digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at ukimagehost.com

Global Warming Polar Bear [pic]

ukimagehost.com — Don't you feel bad now?!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • heypetray, on 11/20/2007, -54/+1410Nah, that bastard owes me a coke.
    • Olivaise, on 11/20/2007, -59/+5So true.
    • firrebutt, on 11/20/2007, -65/+6thats kiinda ***** up....
      • Alegoo92, on 11/20/2007, -26/+17You do know polar bears can swim don't you?
        • Neuralphreak, on 11/20/2007, -8/+35They also drowned when they can't reach "land"/ice...
        • ChaosMotor, on 11/20/2007, -3/+30No matter how well you can swim, you have to stop some time. I've heard reports of polar bears drowning out of exhaustion while trying to find ice or land to rest on.
          • DarkSamus, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3so how did it get that far out into the water in the first place?
          • dracostimpy, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Duh... global warming is how it got way out into the water. One minute it's standing on 20 ft thick ice, next moment *sploosh* it's 50 miles out to sea and swimming for dear life. Well, dear life and/or tasty seals, that is...
        • masterm1nd, on 11/20/2007, -4/+24I'm sure they do drown when they can't reach land/ice. But you are implying that the ice is melting faster than they can swim, or the polar bears just appear in the middle of the ocean and would have been able to make it to land had it not been for that pesky dynamic earth.
        • acidbass, on 11/21/2007, -4/+7Humans can swim too, Assuming youre a human, lets throw you in a 6 mile wide body of water and see how well you do.

          Oh right, you didnt think of that one.
          • BearinG, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3Oh right, Polar Bears FALL into the middle of a 6 mile wide body of water...
        • masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10Doesn't make sense. The polar bear initially starts on ice or land, it has to swim away from land in order to be in drowning danger, which has always been the case. A four inch per year glacier movement isn't going to literally melt the ground out from under them (unless the bear chose to hibernate with 45% of it's body hanging over the receding edge of the glacier, in which case survival of the fittest becomes very relevant. It doesnt really matter though because the distribution of living organisms and the interaction between an organism and it's environment is nothing new, it's called ecology, it's dynamic and it's never not happening. Just like the earth is never not changing in climate...
          • H080J03, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Didn't understand a thing you said but it sounded cool.
          • masterm1nd, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2I guess you can take the first sentence as a disclaimer then ;)

            I'm just trying to figure out the polar bears drowning can be the result of a glacier that is moving slower than your fingernails grow. And that's on top of the fact that glaciers are always growing or shrinking very slowly..
      • thetechkid, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7God dammit buzz killington, just stop already!
    • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -5/+373Give him a break, he went to get you some ice...
    • cm702, on 11/20/2007, -99/+2He also owes me one
      tell me when he gives you the coke so he can give me mine
      • pintomp3, on 11/20/2007, -3/+46you owe heypetray a joke, for stealing his.
      • diktator279, on 11/20/2007, -1/+47I don't think it's even joke stealing; just dumb.
      • lharrod, on 11/20/2007, -4/+41Hey guys, check this out... that bear... he owes ME a Coke, too!
      • OneLess, on 11/20/2007, -0/+15That wasn't even stealing the joke. That was pathetic.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
      • AROZ, on 11/20/2007, -4/+7Just putting this out there, but maybe the bear will deliver the cokes on an individual basis over time.
        • cptsmidge, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Maybe he'll just get a 12 pack or something. That way, everyone is happy!
          And by everyone, I mean the first 12 people in line.
    • Jedwards32, on 11/20/2007, -14/+5Haha nice.
    • masteriiv, on 11/20/2007, -19/+3When in Rome?
      • colto, on 11/20/2007, -0/+18...try to figure out how in the hell a polar bear got there?
    • skyshock1, on 11/20/2007, -1/+74Somewhere Stephen Colbert is viewing this picture, laughing maniacally.
      • XxERMxX, on 11/20/2007, -21/+1Wow You got an obsession about him or something?
      • dermarr5, on 11/21/2007, -6/+1I actually think that he would think it was a trap made by the robot bears.
    • brogers810, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4heypetray your comment earned that pic my digg
    • Shatzi, on 11/21/2007, -11/+5Relax. He's just at a rest stop while on his way to get us our Cokes.
    • uremomsnitemare, on 11/21/2007, -4/+8800th digg FTW
    • Disparity, on 11/21/2007, -4/+3You are hilarious! :-)
    • MarkusGarvey, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php
    • julianvs, on 11/21/2007, -2/+11Well there are a lot of unsympathetic individuals here.
      The Polar bear looks severely malnourished.
    • victorguttmann, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5seriously, the best comment i've ever seen on digg. i think i'm just gonna give up on this site cause really theres no way that can be topped. kudos sir. kudos.
      • heypetray, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Thank you, thank you. Screen shot for posterity :)
    • adamd35941, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3This is for you heypetray: http://www.ukimagehost.com/uploads/2194afb69e.jpg
    • bmunichman, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I would digg your comment, but you have +1337 diggs, and I want to leave it at that!
  • MikeonTV, on 11/20/2007, -54/+17But it's so nice outside!
    • joshua5, on 11/20/2007, -19/+18Tell that to the millions of other people that are going to have to endure famine and drought.
      • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -12/+36How many can you feed for the cost of your computer and internet connection?
        • panteradactyl, on 11/20/2007, -9/+5Burn!
        • lostboy, on 11/20/2007, -6/+8I am not sure what your point is Moin. The argument that it is a choice between Computers and preventing global climate change is at best stupid, and worst simply made so you could score some points. Need I point out that many people who happen to be scientists, activists or just people who care about the environment use Computers and the Internet daily to help prevent the crises we fear might happen?

