digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Global warming: the final verdict

environment.guardian.co.uk — A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -62/+161Of course, anyone can see it rapidly increasing within the last decade. Record snow in places it hardly does like Pheonix, Malibu, and Albuquerque. Insane record highs breaking well over 100 degrees in San Fransico. Plants blooming out of season, crops freezing over, longer than normal hurricane seasons, the list goes on. Global warming isn't a theory, it isnt some wacky idea, it is a smart real cause and effect scenario happening around us. Anyone who doesn't "believe" in it as they say are about as ignorant as the Christians who don't "believe" in dinosaurs because they aren't in the bible. Ignorance will not save this planet, people need to wake the hell up.
    • Osmanthus, on 10/12/2007, -106/+55Weather has always been percieved as the 'worst ever'. The end of the world is always nigh. People who think they can see patterns of global warming in recent local weather patterns are deluding themselves; seeing patterns where there are none. The signal in the warming data is very small and is not large enough to make the types of differences people think they are seeing. Its all hype and hyperbole.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -51/+85Penn & Teller are great, but they're also not scientists, and they happen to be extremely wrong in this case.
    • PeterBWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -57/+37To date, these changes have caused global temperatures to rise by 0.6C[since the mid 20th century.

      Now forgive me if I am wrong but is it feasible to say that the earth's temperature is going to rise/fall no matter what? I mean if climate changes happen slowly could it happen much more slower than .6C in 57 years? The climate is going to change in one direction or the other. Just because it happens to be going up at this point in our scientific career does not mean we're causing it.

      You sir, I propose, are the naive one. You're the one who's as ignorant as those "Christians". I mean you're saying anyone who is against your point of view is stupid/ignorant whereas the Christians condemn them to hell. Both of you have prejudice against the ones who believe anything different from what you say.
    • HoosbinPharteen, on 10/12/2007, -43/+17Yes yes Itazura but that's no reason to scare people into thinking it's going to kill us all tomorrow if we don't do something......so quit wording it like we're all going to die right this second......
    • crgnetworks, on 10/12/2007, -28/+13@Osmanthus

      Wow, you just made my top 10 list of people who have no idea what their talking about.
    • Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4anecdotal
    • dagobah77, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Who the hell dugg "diggermirror" up?
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23its true, we can single out one weather pattern, or year or decade even. weather is unpredictable and ever changing.... and these normal changes parallel the global warming problem

      but the proof of the grand problem is in the ice, or lack there of it.
    • sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25did anyone actually kick on the trolls link before digging him up?

      lol and he actually uses two magicians to dispute the worlds leading scientists
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -27/+14All of those effects that you're talking about happened THIS YEAR because of EL NINO.

      And likewise, nothing has happened with the hurricane seasons. Last year was very active, this year was pathetic. Not even a single major hurricane. I don't know if that's happened since I've been alive. Clearly, even if God does not play dice, Mother Nature does.

      If you're going to worry about something, worry about climate change. And even then, we hardly know what the hell is going to happen, if its going to happen, how fast it's going to happen, and why it's even happening at all.
    • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -15/+53I think we can all agree that global warming is behind 9/11 attacks.
    • offput, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50The Penn and Teller global warning thing was primarily attacking institutions like greenpeace who no longer fight for environmentalism but rather anti-commercialism. Also, it's dated by a couple years by now, there has been ice core studies since then which further corroborated global warming.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -26/+69Just to be a prick, let me remind our viewers that in the 60's and earlier climatologists told us that hurricane seasons were cyclical, and they predicted that in the late 90's to early 00's we'd see another huge rise in the number of and intensity of; hurricanes.

      We can't just pick any freaking weather event we may find scary, end of the world, fire and brimstone, cats and dogs living together and say its man made global warming that caused it. Just because it has been a warm (El Nino?) winter doesn't prove *****.

      I'm not refuting man made global warming with my sentiment here, just sick and tired of hearing every possible doomsday scenario wrapped together and being put forth. The person who says that hurricanes, or a warm winter are proof of man caused global warming immediately get the WING-NUT label from me. Real scientists know better.

      Again, man caused global warming is a concern of mine but I want to use ~real science~ to examine it, not the ***** that a reporter who flunked 9th grade physics wants to tell me...
    • Borramakot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@dagobah
      Just block him. You get used to it.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8You know, when analyzing any mathematical system patterns emerge. But only after the iteration is complete. Then it's too late.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29That fact that you consider one decade worth of data to be proof of anything is absurd.

