say anything like it, so I was wondering where you got it,
      • pjr12345, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Let me spell it out to you... My statement was, "CO2 is a naturally occurring and NECESSARY substance". This means that CO2 is a naturally occurring and NECESSARY substance. Why would you ask me to debunk this as if my statement was just the opposite?

        Now... IF CO2 is a naturally occurring and NECESSARY substance, then why would we suddenly begin to believe that it is dangerous? Especially since it offers no health risk to any living thing?f Au contraire, it offers nothing but benefit in the symbiotic relationship between flora and fauna.

        The fact is that a few crock people want to run every facet of our lives that they can get their hands on. They use "climate change models" that are unable to "predict" what has already occurred, let alone predict what might occur. They discount the effect of the sun on all of this, and there is no possible way for them to know what factors contribute to climate change, let alone include them.
      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1The point I am making is that no one ever said it wasn't natural and necessary, so your point is totally ridiculous.

        Fire is natural and necessary, we still have fire Depts.
        Water is natural and necessary, we still flight floods.
        Wind is natural and necessary, we still try to avoid hurricances, tornadoes and cyclones.
        Oxygen is natural and necessary, but too much and it will cause an expolosion at the first spark.
        etc

        When they are in the wrong amounts, and/or in the wrong place natural and necessary things it cause catastrophes, just like CO2

        And guess what? scientists know CO2 is natural and necessary.

        You honestly thought scientists could understand the chemical properties of CO2, know how to extract it from ice cores, understand it's chemical and physical behaviour under a whole range of conditions, know it's interactions with thousands of other substances, and not know that is natural and necessary?

        Is that what you really thought?


      • pjr12345, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1greenfyre:

        Your doltish answer belies reason; you seem incomprehensible of the basic point of my original post. Still, you want an answer to high CO2. First, we don't have any valid understanding of what constitutes "too much", but for argument's sake let's accept the flawed premise. If we have too much CO2, then plant more trees. There! Problem solved.

        Conversely, we could always reduce the animal life. We can start with the enemies of the United States - both foreign and domestic.

      • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Oddly I got your post just fine. I was trying to draw to your attention that it is idiotic, but as you insist on clinging to it - here is some actual science http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450 ... , deal with it.

        "If we have too much CO2, then plant more trees. There! Problem solved. "

        Holy cow, why don't world governments consult you instead of wasting their time with thousands of scientists who just know facts and stuff?

        Rhetorical question, because they are not total idiots.

        Certainly true that we need to stop logging old growth since forestry is major source of carbon production. Tree planting is dicier because we have pushed the system to the edge and large scale planting in areas where it would shift the albedo would cause more warming before the trees had enough time to take up sufficient CO2 to make a difference.

        "We can start with the enemies of the United States"

        Very noble of you to volunteer yourself that way. Why not help your country out and take care of that yourself.

        Have a nice day.
      • pjr12345, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1"major source of carbon production"

        I fail to see this as a problem that needs to be solved. Just because you've bought the GW BS doesn't mean others have. There is no truthful evidence to support the concept, just a bunch of half-truths based on rumors, lies, and incomplete data sets. Heck, the so-called temperature data has been sliced and diced for years, and has been used to support both warming and cooling. The fact is that a multitude of the data points are known to be inaccurate. And certainly we can't possibly collect enough samples to even guess at a GLOBAL trend.

        As for enemies of the United States... I put forth that those who desire to take our liberties in any manner are our enemies. You and your carbon-tax buddies fit the bill nicely.
      • pjr12345, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1greenfyre:

        BTW, your link to the so-called "actual science" ain't. Coby Beck simply regurgitates warmed-over GW BS. He makes wholly unsubstantiated statements and assumptions with no foundational support. Examples of his crappola include (1) "mountains of observation and data" - known inaccuracies and certainly not global; (2) "sophisticated, refined global climate models" - don't make me laugh, these models can't even use known historical data to accurately predict known historical climate conditions; (3) "successfully reproduce the climate's behavior" - more crappola, which climate is he referring to? The ENTIRE planet??? False.

        The fact is Mr. Beck is simply putting forth fictional talking points so that GW Believers (like you) might be able to win an argument. He offers no science, and much of what he does offer is false.

        Nice tree, greenfyre, but you've offered nothing scientific.


      • greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Notice how certain phrases is Mr Beck's piece are underlined and seem to be a different colour? Those are called 'links'. If you take that funny thing near your hand called a 'mouse' and manuever the 'cursor' to the link you will see it change colour.

        Now, don't be surprised by what happens next; holding the cursor over the 'link' click down with the left clicker (left is the same side as the 'q' on your keyboard).

        See how the screen changes and you get a new page? that is the magic of the internet. Look carefully at the new page, notice how it gives you a lot more information about the phrase you clicked on? If you read this information you can learn more about the subject.

        If you clicked on the link "mountains of observation and data" it took you page with many more links. These links go to more pages, and those pages have references and even more links.

        Now maybe you should just take some time to actually look at the evidence and get used to the idea of the internet. Next time we can talk about something called "search engines" so you can learn even more.

        Isn't the internet wonderful? All the worlds knowledge available to you in seconds. No need ever again to post empty rants, false assertions and total nonsense. Within seconds you can find real science and actual facts to go with whatever you post - isn't that exciting?
  • amightywind, on 07/05/2008, -5/+1If corals can't take a little spike in CO2 then are they worthy of survival? Of course corals have been alive in some form for 500 million years and have survived profound changes of climate. I think they will be ok.
  • Dralha, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4The religious fanatics of the Church of Global Warming Denialism are out in full force today, desperately spreading their gospel of obfuscation and distortion on behalf of their lord and savior, big oil. Their religious propaganda campaign doesn't seem to be working, though, as their proselytizing is consistently dug down.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/sk ...
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
    http://www.bluemarble4us.com/page09.html
    http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climate ...
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
    • pjr12345, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1Yes, and we all know that popularity on digg is a great barometer for a post's truthfulness.
    • greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Ignorance is less work than intelligence; you can post Denier rants while watching American Idol, you have to pay attention to learn science.
  •  

    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.