          It's a gross simplification of modernity to just suggest that the solution to the situation of climate change is to sling technology out of the window.
        • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -8/+7The point is that if you so care about people starving then sell your computer, cancel your internet connection and use that money to feed them.
          • lostboy, on 11/20/2007, -3/+5I can see your point, however why cancel your Internet connection? Why not have your Internet, and also give money to help. Even better give your time promoting a cause that you care about, making people aware of why you think its important. I think there isn't the need to choose between satisfying ourselves and caring for others, you can do both.
          • itsinmyeyes, on 11/20/2007, -3/+1yes, why don't you instead of being on digg?
          • archiesteel, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4Moin, that's a stupid argument. You can't equate the two: on one side, you have large-scale industrial development that has likely caused a degradation in living conditions, and on the other you have a gesture that would at best alleviate the *symptom* of said degradation in living conditions.
            Look at it this way: let's say he *does* sell his computer and send them the money. They can eat for a couple of months. Good. Now, what do they do when the money runs out? There is still drought and famine. You haven't eliminated the root cause (in this context, global warming), all you've done is delay the inevitable.
            This is the exact sort of short-term thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Try to think about it the next time you're about to write such an arrogant, yet ultimately fallacious argument.
          • moin1097, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3In spite of your nonsensical comments, I'll stick with my original statement.
      • SupaNeo, on 11/20/2007, -6/+3Yeah, but that won't happen for another 60 years, I'll be dead by then.
      • Section1, on 11/20/2007, -4/+3Global rewarming means more farmable land which equals more food, this is very simple really.
  • macwisdom, on 11/20/2007, -80/+30Somebody please explain to those 2 individuals that we are next on the list. Once the seasons change enough there are going to be several billion hungry people looking for food and water.
    • borninda818, on 11/20/2007, -12/+45Calm down buddy, the picture is funny and they are commenting accordingly. Nobody is refuting the existence of Global Warming.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 11/20/2007, -6/+11Except the governments.
        • oldhick, on 11/20/2007, -4/+14They are refuting both the cause and the solutions, not the existence.
      • chalkboy, on 11/20/2007, -26/+10I am
      • ashmael, on 11/20/2007, -17/+6No, they're just making light of what will be the greatest tragedy humanity has ever faced.
        • insertAliasHere, on 11/20/2007, -6/+10Wow, some people who aren't serious about everyting all the time. Cry about it.
        • jmpeagle, on 11/20/2007, -6/+4no one actually believes that. If you actually believe that then you wouldn't mind geo-engineering the planet by lacing the ocean with iron for example if you believe that it will lead to a world wide holocaust
        • robbielaney, on 11/20/2007, -6/+3You truly are an idiot aren't you. The greatest tragedy couldn't be the killing of millions upon millions of Jews, Hiroshima, etc. It must be that Polar Bears are having to hang out on a single piece of ice. Why don't you gain a little more perspective and get your head out of Al Gore's but before you go making a comment like that!
          • Tenoq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3And when China dies of thirst after those Himalayan glaciers finish sliding into the ocean? :p That's a few more people killed than in any world war.
      • krebcycle, on 11/20/2007, -7/+9The picture is not funny, it's very sad. Many polar bears are drowning due to the huge expanses of water between ice floes in the arctic now that so much ice has melted.
        • ChloeMS, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4I agree. The most likely reason a Polar Bear would be up there would be because he was exhausted from swimming and this was the closest solid perch.
      • lharrod, on 11/20/2007, -7/+1It's should be called "Global Hotting," heh heh, get it?
      • Syphon8, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2I am.
    • pedrovoltaire, on 11/20/2007, -21/+57 billion hungry people looking for food and water? you have derailed...
    • chalkboy, on 11/20/2007, -16/+11Actually if it is true. We will have more areas to grow food. Longer summers mean more food.
      • joeyjojo, on 11/20/2007, -2/+9not true at all. It means the areas that we can grow food will just migrate further from the equator as the equatorial and desert-fringe areas become arid.
        • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -11/+7There's this thing invented a few years ago called irrigation.
          • loginx, on 11/20/2007, -2/+4Yeah it worked great in the Sahara desert... right? right?
          • asskey, on 11/20/2007, -2/+8It works great in the Negev. Oops, a pro-Israel comment.
          • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -9/+3It does around the Nile.
          • archiesteel, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Did you ever see any satellite pictures of Egypt? A tiny band of green in a sea of yellow.
            "Irrigation" is not the answer. Well, it is, but it's a stupid answer. You should consider taking your head out of the sand, so to speak.
    • BOFH2, on 11/20/2007, -3/+15well that will surely take care of the over population of the planet that other groups are whining about. The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years(Wikepedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) .
      Personally I would not run out and stock up on water and MREs for quite awhile.
    • v1ctor, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1several billion hungry *and thirsty* apparently....
  • maxpower17@digg, on 11/20/2007, -80/+663Don't you feel bad now?! ***** no Polar Bears can swim
    • ryanlive, on 11/20/2007, -13/+144In fact polar bears have been known to swim up to 100 miles.
    • ProKid, on 11/20/2007, -16/+108Can't swim forever
    • geek_xyu, on 11/20/2007, -19/+59100 miles.. assuming they find land. let's try to explain away the amount of polar bears that have drowned because they couldn't find land.
      • CabesMojo, on 11/20/2007, -4/+24Are there actually any figures on this?
        • dark_helmet, on 11/20/2007, -3/+10Recently, polar bears in the Arctic have undertaken longer than usual swims to find prey, resulting in four recorded drownings in the unusually large ice pack regression of 2005.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
          • CabesMojo, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2So one guy saw 4 dead polar bears in the ocean one time? Thats our source...........he speculates they drowned while searching for food and as to the reason why.
        • b3owulf, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7So does that mean someone watched them drown? All 4 of them? That's messed up.... throw them a life jacket.
      • tdreyer1, on 11/20/2007, -15/+7Pictures or it didn't happen
        • asskey, on 11/20/2007, -10/+1NO! It's "pics or it didn't happen" you buffoon! You can't disguise it by changing the words around.
      • bencefeher, on 11/20/2007, -14/+11Don't act like you care about the insignificant number of polar bears that have died from drowning.
      • 1randomguy08, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3Well if polar bears cant find ice or land within 100km. Then they deserve an darwin award.
        • narciblog, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5They may get one. Except biologists call it "extinction."
      • wastedlife, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Well if they know the ***** way to land they'll survive, and they deserve to. This is Evolution in motion.
      • grason1129, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Soon a race of super strong long distance swimming polar bears will land on US soil and then who will pay?! I say we issue hunting permits for these beasts before they come after our children.
    • cambob76, on 11/20/2007, -19/+67They swim until they drown because there isn't ice thick enough to support their weight. This is how they are going extinct. When the mother dies, the cubs starve.
      • anononon, on 11/20/2007, -25/+18Not going extinct. That's just more hype from the Al Gore propaganda machine.
        http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/02/po ...
        • loginx, on 11/20/2007, -4/+24"Nunavut is afraid the listing would hurt its lucrative polar bear sport hunting industry since many of the hunters are American, Netser said in a recent interview."

          Yeah dude, that's a very reliable source... the guy who makes profit from killing bears says it's okay to kill bears, so surely it must be okay.
        • nicerobot, on 11/20/2007, -1/+10Your referenced article is suspect at best. There's no question their habitat is changing dramatically which is making it difficult to accurately gauge populations. As habitat decreases they migrate into closer quarters making it appear as if populations have increased when in fact that can still have decreased. Continued hunting while we're unsure of their ability to sustain is simply irresponsible.
        • MagicCake, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Al Gore? ***** you. There are many sources documenting what's happening to polar bears. Don't be stupid.
      • 1randomguy08, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Question: Why would polar bears be 100km's away from thick ice? Are they hanging out in Britain for the summer?
        • MagicCake, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4It melts around them. The ice doesn't melt uniformly, it breaks in pieces. The bear is out there when this begins to happen. Soon the ice is too thin and they must start swimming. They go as far as they can, but often won't find a place to stop and rest. On the off chance that they do, they're too exhausted to kill something to eat. Between drowning and lack of food, they're dying at an alarming rate.
        • fistikuffs, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Why didn't you just say "i'm an ignorant idiot"?
    • fridaporvida, on 11/20/2007, -3/+14so can the orcas that eat them :[
    • DarQraven, on 11/20/2007, -11/+10So can you, so that makes it okay if I flood your hometown? Alllllrighty!
      • b3owulf, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Are you equating bears to humans? Are you equating someone intentionally flooding a town of people to the sun / cycle / greenhouse gases causing global warming? Are you also comparing the swimming abilities of people to those of polar bears?