      (P.S. 2004, 2003, and 2002 were NORMAL winters for most of the country. So you are really only going back 2 years.)

      If ignorance won't save the planet, then you sure as hell are not going to save this planet. NOBODY is suggesting that you can prove global warming by looking at the last 10 years.

      And ee...El Nino has nothing to do with the winter this year does it? Nahhhh. Can't be. Or...is El Nino caused by Global Warming, despite the fact that it has been occurring since long before humans existed.
    • mastershake1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"Global warming is a misnomer. What we are really looking at is climate change, and we aren't yet sure of the implications of it."

      Increased mean global temperatures may cause temperature oscillations including record snowfall. The "ZOMG IT'S SNOWING TEH EARTH CAN'T BE WARMING" response may be snide but it doesn't deny that the temperature is changing. The warming skeptics rarely claim that the earth isn't warming; they either try to discredit the global climate models used or claim that warming is a good thing. Even if or when these skeptics disprove this, they lack evidence to counter the highly plausible scenarios that would occur if, say, the thermal-haline cycle in the ocean shifted, or if the ocean level raised.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6sirloin...you are a joke. Seriously. To repeat "the world's leading scientists" as if there aren't JUST AS SMART scientiists disagreeing.
    • jerbroc, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8There has been ice ages before and now there’s not. Did SUVs and pollution back then cause global worming? No. There may be global worming but we are not causing it or can’t stop it from happening.
    • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20"To repeat "the world's leading scientists" as if there aren't JUST AS SMART scientiists disagreeing."

      And these "JUST AS SMART scientiists" are?
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -16/+15FTA:
      "'That means we can expect to see sea levels rise at about a metre a century from now on - and that will have devastating consequences"

      . . . and then they give no more details. I hate this crap. Predictions of the non-descript "devastating consequences." It's like a goddamn "hell, fire, and brimstone" preacher telling me I'm a sinner. What IS the consequence of a meter rise in water levels over a century? Cities wiped out? Bridges washed away? Ports destroyed? No. What building, bridge, viaduct, or road survives for a century? These things get rebuilt. They get replaced. Civilization adapts and moves on. People need to chill the ***** out.
    • Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@diggermirror

      I'm going to beat you with my nunchucks.
    • GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Makes you wonder if parasites/virii living inside your body were ever like.. "whoa, guys take it easy... bring it down a notch, we won't want to kill the poor bastard."
    • duagne, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Did anybody notice that this entire article is "based on sophisticated computer models" They're probably the same computer models that predicted that 2006 would be the WORST hurricane season on record (oops). The models are so hopelessly complex that putting any stock in them at all is patently foolish. They can't even reliably predict the hurricanes in 1 ocean 1 year out, let alone global climate patterns 9 DECADES in the future.
    • meetthescott, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Even if global warming is acting twice as fast as anyone expects, your grandchildren will live in a world nigh entirely unaffected by it, if not by its inherent virulent politics. Alarmism disgusts me. If you're working with a time scale as long as global warming, I certainly hope you realize that you have a good chunk of buffer time to just sit back and collect data to decide a reasonable course of action, even without consideration of the likely environmental progress of our power sources. Relax a little and stop acting like we don't have plenty of time to decide exactly how fast, how hard, and when the sky will fall, and slinging mud at anyone who doesn't.
    • ig33k010011, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5first off, show me a Christian that doesn't believe in dinosaurs....

      secondly, arent these the same guys that are getting funding from pro-global warmists? hmmmm, i wonder what there conclusions will be...?
    • dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Cliffzdude,

      I follow a lot of the same methodology in global warming. While I do feel that man's had some damaging impact on our enviroment to a degree, is what's happening out there totally our fault? We've got maybe 100 years of solid science and data gathering to assume what's happened over the last few million years. I hear the arguement "we're supposed to be headed to an ice age and it's getting warmer" and guesses about the weather should be like this or like that...

      But I pose to you, who here or anyone in Greenpeace or who-ever has been around long enough on the planet to have witnessed an ice age or two to know exactly how it IS supposed to be? Anyone? If not, then we're making our best guess, which in our lifetimes won't be seen through completely. Time isn't on our side here in proving my point or the popular opinion. But I'd wager that beyond a few bad shakes on our part, the planet can recover from this. If it plans on killing us off with our own poisons through raised temperatures and acidic oceans, then that's out of our hands, especially if it can be triggered with 150-200 years of mankind's industrial pollution.
    • dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Cliffzdude,

      I follow a lot of the same methodology in global warming. While I do feel that man's had some damaging impact on our enviroment to a degree, is what's happening out there totally our fault? We've got maybe 100 years of solid science and data gathering to assume what's happened over the last few million years. I hear the arguement "we're supposed to be headed to an ice age and it's getting warmer" and guesses about the weather should be like this or like that...