        If you're doing at least one of those three these, you're an idiot.
        • Tenoq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Aren't we intentionally melting the arctic ice, now that we know what's causing it? The fact is no-one really cares enough to do anything about it - or they skip that phase and jump straight into the 'despair' category: "we're ***** already, so let's just live with it."
    • IdevInull, on 11/20/2007, -17/+24They can also evolve so this isn't a problem. Polar bears will just evolve gills and fins -- problem solved.
      • blankis, on 11/20/2007, -0/+9I lol'd.
      • Slungsolow, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9can't see why this got dugg down.
        • stuffya, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1Because they can't evolve at the same rate as global warming. Not even close. Can't see why people can't see that.
      • thesixthdesign, on 11/21/2007, -9/+3are you like, retarded?
      • b3owulf, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2You idiot. Polar bears have already evolved into killer whales, the remaining polar bears are the ones that didn't evolve. Or is is that there used to be a group of bears very similar to polar bears and all of those evolved into killer whales? I can't keep track anymore.
    • cJeremy, on 11/21/2007, -13/+7***** idiot. bears can't swim forever. they need to rest on the floating ice and *****. that's some ignorant *****.
    • postaldave, on 11/21/2007, -15/+9their population is increasing, sounds like they LIKE global warming.
  • geekchic, on 11/20/2007, -28/+14That looks like a giant cauliflower.
  • ColorBlind, on 11/20/2007, -104/+69NEWS FLASH - Nature works in cycles. Global warming is fallacy.
    • tamahagane, on 11/20/2007, -9/+32NEWS FLASH - Tobacco causes cancer.
      • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -13/+3No more than your cell phone.
        • archiesteel, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4You like changing the subject with irrelevant replies, don't you?
      • wrxpert, on 11/20/2007, -4/+3I concur.
      • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -1/+9... but cigarette smokers get lung cancer at a much higher rate than non-smokers, tobacco chewers and cigar smokers get mouth and throat cancer at much higher rates than those that don't ... There is no proof, but there are accurate statistics based on mountains of data collected via the scientific method...
      • kageki, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1No tests as I recall has ever been done on completely, naturally, organically grown tobacco (the ones not laced with uranium). How did the native americans survive so long?
        • archiesteel, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Because they didn't smoke a pack a day.
        • elnerdo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4They didn't. I'm going to explain this once and only once: People hundreds of years ago did not die of cancer because they didn't live long enough to die of cancer. Instead, they died of the flu.
    • fuzzmeister, on 11/20/2007, -5/+21You can debate about the cause of global warming, but the Earth _is_ warming, it's absolutely undeniable. Hence the name "global warming".
    • ColorBlind, on 11/20/2007, -8/+7I'm going to start putting a *sarcasm* warning on all my posts...geez
      • davidrools, on 11/20/2007, -5/+11Well we're glad you are being sarcastic, because there are a bunch of people out there who seriously believe that this warming trend is a completely natural cycle.
        • ChaosMotor, on 11/20/2007, -4/+7Changes in the Earth's environment are natural cycles, and Earth has normally (over it's entire span of existence) had a higher temperature than it does now - HOWEVER - Earth at those higher temperatures could not support the /type/ of life that exists on Earth now and humanity is dependent on. We are now artificially moving ourselves towards the other, higher equilibrium by taking all the fossil fuels that contain millions of years worth of organic energy and releasing that energy over an extremely short period of time (geologically), which in turn increases the amount of energy that is in circulation within our environment. While humans expend a large portion of that additional energy, an appreciable amount is emitted as both matter (emissions) and free energy (heat & EM waves). This is not a sustainable behavior.
          • luchid, on 11/20/2007, -4/+4Yeah yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night after a day of driving that 12 MPG SUV.
          • scrimaxinc, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4You may want to read over his comment again. Especially...

            "We are now artificially moving ourselves towards the other, higher equilibrium by taking all the fossil fuels that contain millions of years worth of organic energy and releasing that energy over an extremely short period of time (geologically), which in turn increases the amount of energy that is in circulation within our environment." and "This is not a sustainable behavior."
          • tbydal, on 11/20/2007, -0/+0Hate to nitpick, but its not the energy that's the problem. Its the CO2, which for obvious reasons, is low on energy.

    • empraptor, on 11/20/2007, -4/+9NEWS FLASH - some cycles end. Like your mom's.

      NEWS FLASH - people can die of heat exhaustion, hunger, thirst, war.

      Really. Why does it matter that it's been hot previously in Earth's history? We're 6.5 billion and growing now. If it gets hotter again we're screwed.

      Please jump on the human contribution skeptics boat. Maybe there could be some rational discussion there.
      • Besundale, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3ok so we're supposed to purposely make the earth's natural climate changes colder?
    • nnagflar, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3To be grammatically correct, you would want to say that global warming is "a" fallacy. Or, you could say that global warming is "fallacious."
    • greatcaffeine, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Of course nature has cycles. Nature also hasn't had to deal with the strain of 6.5 billion people putting record levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That definitely changes the equation.
      • bigbadgoat, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3is that human record or earth record? earth has about 6.499980000 billion more years worth of data that humand dont even know about.
        • D0m0kun, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Actually, fossil records provide climate information. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the parent's post. Certainly you agree that 6.5 billion people haven't been putting record levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for 6.5 [sic- the earth is actually ~4.5] billion years.
    • Majorcrash, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2NEWS FLASH: It's 2007. No one uses "NEWS FLASH" anymore.
  • pedrovoltaire, on 11/20/2007, -46/+497if we nuke the chinese, it could reduce CO2 emmissions enough that we could probably save the polar bears.
    • ColorBlind, on 11/20/2007, -8/+88I like where you're coming from. Not to mention the area would be uninhabitable by humans so plant and animal life would thrive....not to say it would be healthy growth...but beggars can't be choosers.
      • ZennZero, on 11/20/2007, -1/+50Actually, the area around Chernobyl has gradually been reclaimed by native wildlife, and it appears to be thriving.

        Evidently the effect of the radiation is not significantly impacting their survival. In many instances, having a higher percentage of failed pregnancies and unfit juveniles (which are probably quickly reintroduced to the food chain - i.e. eaten) is trivial compared to the impact man has on their populations and habitats.
        • BOFH2, on 11/20/2007, -13/+3You were doing great until the impact crap. Everything has an impact on something.
        • quaxon, on 11/20/2007, -3/+34eww who wants to eat a retarded animal?
        • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -0/+17Most predators go for the elderly, young, and sick first. They will only go after a more challenging kill when none of the easier targets are available. That's why it is called survival of the fittest.
    • coldkodiak, on 11/20/2007, -7/+127polar bears > the Chinese