      But I pose to you, who here or anyone in Greenpeace or who-ever has been around long enough on the planet to have witnessed an ice age or two to know exactly how it IS supposed to be? Anyone? If not, then we're making our best guess, which in our lifetimes won't be seen through completely. Time isn't on our side here in proving my point or the popular opinion. But I'd wager that beyond a few bad shakes on our part, the planet can recover from this. If it plans on killing us off with our own poisons through raised temperatures and acidic oceans, then that's out of our hands, especially if it can be triggered with 150-200 years of mankind's industrial pollution.
    • joach, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Many scientists predict that within a foreseeable future we will be coming to a point in time that they call "The Point of No Return".

      The Point of No Return is a point at which a series of effects caused by global warming (such as forest fires that increases the level of carbon dioxide and more exposure of seawater that absorbs more heat from the sun) will start to heat the earth more and more. At the Point of No Return the temperature on earth will rise uncontrollably to extreme and unnatural high temperatures and there is nothing human beings can do to stop it. The temperatures on earth will then become the highest they have been for over hundred millions of years. For any humans to live under such conditions would be the most painful and horrifying experience. An experience nobody deserves.

      Source: http://www.healingday.org/vision.html
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Ah... a "final" verdict on a THEORY based on a computer model of a system that isn't well understood.

      Good luck with that.
    • Zzone, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@joach
      dont preach to me boy.
    • returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Geez, who am I going to trust? A body of scientists or the crap that comes out of political talk shows? Do you honestly think the scientists haven't addressed your lame counter-examples in their theory?
    • Doofy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+995% of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by water vapor.
      Only 3.618% is caused by CO2.

      96.775% of CO2 comes from natural sources.
      Only 3.225% comes from human sources.

      In total, Humans only contribute 0.28% to the greenhouse effect. (around 1/4 of 1%)
      99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by natural forces.

      Can everyone please take their chill pills now?

    • ewap8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@Doofy:

      98.26% of statistics are made up on the spot. If you're gonna post numbers, at least have the courtesy to leave a reliable source link.
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Doofy:

      The difference is that our atmosphere is saturated with water such that it condenses out and precipitates out cyclically. What makes CO2 and other greenhouse gases so dangerous when their proportions go out of whack is that our atmosphere isn't saturated with CO2, and it doesn't simply condense out; the addition and removal of CO2 in nature is a slow process involving a lot of energy, and our industries have thrown it out of whack by taking carbon that has long been out of the cycle and burning it and putting it into the cycle at such a rate that the natural mode of carbon dioxide recycling--namely, plants and algae absorbing it and making it into organic molecules--cannot remove it quickly enough to keep the concentration of CO2 in equilibrium.

      Saying that 95%+ of the heat retention of the earth come from water is a pointless observation; water is already in dynamic equilibrium because when the water in our air gets saturated beyond what pressure and temperature permit, it condenses out or precipitates out. Carbon dioxide doesn't condense out except at extremely low temperatures (think dry ice), and has a long way to go before it reaches saturation, so all the changes in the carbon dioxide levels make a greater impact on the *change* in the heat retention than water vapor, whose atmospheric concentration isn't being impacted by mankind.
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@Doofy:

      "96.775% of CO2 comes from natural sources.
      Only 3.225% comes from human sources."

      That citation is totally meaningless because it doesn't address *equilibrium*, which is what matters.

      The 96.775% of CO2 coming from people and animals breathing, plants decaying, and natural fermentation processes and the like is compensated for by the same amount of carbon being absorbed by plants and algae, going back into the food chain and the carbon cycle. The fossil fuels we are burning on the order of billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal cannot be equated to the CO2 exhaled by animals and emitted by fermenting and decaying material and by the burning of biomass; the carbon we are putting into the cycle at the rate we are doing far out-paces the rate at which carbon dioxide is taken back up by biomass such as plants and algae, so that 3.225% that comes from artificial sources is responsible for the dis-equilibrium we see.