      interesting...
      • userini, on 11/21/2007, -0/+14Somehow I doubt that we'll be able to convince polar bears to work in sweatshops though...
    • fuzzmeister, on 11/20/2007, -2/+62The resulting nuclear winter would definitely add some extra pizazz to the cooling process.
      • DNABeast, on 11/20/2007, -1/+13I think you're onto something here. A balanced process of Carbon emissions and nuclear detonations to fine tune the atmosphere.
      • hackysackwizard, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Dugg for use of the word "pizazz"
    • ausfahrt, on 11/20/2007, -35/+33Or you could nuke the US ... that would probably do a better job.
      • GeneralFailure0, on 11/20/2007, -4/+20You're such a negative Nancy.
        • YJ2k2, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1So it's ok to joke about nuking China because the entire race is beneath polar bears (in the name of sarcasm), but not ok to joke about nuking the US?
          • miketherazor, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Because they are not joking. That is the difference
      • EvockBC, on 11/20/2007, -5/+21Don't know why he is getting dugg down.. it's true. US's 22.2% of worlds CO2 emissions vs China's 18.4%.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
        • SiSePuede, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6Give it a month. :)
        • daye, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Also note that the 22% CO2 emitted by the US were used on bombing other nations, and practically nothing else. While the 18% used in China produced everything American use in doing, nothing.
          • miketherazor, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1You got us there Beijing dude. We're the truly evil ones aren't we. I know you don't get to see the real news in your police state so let me fill you in. Your peaceful country invaded Tibet in 1950 and has been illegally occupying the country ever since. In that time an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans (one in four of the population) have been killed in an act of gross human and cultural genocide. Then after that your great leader Mao proceeded to kill over 10 million of his own people in his "cultural revolution" he started in 1966. Not to mention how your peaceful country funded the North Korean communists and still do and not to mention that your peaceful country funded the North Vietnamese against us. You want something more recent you say? How about the fact that since your country has veto power on the UN Security council they have blocked any meaningful intervention against the Sudan for the genocide going on in Darfur. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture. No one's country is completely innocent of bad things but I'd vote for America as being a hell of a lot better than China when it comes to human rights. So in closing, I'd Ike to just say...***** YOU!
      • zantos420, on 11/20/2007, -3/+0how about debbie downer?
      • JoeB2, on 11/21/2007, -2/+0Yhea!! But if we could just have nukes for lawyers, banksters and politicians... Even better.
      • Mrlncognito, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0Where would America and all other advanced nations send all of the waste and really nasty ***** that you sell China to get rid of?
        You would have to deal with it yourselves.
      • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1That wouldn't be good for the world, where would the rest of the world find a middle class that is large enough and dumb (me included) enough to work in jobs they hate so they can buy imported products that they don't really need on credit cards that they can barely afford so the world economy can reap the benefits? Don't believe me? See what happened when the US housing market took a dive? The whole world's economy suffered. Now what do you think would happen if we just stopped existing?
        • oiltrader, on 11/23/2007, -0/+0the whole economy suffered??? another reason for you to come to India, cowboy. Like all your countrymen, you're blissfully oblivious of whats happening in the rest of the world and so full of your self-importance....the times are achanging my friend....for the record, I trade crude oil futures sitting here in Bangalore and pay around 4000 dollars A DAY to american exchanges(Nymex and Intercontinental Exchange) in exchange and clearing fees and my proprietary firm's backoffice is in America...The service is so bad that we are tired of screaming at you people and are planning to shift it to India asap
    • empraptor, on 11/20/2007, -11/+4While we're at it let's nuke nations by going from top of carbon footprint list. Let's go for say... top 5?
      • bizkit00, on 11/20/2007, -6/+2nuke 1 every week for 10 weeks starting at the top of the list!
      • DemonWasp, on 11/20/2007, -5/+2Please don't. Canada doesn't want the fallout from the States. Thanks!
        • asskey, on 11/20/2007, -0/+7Mexico does though. The radiation would help clean bacteria out of their water supply.
      • EvockBC, on 11/20/2007, -4/+4I couldn't agree more. There will be a huge reduction of CO2 emissions if the US nukes itself!
      • empraptor, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Ok well I thought it was funny. And that's all that matters. Because none of you exist.
    • hcl40u, on 11/20/2007, -4/+40Plus no more leaded toys as a bonus.
      • rome747, on 11/20/2007, -3/+1China's not the only supplier that does that kind of thing.
        • NSMike, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1But so far they are the only ones that have given us roofied toys, on top of the lead paint and pet poison.
    • nonymous666, on 11/20/2007, -1/+18The only reason the Chinese use so much oil is to produce products for everybody else.
      • vikramraja, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1so if we produced our own products.......
      • muxaulo, on 11/21/2007, -5/+1Yea thats right, products for fat-assed americans...
        • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3I notice you are from Australia. No wonder you guys are skinnier than us, your food is ***** awful! Vegemite? Dear god in heave that is some awful crap. G'day mate, why don't you go swim with the stingrays?
          • muxaulo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0I notice your a Texan, and I agree with the vegemite thing. I disagree with our food being awful though, all we eat is mcdonalds and hungry jacks (burger king to you) the same ***** that the corporations stuff down your mouths. We are also your allies in war and really, wanting me to go swimming with stingrays, so you want me to die? I will die eventually anyway, as will you.
          • miketherazor, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I had to reply to my own remark because digg is screwed up for some reason and says my session is expired, this is to Muxaulo.
            Ya got me mate. I hail from Texas and I was merely meeting aggression with aggression. You see, we don't take kindly to you callin' us fat asses. You'd better smile when you say that mister. As far as what I eat, you can keep the burger crap, I like a fat porterhouse steak with a fully loaded baked potato, slow smoked beef brisket, pulled pork with hot sauce, Tex-Mex, i.e. real fajitas and carne asada with pico de gallo and guacamole. Also, since my wife is from Spain, I love Carne con patatas, carne con tomates and tortilla de patatas. Its no wonder we weigh more, we have the best damn food because we borrow recipes from everywhere! So in closing I'd say, if you want to have a friendly exchange, bring a friendly remark to the table and one from the other side will be made back to you but if you start off by insulting a Texan, you'll get a smart ass remark back if you are on digg and a punch in the nose if you are in person. That is why I love Texas, we call it like we see it and you better believe you'll get our opinion on the matter if you ask us. Now go in peace and remember to smile...............
      • kults, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1CO2 from breathing, not production.
    • aMammoth, on 11/20/2007, -2/+16You know, if we all kill our selfs, we can save the planet!
      What I great Idea....
      • chussy, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1exactly what i was thinkin, much better idea
      • nnagflar, on 11/20/2007, -0/+15ourselves
      • asdfuku, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Might wanna jump on that idea.. if you go first you'll get all the credit. Then Tupac might chill with you up in the clouds, and who doesn't want that?
        • Garbagio, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1If you can get Marley there too, you have a deal.
    • diggimator, on 11/21/2007, -7/+13Americans pollute more than the Chinese, hence a more natural solution to the problem at hand would be...
    • cnot3, on 11/21/2007, -0/+10Nuclear Winter ought to help cool things down a bit as well, plus the Chinese counter-attack would help take care of over-population. Yep, everyone knows nuking is good for the environment.
    • 1randomguy08, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Polar bears >Panda bears lol
    • rprouse, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5How about we just nuke all the Hummers?
      • pw378, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3At least the ones with "spinners" for rims.
        • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2How about ANY vehicle with spinners? God I hate those things....
    • CrazyRussian, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3thank god... i was beginning to think that i was the only one that felt like simultaneously dropping 20 nukes on China is a good idea.
      • mepine, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0but you don't have the money. and what you have said here is useless.
      • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1the problem is that they already started their war against us and we didn't notice.....lead in the toys, bad pet food, chemicals on toy beads, mercury in the frozen fish, they are seeing what they can get passed the inspectors and once they are ready, they'll just poison us to death and then march in with no opposition.....
    • oiltrader, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2why not nuke america...america is by far the most wasteful nature on earth. those bastards did not even endorse the kyoto protocol...plus any nation electing a moron like bush over al gore must have its moral compass and priorities really screwed up
      • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Why not nuke India? They bath and brush their teeth in the same river they burn dead bodies on. They are the worst at call center customer service and don't take care of their people since the majority live in poverty. They force widows to live on the street starve to death because of some crazy tradition. they still have the caste system.