      In other words, you're looking at the carbon in the carbon cycle by citing that 96.775%; the stuff that's causing the globe to warm up unnaturally is the rest that we've thrown into the cycle with our industrial capacity that doesn't have a corresponding capacity in nature to absorb and use it, and that part sits about in our atmosphere causing problems.
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6"Of course, anyone can see it rapidly increasing within the last decade. Record snow in places it hardly does like Phoenix, Malibu, and Albuquerque. Insane record highs breaking well over 100 degrees in San Fransisco. "

      Clearly Global Warming seems to be targeting Environmentalists...
    • RunawayDigger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2OK i don't know if anyone has made this point to anyone yet cause there are a ton of comments on this much heated subject. (no pun intended) we ALL know weather is a pattern........ meteorologists have been around for ages but we have only been on this earth for a tiny percentage of its age ( super tiny) and weather was recorded to a certain extent. So my point being, how do we know this is not part of the pattern. exactly we don't. It is a FACT, the O-ZONE hole is actually SHRINKING even though greenhouse gases are UP. Hmmmmm that's interesting isn't it. So the Hole is shrinking but we are causing the hole eh? sounds like it is all part of a pattern to me. Shrinking and Growing.. ever changing.... just like humans just like nature and just like the earth
    • triscuitbiscuit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@sirloin

      You say that Penn and Teller are disputing the world's leading scientists?
      If these scientists are so "leading", then why are they in the clear minority of "scientists" then? It's a clear majority of scientists who have yet to prove that global warming in the sense that people like Al Gore and Greenpeace are talking about is real. In a study done by a German meteorological institute, only 10% of climatologists surveyed said that global warming is the real deal! Good consensus! Another survey has them again in the minority- this time at 17%
      I will say however that the earth does go through climate changes- it has and always will- and its these climate changes which are causing these fluctuations in the temperature.
    • klaymen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Record snow in places it hardly does like Pheonix, Malibu, and Albuquerque. Insane record highs breaking well over 100 degrees in San Fransico. Plants blooming out of season, crops freezing over, longer than normal hurricane seasons, the list goes on."



      that's sounds more like a climate shift to me. and if that's the case, there's not really anything we can do about it.
    • eviltandem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Call me crazy, but I thought we were arguing by how many (up to 10) degrees the temperature would be effected over the next 100 years. So this effect is not us. Also, I don't believe we had any hurricanes hit the US last year. Yet the greenhouse gases were all there.

      Must be those bastard neo-cons and their weather controlling agenda :P
    • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Seems like a normal winter to me in Minnesota. I have two frivolous airplane trips coming up and I gassed up my big SUV that I drive alone to work for $1.86/gal. I agree with President Bush that the American way of life is 'blessed'.
    • bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"There's nothing to see here folks, step away from anti global-warming awareness chain gang". "These boys have rocks to break today".

      I can dream can't I?

    • Halvy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What does Christianty have to do with anything here?

      Why would you take such a large swipe at a group of people who are infinitely larger than your group of apparent Agnostic or Atheist 'believers'?

      It sure doesn't sound like you are trying to convince them of anything, other than more of same-ol-hate-mongering.

      I'm a Christian who happens to believe in Global Warming and Dinosours :)

      And because our #'s (not even including 'other' religions) are soo infinitely larger than Agnostic or Atheists, there are MANY more of us that believe in Global Warming, than your group does.

      I am not saything that I don't generalize.. I do, and it's wrong when I doit tooo.

      But this attention whoring by certain elements of the Digg community is spilling over into items that have nothing to do with religious or non-religious issues.. and therebye distracting from positive logical discussions.

  • mrpollock, on 10/12/2007, -31/+4Digg. This. Up. Now.
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -33/+21And...studies by OTHER "leading experts" disagree with this study.

    Big deal. Stop acting like there is a unanimous consensus on this if you ever want to try to get into an INTELLIGENT debate. Saying you have "leading experts" on our side is just plain juvenile.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert.

      Ok, that makes the United Nations, the European Union, several thousand climate experts and Steven ***** Hawking who think global warming is not only real but a serious, potentially catastrophic threat. Can we stop arguing over it now?
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Really? Where are the opposition? Seriously, if you're going to say that there are other expert climatologists that disagree with the majority stance on Global warming, you better back that up with at least a name or a link to somewhere. If you believe that the global warming theory is full of holes, you seriously haven't devoted enough time to reading about it. Its not like some simple theory, its a robust theory, much like evolution, because of the enormous amounts of evidence collected in the past and still being collected that nearly all support the theory.
    • bierce, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9The 'experts' all agreed the earth was flat about 500 years ago.
    • DS513, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@ broomett
      Yeah, but would it really kill you to recycle? Or to give up a gas-guzzling hybrid for an electric car? Even if global warming is over hyped (which in my personal opinion it isn't) we Americans are way too wasteful as it is. People won't voluntarily change their lifestyle on their own, so I think the governments of the world really need to step in and seize the moment.