        See how it is easy to talk about someone else's country? Really I don't give ***** what you do in your *****-hole country. All I know is that everyone I know that has been there said it was like what they would expect to find in hell with poor starving people laying in the street with human waste everywhere and the stink is etched into their memories forever as the worst smells they have ever experienced. I vote we let you die with dignity and you explode your own nukes....
        • oiltrader, on 11/23/2007, -0/+0some(righteous) indignation!!! its perfectly OK to nuke china but a retort to "nuke china" comment sends the moral torch right up our man's filthy arse...talk about hypocrisy. Plus it also blinds him to the irony in his response. What happened to your "sense of humor" m*****f***er????

          As for India, "everyone I know that has been there" must have been to India about 50 years ago. I invite you to come to India and see whats here for yourself. Its very easy to rake mud on something that you've never ever seen for yourself. Does Katrina and new Orleans remind you abt anything??? And you talk about dying with dignity???? What about 9/11 *****??? I hope those bastards died with dignity...

          BTW, Mr. Bitter, did your job get outsourced to Bangalore too?
    • bornnotfree, on 11/21/2007, -3/+0Why don't you trade yourself for that polar bear? It seems to be a fair trade, because you don't seem to have more humanity than that bear has. Are you still wondering why people of other countries hate America?
      • miketherazor, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2It is called a sense of humor! Get one.
    • ian9outof10, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1best.comments.ever!
    • mulation, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Shame on you, we Chinese will nuke back or even nuke you first when needed.
      Shame on USA, such a small population used so much energy/resource, and caused so many problems to the world.
      Shame on you, shame on all of you, it is really a good thing we have developed nuke to defend our people from ***** people as you sucker.
    • freeyiyu, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1you probably don't know that US emmits the most CO2 in the world, and US remain the few that hasn't join the Kyoto Protocal, whose main purpose it to cut the global CO2 emmission.
  • dracostimpy, on 11/20/2007, -16/+557Global warming bear is watching you masturbate.
  • JonRohan, on 11/20/2007, -8/+24Rio or bust!
  • ryanlive, on 11/20/2007, -90/+30This isn't the first time global warming zealots have exploited polar bears on melting ice to push their political agenda.
    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507 ...
    • ElAssoWipo, on 11/20/2007, -9/+29Please explain the political agenda of "global warming zealots".
      • blipblopblip, on 11/20/2007, -20/+18It's to create a hysteria about a global crisis so that a global tax can be implemented. This tax is to be used for globalist national policy convergence and a way to make a dent in the middle and poorer classes for the benefit of the corporate elite who, trust me, won't be giving up their SUV's for anyone. All the time they laugh at us while fully knowing that NASA are publishing reports that the ice caps on Mars are melting, and Jupiter is looking a little hot for this time of year despite the fact there are no SUVs for miles around!

        Anyway, hope that answers your question.
        • quaxon, on 11/20/2007, -1/+9you make the montauk project look sane.
        • luchid, on 11/20/2007, -2/+9Wow... a global tax? Since when was any of that tried to be introduced? Every single scientist is saying that we should just cut down on fuel consumption, expand renewable energy sources and cut back on waste, and you're here spouting ***** about some tax? I hope you die in a very slow and painful way.
        • kageki, on 11/21/2007, -7/+2Yes tax. A tax on CO2 emission. That's part of the Kyoto protocol. Oh let me guess you haven't read aaaaanything have you? Look it up.
        • D0m0kun, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6A tax, or tax credit system, on corporate polluters is not a tax on your income. While it could reduce your income in a high polluting job, new opportunities with modern pollution-reducing technology are created. It's a win-win for everyone except the fat cats who own heavily polluting industries who have no financial incentive to reduce pollution otherwise.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 11/20/2007, -2/+4Rofl, yes it does.Thank you.
      • wrxpert, on 11/20/2007, -7/+4I belive global warming is a worst case senario for all the ecologist. I don't think that we are beyond a point of no return by any means. I think it's great that it's getting allot of people to change but it is a propoganda like any other. The earth has been subject to times of very great geothermal activity in which ozone depleating gasses were realeased in a far greater scale that we are able to produce. It will take 1000's of years for us to be really in trouble. By then we will have amazingly green technology (on Mars).
        • ElAssoWipo, on 11/20/2007, -2/+5Yeah, and I was promised flying cars by the year 2000. Don't rely on unexistant technological advancements. It's like saying it's OK to have sex without a condom because they'll cure AIDS before you die from it.
          • wrxpert, on 11/20/2007, -3/+2I'm not depending on it. I don't even need to worry about the problem. Thats my point. It also is not a dependace on technology that I am looking at. It is the belief that the human race it strong and advanced enough to survive. If anything the political climate is what we should be worried about right now much more than our eco climate.
    • abran1984, on 11/20/2007, -1/+28You're going to get ripped for linking to Rush's site...
      • pintomp3, on 11/20/2007, -1/+11didn't you know that taking oxycotin gives you power to refute 100,000 scientists with a single talking point?
    • Shiftgood, on 11/20/2007, -7/+4Well, polar bears feel it first because their habitat is most vulnerable to the climate change.

      Dont think for yourself! Never use logic! thats for the pussy liberals... im glad you're head strong. These idiots could take a lesson from you.
    • chalkboy, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2To get people to stop driving cars.
    • fuzzmeister, on 11/20/2007, -0/+12You obviously don't understand the political demographics of Digg if you link to rushlimbaugh.com.
      • ryanlive, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1I don't care anymore. Rush is right on!
      • ryanlive, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1I don't care anymore. Rush is right on!
        • rationalist, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Hah - a literal dittohead.
          Hah - a literal dittohead.
          I see what you did there.
    • bizkit00, on 11/20/2007, -2/+7haha, call something a political agenda and then link to rush, nice.
      • wrxpert, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1I would hardly call that crushed. It was a really long maybe senario.
    • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -3/+3"For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave paintings in France were produced - the weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories.

      And then a particularly hard winter would hit.

      The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than ***** sapiens.)

      What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by drought and wind-driven firestorms. .

      If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to stop flowing today, the result would be sudden and dramatic. Winter would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe and Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions would become uninhabitable and nearly two billion humans would starve, freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow.

      And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"): ".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the present state of decline is not very reassuring."

      Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

      And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the action of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in the last decade. Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to speculate suggest the switch could flip as early as next year, or it may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing the extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.

      What's almost certain is that if nothing is done about global warming, it will happen sooner rather than later."
    • Mrlncognito, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2If you country didn't have so many ***** morons rush limbaugh would still be sitting in his trailer park.
      For shame.
  • SteaminTmann, on 11/20/2007, -25/+19Oh come on! As much as they'd like you to think he's stuck there, These guys can swim!, I seen it last night on the discovery channel....
    • quaxon, on 11/20/2007, -2/+11*****, all that was on the discovery channel last night was myth busters and future weapons.
      • davidrools, on 11/20/2007, -0/+12futureweapons really ought to be called current weapons
        • AROZ, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1It's not like the crips are using them right now...
  • leerayIG88, on 11/20/2007, -21/+14I bet the water is cold.
  • Kenzan, on 11/20/2007, -31/+251Totally shopped.
    Pphsshht!
    Polar bears have antlers.
    • sleeknerve, on 11/20/2007, -10/+36I know! The refections are all wrong! i have seen a lot of shopps in my my time
    • pbaehr, on 11/20/2007, -1/+20Only the male polar bears have antlers. This is probably a female.
    • egonSchiele, on 11/21/2007, -5/+0another conspiracy by Al Gore!
      damn you hippies!