      If the US government can mandate all-digital television broadcasts by 2009, why can't they also mandate an all-electric car or all hybrid car at a specific date too? Besides the added expense, is there really any good reason not to buy a hybrid or electric car?
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18@Aardvark1878

      Wow. Just wow. Did you freeze yourself 40 years ago and just wake up yesterday? 'socialist organization'? Did you know that the U.S. was involved in the creation of the U.N.? Pull your head out of your ass
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@Aardvark1878
      The UN has as much power as its constituent are prepared to give it. They first undertook research into climate change when the general assembly voted to do so. The Kyoto Protocol is only worth anything because of all the nations that signed it. If that's what you call socialist, then... fine.

      I suppose you'll tell me the European Union is socialist, too. Or communist, maybe. Or are they too liberal? I doubt even you could label them fascist, but I'm sure you'll pick one word or another to stick on them so that you don't have to listen to a single ***** word they say, allowing you to believe no more or less than whatever you want to believe.

      But that still leaves several thousand climate experts and Steven ***** Hawking. Unless you can give me references to a better crowd than that which claims climate change is harmless (or a load of crap), you might want to rethink your position.

      I know I'm borderline flaming here, but in my defense I don't want the world to die.
    • saranagati, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@bierce
      Actually the experts knew the earth was round over 2500 hundered years ago. Eratosthenes accurately measured the diameter of the earth in 220 BC and aristotle who lived 150 years prior to that mentioned that it was common knowledge, at least among the learned.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I'm sorry... but anyone who argues that the U.N. is a bad idea at least in principle if not practice is simply ignorant. And I'll elaborate:

      Build a country, make laws, govern it's people, define it's borders, find law and order and peace. Everyone in the country agrees to work together for the good of the country, because it's safer than working against each other. The term to use here is "social contract" but thats kinda unimportant. So then we just adjust focus and look at all the countries instead of people inside individual countries and we find.... anarchy. Without a body to govern how countries interact with each other we completely undermine the reason we formed countries in the first place. What's the point of having and ordered microcosm when the macrocosm is brutish and chaotic, where might makes right and law and order hold no meaning? If that's the case, we'd actually be safer on our own, without countries of any kind.

      The problem with the U.N. is that it only works when EVERYONE wants to play.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Aardvark1878
      I agree with you that the UN is largely ineffective at its intended purposes, but I don't see how that invalidates scientific studies they've funded. Corruption, maybe, but even then I'm not sure who benefits in this case. The UN isn't really a power unto itself so I'm not sure how you can suspect a power grab.

      Maybe instead of a "red flag" you should try a "black flag" philosophy. If you really don't trust the UN, then their support on an issue shouldn't be a warning signal, it should just be nothing. I guess I'm just not sure why, when presented with a list of sources which support a point of view, you chose to attack what you saw as the least reliable first. It's almost like you'd rather win the argument than come to the right answer.
    • bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Besides the added expense, is there really any good reason not to buy a hybrid or electric car?"

      Money doesn't grow on trees, boy! And I haven't seen a good hybrid that fits the need of two adults, 3 children, and friends. What is the gas mileage of 3 hybrid cars that are needed when one suburban/SUV was needed?
    • Zzone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@DS513
      2009? I thought it was 2006, so much for those deadlines..
    • MomoTheCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hi Boomett,

      Juvenilety aside, I am genuinely interested to know who these 'other leading experts' are and what they have to say.
      If you could give me a few links to their papers or journals that have published their papers or findings, I would like to take a look at them myself. If you want, I can even post back with my thoughts on them when I'm done.