      /sarcasm
    • Chubs879, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Sadly, chances are future generations have a serious chance at mistaking reindeer and polar bears- both will be non-existent.
  • raano, on 11/20/2007, -42/+11I didn't do ***** to polar bears. They can go ***** themselves. Talk to the Indians and Chinese.
    • AROZ, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1You've lived a carbon neutral life? Trippy.
      • fluxion, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1are per-capita CO2 emissions from China or India even higher than the US? cuz im pretty sure they're not (and by pretty sure i mean i dont actually know)
  • ggnictee, on 11/20/2007, -35/+207ryanlive is right: the global warming zealots often use the increased average global temperature and quickly melting ice cap as evidence that the world is warming up and the ice cap is melting. You have to watch out for people who use facts and observations to prove theories. Sounds like science if you ask me. tricky scientists always trying to tick me with their facts and science.
    • XxIronhidexX, on 11/20/2007, -22/+9Old feature, its called a reply, theres a button for it too omg!
      • aigulf, on 11/20/2007, -1/+22All the science was confusing him...he forgot where to click.
      • ggnictee, on 11/20/2007, -2/+7yah but it was more of a general response to many comments and the argument that just because Greenland is melting doesn't mean that Greenland is melting. ryanlive was just the one above my comment. I just thought it was general enough to apply to the conversation in general.
        but thanks for the heads up. I'll have to look into this ...'reply button' :)
      • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -3/+4It is not a ***** button, it is a LINK!

        (and yes, I'm a douche bag for pointing that out)
    • bingobongony, on 11/20/2007, -20/+3Uhhh, moron...the point is this polar bear was not living on that piece of ice at any point.
    • edd17, on 11/20/2007, -2/+32piffle... you can use facts to prove anything even remotely true
      • davidrools, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4that's a perfectly crumulent statement
    • learnmorepanda, on 11/21/2007, -2/+0Giving this the Colbert Bump for those of you who didn't get it.
    • bigboehmboy, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6How About educating yourself with real statistics? Using some image of a polar bear as propaganda is not science at all, if anything it's politics. The amount of sea ice is increasing year after year but you don't hear about that.

      You sound like Al Gore, making these bombastic claims like this picture without real science. Like how he commonly states that the sea level will rise 20 feet and follows it by shocking images of receding coastlines, EVEN THOUGH the IPCC itself estimates the change in sea level to be AT MOST 10 inches.
      • rationalist, on 12/02/2007, -0/+21)"Arctic ice ebbs to record level: scientists"
        http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN20 ...
        Note to illiterate - "ebbs" means decreases. RTFA.

        2) From the US EPA, hardly a bastion of Greenpeace propaganda: "The IPCC estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.3 and 2.9 feet"
        http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/i ...

        Question: what extreme belief system motivates you to lie about publicly available, peer-reviewed reports?
        Question: what do you believe you gain by such lies? Do you believe that the world will change if you just close your eyes, click your heels and wish real hard?
    • Th1rte3n, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3I don't like you and you use spotty capitalization, therefore you must be homosexual.
      See what I did there? I used a fact and an observation to support a theory, which incidentally has little to do with science.
    • NSMike, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2I'm doing science and I'm still alive.
    • mscir, on 11/25/2007, -0/+0I don't care if it's a net warming, cooling or break-even, it's global weather change and it's disrupting a LOT of weather, when it changes rainfall enough to cause droughts and flooding and food shortages and people start moving across borders and appealing to governments for help they won't care if it's warming or cooling either, just as the governments won't. We have too many people who are living just on the edge of getting enough nutrition as it is, besides losing topsoil, running dangerously low on potable water. Any disruptive weather change could be disastrous.

      Also, I'm glad to see reduced pollution, no matter what argument it takes to make it happen, we pollute so much it's disgusting. Study how many tons of filth are released into the atmosphere every day, not to mention what we're doing to the oceans. Did you know the US pays Mexico to take hundreds of tons of toxic waste and dispose of it - every year, I'm pretty sure Mexico's EPA or whoever is in charge of that doesn't give a damn about it as long as they are paid off.

      So global warming... maybe, global pollution... sure thing, global overpopulation and resource depletion... sure thing, ANYTHING that gets these into the news and increases public awareness is... a good thing.
    • AmICoolNow, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2***** facts...they have such a liberal bias.
  • fani, on 11/20/2007, -6/+118Thats just the tip of the huge iceberg.

  • jknevitt, on 11/20/2007, -38/+285Don't worry, I'm sure Ron Paul will fix it. He apparently can fix everything else.
    • cambob76, on 11/20/2007, -7/+80Ron Paul is the new Chuck Norris.
      • moosetoga, on 11/20/2007, -1/+47There's no skin underneath Ron Paul's suit. There's just another tie.
      • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -3/+17How do you know that Chuck Norris isn't the old Ron Paul?
      • thcobbs, on 11/20/2007, -9/+1Only till Chuck Norris hits him with a roundhouse.

        Or goes back in time to bang his mother before his father makes little Ron Paul.
      • lintmonkey, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2He's gonna roundhouse all the way to the White House.
    • Wraithius, on 11/20/2007, -12/+6Ron Paul is super serial!
    • quaxon, on 11/20/2007, -15/+30Ron paul is for free and unregulated enterprise. This means no environmental regulations which means all the major corporations can maximize profits by using cheaper, yet heavy polluting, methods to make their crap. If you want more pollution/global warming, more monopolies, less over-site of corporations then Ron Paul is definitely your man. If not then go with Kucinich.
      • Arcotik, on 11/20/2007, -20/+4And when you realize global warming is a scam you won't care!
        • quiznos, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2It's cause can be debated, but in mine (and a lot of experts') views it's clearly happening.
      • insertAliasHere, on 11/20/2007, -3/+21Wow, I was having fun and laughing on this little Ron Paul thread until I got to you...and you had to go and get serious about it...
      • lvp1138, on 11/20/2007, -7/+7You are incorrect. Ron Paul is for free enterprise. *however*, he also wants to change the way private property is categorized and the laws around it. Under his plan, the air and water around you is your private property, and thus, you as an individual or part of an organization can go after the polluters, something you can't do today. Please research further.
        • InfiniteNothing, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Sweet. I'm suing every car that passes within a 10 mile radius because they are polluting my air.
      • Crosshare, on 11/20/2007, -1/+5Why can't people just leave a joke as a joke?
      • libertao, on 11/20/2007, -2/+1Global warming is his worst issue stance (I like most of the others) :(
      • j10s, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4Im not a fan of his immigration policy, doesn't mean i won't vote for him.
        • madams15, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Tell your parents to get a green card then.. OH! (jk btw)...(I also like to use abbreviations).. (I also like parentheses)
      • logandurand, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Since when does allowing people to conduct business freely mean letting them pollute to their heart's content? You're trying to mix two separate issues.
    • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -3/+34I heard that Ron Paul once delivered a baby on a melting iceberg.
      • kingvik, on 11/20/2007, -0/+10I heard that that baby was Chuck Norris.
    • fluxion, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1fix it like a fox
    • postitnote, on 11/21/2007, -6/+3I heard Ron Paul is Ron Paul.
    • ambo33, on 11/21/2007, -7/+6ummm ron paul actually doesn't believe in global warming. one of his big downfalls for me personally :(
  • Neuralphreak, on 11/20/2007, -36/+151God dammit, Why is it when someone posts anything about global warming... it gets turned into a political thing? ***** Politics... it's the EARTH. ***** Government, it's about PEOPLE... I get so sick of the whole mess, can't we just see this for what it is?!
    • Hetman, on 11/20/2007, -12/+17The earth will be fine. This is about animals and humans. Do not worry yourself about the earth the only thing that can really mess it up is when the sun expands and devours it.
      • keithburgun, on 11/20/2007, -4/+15dude, don't be an idiot, you know what he meant.
      • zoweee, on 11/20/2007, -2/+1Even that might not work.
      • TrevorBradley, on 11/20/2007, -5/+2Or we turn into Venus. I really doubt that'll happen but the fact Venus gets less solar energy to its surface than Earth does (because of cloud albedo) creeps me out a bit.
      • RobsaysHello, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2When our ancestors diverge to fill the numerous vacant ecological niches left open in our wake, and intelligent carnivores feed on intelligent herbivores and all are fed upon by intelligent human derived scavengers, the cow people will loathe us. But ***** 'em they're cows.
        • RobsaysHello, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3Of course I meant descendents...or something that makes sense.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1The earth could not take a nuclear winter. Cut out the sun and you're left with only the most exotic life.
      • logandurand, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Good point. When people talk about saving the Earth, they are really talking about saving the Earth as we know it. Conditions that are harmful to us are greatly beneficial to other organisms. Even if our species dies off, life will go on. Anyone who claims to want to "save the Earth" is misleading. So stop global warming, but know that you're doing it to save yourself, not the environment.
    • motionb, on 11/20/2007, -20/+12I agree see it for what it is absolutely NOTHING is what it is, its supposed to happen we arent doing anything to cause this, you bunch o freakin idiots!!!! its just a bunch of tree huggin hippies trying to push their idiotic agenda, a few years from now we can look back and see how stupid you all were!!!
      • soulkitchen, on 11/20/2007, -1/+9Instead of beating each others heads against the wall, why not try to convince each other. I don't really consider myself a die-hard supporter of either view but here is the logic that I use for this problem:

        Scenario 1: You're right, its a sham. We do nothing about it and we maintain the status quo. Result: Nothing happens, life as usual.

        Scenario 2: You're right, its a sham BUT the hippies prevail and we "Go Green". Result: Negative economic consequences for traditional industries, tons of money spent to fight a non-threat. However, cleaner air/water/food and cheaper long-term energy. If the US were to take the lead in this sector we would emerge as a dominant market force and possibly have more to export.

        Scenario 3: You're wrong and because of people who hold your same opinion we do nothing? Result: Catastrophe, Mass loss of life, more wars over increasingly scarce resources.

        Scenario 4: You're wrong and yet the "tree huggin hippies" prevail: Result: Disaster averted but still some sacrifices made and money spent. Long-term benefits still include the ones mentioned in scenario 2.

        Conclusion: Because scenario 3 has the only totally unacceptable result I would think it prudent to hedge our bets against it. My thoughts are that the main argument against "the hippies" (economic downturn) could even turnout to be opposite of the truth. The US economy has already lost most of its manufacturing jobs and is quickly losing its service jobs; if the US acts decisively, the number of technology jobs created by this agenda might well help the economy. Before you disregard the whole argument and say "BUT we'll lose so many other jobs"; I agree. But you've got to realize that those jobs are bleeding out already and will only increasingly do so thanks to India/China, this may be a good way to put some of that lost blood back into the economy.
        • soulkitchen, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2Ah *****, nobody is going to see this anyways. I'm too far away from the trunk of the thread
          • incendererm, on 11/20/2007, -3/+2I saw it. The only intelligent thing I've seen in this thread
        • jon30041, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Looks like Pasquale's Wager, with less logical fallacies, and about science not the FSM.

          ... Pretty friggin' sweet, dude!
        • InfiniteNothing, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Nearly the same logical fallacy exists: You could make things worse by believing in the wrong God/ wrong cause.
      • MagicCake, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2You know, I'm glad people like you say this stuff. It points out the retards.

        Because you would have to be retarded to believe our collective presence has zero impact on the world. It's absolutely insane. There is no agenda. There are not two sides to this issue. It is not a theory. It's fact, and I find it very disturbing that so many people do not care.
    • Lothar2007, on 11/20/2007, -17/+14You mean a huge way to environmentals to take our liberties, based on unproven science? Or the environmental scientists whose funding relys on climate change in order to keep their funding? Ether way, I can see it perfectly.
      • DemonWasp, on 11/20/2007, -1/+12Science, by its very nature, cannot ever be proven. The best, most accurate thing possible is "strong correlation" and "no contradictory evidence".
        Regardless, even if climate change isn't happening (which is *****), those scientists would have a new and exciting question to study, namely "what are the natural thermal cycles of the planet, and what effect does industry have on them?" (this is basically what they're investigating currently).
      • MagicCake, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Unproven? What's there to prove? Even if there was no science to back this up (and there is), why would you even need "proof" that 6 billion people MIGHT have an effect on the environment?
    • ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -4/+4Some people want a government that defends the wealthy few over the needy many and vice-versa. That's politics, that's people.
    • wherl78, on 11/20/2007, -4/+21Neuralphreak for president 2008
      • springboks, on 11/20/2007, -2/+8I second that - Neuralphreak for president! This isn't a laughing matter and the bears don't owe you a coke!
    • quaxon, on 11/20/2007, -4/+10For all we know venus could have been like earth millions of years back when it was in the suns zone of habitability and had a civilization much like ours and went down the same road we are.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Actually, I'd like to think that Venus is like an early earth with it's reducing environment. Mars is like an old earth because it used to have water.
    • Neuralphreak, on 11/20/2007, -3/+5Thanks for the vote of confidence, however, I don't think I'd be a great pick. It's just that I, like the rest of you, get so tired of the constant ***** I see filter through the pages under the guise of something more. The bare facts are simple (no pun intended)... the ice caps are melting. Polar bears can swim, but not for long distances, and they have been drowning because their food supply is being diminished and they are being forced to swim for longer distances to reach their next meal. Nature has a way of repeating itself, the Earth isn't in danger, but all it's inhabitance are.
    • GeneralGore, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1No. This must somehow be Bush's fault and Ron Paul is able to fix it.
      /s
    • pw378, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2When environmentalists ask people to recycle and lower their energy usage to help the environment, its about global warming.

      When environmentalists ask the governments to force people to pay higher taxes on gas and vehicles, ridicule and cut funding for anyone who suggests alternate theories, and try to force people to believe your viewpoint... then its politics.

      why the ***** don't you get it?
      • Jugalator, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2"why the ***** don't you get it?"

        I don't see anyone in that picture, nor the poster you're replying to, claiming that you should pay higher taxes.
    • ian9outof10, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2It involves politics because it's governments like Bush's that are failing to properly legislate against oil industry and other polluters.

  • zhepp, on 11/20/2007, -24/+12Guessing fake as i doubt a polar bear would sit there and wait for it to melt as they can swim not like its afraid of drowning...also ice bergs tend to flip easily with a slight change in weight, which also furthers my doubt
    • zionKing, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4"also ice bergs tend to flip easily with a slight change in weight, which also furthers my doubt"... ???
      • zhepp, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2I've been kayaking in Alaska an when we were around them they all tended to flip a lot based on the smallest of waves and such usually they rotate based on area and when the sun melts enough it flips which means they usually are not that unbalanced and seeing as the polar bear is high up the weight would have an even greater effect.
    • edd17, on 11/20/2007, -1/+3there's quite clearly a large amount of ice visible under the water, the iceberg it probably at its most stable position
    • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4This photo, while real, is a joke...A *****-ING JOKE, YOU HUMOR-LESS DOUCHE BAG!!

      icebergs tip easy? How so? They tend to be bottom heavy. Ever heard the expression "tip of the iceberg"?

      Wikipedia->Iceberg->Second paragraph.
      "Since the density of pure water ice is ca. 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water ca. 1025 kg/m³, typically, only one ninth of the volume of an iceberg is above water. The shape of the remainder under the water can be difficult to surmise from looking at what is visible above the surface. This has led to the expression "tip of the iceberg", generally applied to a problem or difficulty, meaning that the visible trouble is only a small manifestation of a larger problem."
  • Dhalsim007, on 11/20/2007, -19/+11Nice photoshop job.
  • sleeknerve, on 11/20/2007, -45/+31I went to antarctica about a month ago, and they had the most ice there they have ever had since they have been keeping records, so no one should believe the ice is rapidly melting
    • NinjaBoy, on 11/20/2007, -1/+22They must be stealing it from the north pole!!
    • tangledupblues, on 11/20/2007, -4/+34How cool, i went to mars last month, and the ice there is melting:)
      • sleeknerve, on 11/20/2007, -6/+1well, kool, we probably went to different places
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3i for one hope you're right, but i doubt it (long term effects i mean)
    • ingenium21, on 11/20/2007, -4/+6And you would know how? I mean did you actually walk through all of antartica? were you keeping records of antartica's ice levels? Did you stay there for a year and measure the temperature in accordance to the average temperature of other years? I ***** think not.
    • atomofconsumpti, on 11/20/2007, -0/+12dude i got a whole ***** bag of ice in my freezer!!
    • madams15, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3***** Antarctica! We're talking Artic talk, motha *****!!
  • wrxpert, on 11/20/2007, -3/+42That is what they get for always tormenting me in Ice Climber.
  • youlivnlearn, on 11/20/2007, -17/+6hmm polar bear, or my gas guzzling SUV, hmm.. what a decision to make
    • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -5/+6Unless that mutha ***** is going to carry me to wrk, then it's SUV.
    • insertAliasHere, on 11/20/2007, -0/+5Can I ride the polar bear to work every morning?
  • mostdiggever, on 11/20/2007, -22/+12Don't feel bad, Al Gore invented this pic.
  • Puppetfunk, on 11/20/2007, -12/+78It looks more like a Polar Bear ***** an Iceberg.
    • AeroZepp, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Agreed.

      Except I think the polar bear is getting ***** by the iceberg...
    • 1randomguy08, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0to you to would my friend gididy
  • EvanWindsor, on 11/20/2007, -25/+9aaand that's been photoshopped.
  • panteradactyl, on 11/20/2007, -7/+8Very phallic, maybe there's an underlying message here?
    • FadieZ, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1This is just the gland of the iceberg..
  • JDRomano2, on 11/20/2007, -10/+3no.
  • dark169, on 11/20/2007, -6/+23if the stupid bear didn't drown he will just end up stealing my picnic basket
  • bingobongony, on 11/20/2007, -7/+41Yup...that bear was living comfortably in a giant glacier that just gradually got smaller and smaller until that was all that was left.
    • bjs3171, on 11/20/2007, -12/+6or it was swimming from a larger glacier, and that's the only piece of ice available to rest on. you know, either one. ass.
      • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -0/+6I'm pretty sure bingobongony was being sarcastic. ass
      • fluxion, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7you suck at the internet
  • MikeSchimid, on 11/20/2007, -26/+8 I FEEL BAD FOR THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE TIME TO PHOTOSHOP THIS
    • Hetman, on 11/20/2007, -0/+19I feel bad for the person who taught you it was cool to type in all caps.
  • slayernine, on 11/20/2007, -23/+16Global warming is just another distraction from the real matters at hand.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -0/+9Like Britney Spears' thong.
      • moin1097, on 11/20/2007, -1/+3At least she's started wearing something.
    • JimmyIkon, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2I like global warming b/c it distracts me from my fear of getting blowing up by Islamic extremists. No sarcasm.
    • MagicCake, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Yeah? What kind of pressing issues do you have? What you're going to have for dinner, perhaps?

      Unlike terrorists or whatever, global warming is something that will affect us all whether you like it or not. I can't think of a bigger problem, and neither can you.
  • Leonotis, on 11/20/2007, -23/+18I'd normally bury for propaganda, but that bear is just so darn cute!
  • geek_xyu, on 11/20/2007, -5/+8http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article76 ...
    polar bears can swim.. but for how long?
  • samurimaster, on 11/20/2007, -6/+60That makes me a sad panda
    • mgri, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2Genius
    • b3owulf, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Panda's and Polar's have a long standing rivalry. If you were a true Panda this would make you smile.
      • Digibull, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2When the hell do they have a confrontation?
      • YJ2k2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1When global warming raises temperatures in the Arctic enough so that they all come down to China.
  • cambob76, on 11/20/2007, -18/+8Polar bears swim until they drown because there isn't ice thick enough to support their weight. This is how they are going extinct. Also, when the mother dies, the cubs starve.
    • mksmothers, on 11/20/2007, -1/+6On a lighter note, they make a good stew.
    • cambob76, on 11/20/2007, -3/+1Yeah, I suppose you're right.
    • joe122370, on 11/20/2007, -4/+5there are more polar bears now than there ever have been. They are over-populated not going extinct
      • weeeezzll, on 11/20/2007, -2/+4That overpopulation you speak of is localized. The fact of the matter is that in most areas the numbers are dwindling, and in some areas they are closing in on zero.

        "The World Conservation Union listed polar bears as a vulnerable species, one of three sub-categories of threatened status, in May 2006. Their latest estimate is that 7 out of 19 subpopulations are declining or already severely reduced. The United States Geological Survey forecasts that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by 2050, based on moderate projections for the shrinking of summer sea ice caused by global warming. The bears would disappear from Europe, Asia, and Alaska, and be depleted from the Arctic archipelago of Canada and areas off the northern Greenland coast. By 2080 they would disappear from Greenland entirely and from the northern Canadian coast, leaving only dwindling numbers in the interior Arctic archipelago."
        • MagicCake, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1So alfoil, if someone walked up and shot you, that would be A-OK because the way of the world is life and death?

          Things die, but it's a different matter when it's directly caused by carelessness and inactivity.

          And no, millions of species do not die every day. Why the ***** would you think such a grossly exaggerated number was even close to accurate?
  • marcusesm, on 11/20/2007, -15/+6Holy bad-photoshop batman...what a load.
  • H1tchh1k3r, on 11/20/2007, -10/+3nop :/
  • damndj, on 11/20/2007, -13/+7How could something so cute be so willing and able to rip your face off.

    :(
  • damndj, on 11/20/2007, -9/+54How could something so cute be so willing and able to rip your face off.

    :(
  • sal96, on 11/20/2007, -11/+2The north pole is melting away so fast that boats can now travel through it, from the Atlantic to the pacific, and Russia is trying to take the area because their is oil their, and Antartica lost a huge chuck in 05, but the first comment was funny to me.