      Also, keep in mind that one "Senior UK climate expert" (granted, this appears to be just his opinion) said that this report is "the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect.... Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process."
  • celeb, on 10/12/2007, -17/+121st the Internet, now Global Warming... Thanks a lot Al :)
  • codyman, on 10/12/2007, -52/+13Final Verdict - Hmm... last time I checked global warming was / is a theory...
    • Miyazaki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16No, I'm sorry, global warming is not a theory. It exists, the cause of it is what has so many scientists and random ***** son the internet debating about it.
    • bluechocobo42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34@ codyman - So is gravity.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23So is evolution, doest being a theory make it less true?
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Perhaps you should do yourself, and everybody else, a favor and learn what the term "scientific theory" means:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_as_.22models.22
    • quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4no, it doesn't make it less true, but this is about the 10th final verdict for global warming. just say it might be true (or is theoretically probable even) and do something about it anyways.
    • kigabit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Global warming isn't really a theory... one need only study Venus to understand what happens when too much carbon dioxide is trapped in the atmosphere of a planet our size and causes runaway global warming. This is the ultimate concern for Earth. The theory part comes in when trying to explain happens between now and said apocalypse, and at what point the Earth can no longer maintain an equilibrium of its own accord due to an unnatural amount of human intervention.

      We're on the only known planet in the universe that is the right size and distance from our star to support liquid water -- life's catalyst -- and we REALLY don't want to ***** that up. Scientists have yet to convince me, though, that the temperature changes and glacial recessions we've seen are anything more than random/natural fluctuations in our planet's life cycle. After all, Earth's been through several ice ages... isn't it possible that higher-than-average temperatures are normal and recoverable too?
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"last time I checked global warming was / is a theory..."

      So is gravity, but I bet your tea doesn't float out of its cup!
    • Hockeymac18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I could be misinterpreting what you said, but it sounded like you didn't know what the definition of a theory is. If so, do you even know what something being a "theory" means? Do you know what else is a theory? Gravity. Yes, the thing that holds you to the ground every day is based on a theory. Do you believe that is a farce as well? Sure they should not be declaring this as a "final verdict" because the nature of science is to always test something, and then test some more to confirm; but the fact that Global Warming is a theory shouldn't discredit it or make it less correct. You should study the scientific method and learn how the process of forming scientific theories progresses.
    • Z@phod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Gravity is a law of nature. Ever heard of the "Law of Gravity?" Theories are ideas supported through numerous experaments and tests. They often present themselves as ideas used to explain natural laws. Gravity is not a theory. It simply exists. There are theories that are used to explain how and why gravity exists. A theory doesn't graduate to a law. It's simply a proven scientific explanation. The theory of evolution is supported by scientific fact. The theory of relativity is supported by scientific fact.

      -Z@phod
    • eetraveller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Z@phod: The effects of gravity are considered a law, while the underlying causes of gravity remain in the realm of scientific theory.
  • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Al Gore?? Is that you???
    • NeanderVol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22I'm not the biggest Al Gore fan, but you have to give him props for carrying the "Global Warming" flag for so long. He doesn't own this issue, but at least he's a guy with (some) political clout trying to do something about it. It's high time everyone (i.e. not just Americans, but all humans) get off their collective asses and start demanding with their voices, votes, habits, and pocketbooks that we start finding ways to make alternative energy sources viable economically. Otherwise, we'll all suffer the consequences.

      And I "normally" side with Republicans ...
    • wageslave1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Draft Al Gore for President in 2008.
  • SinkToTheBeat, on 10/12/2007, -24/+7I wonder how much grant money those "leading experts" are getting for saying that.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10None? Other than their paycheck for doing research at whatever institute they're working for. Its not like Toyota is paying scientists to HYPE UP GLOBAL WARMING SO PPL WILL BUY HYBRID CARS!!
    • KChambers, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4You're wrong there Ignignokt01, most of these scientists are given thousands if not millions of dollars to research global warming. If they say, nah it's just a natural weather cycle, who do you think is going to continue funding their livelihood? Global Warming is feeding thousands of "climate experts."
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I still fail to see where the bias lays. Look, if you're a scientist and your being funded to research something, wouldn't the natural bias be to go with the results that are LEAST detrimental to society? If you RTFA, the scientists who wrote up the report are numerous and all vary in their stance on the subject, but they all agree that there's something to this greenhouse gas connection and at least agree that global warming is in fact happening. What is being debated is WHEN the most harmful effects are going to occur.
    • Zique, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You can bet your ass industrial companies can match that money to tell them to say that global warming is BS. Is it so hard to conceive that some people place value on things other than money, like finding out the truth?

      This is like arguing with conspiracy theorists... every expert who disagrees was either paid off or silenced in other ways, even if those experts were all the experts.
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1ignore this
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@lgning...
      like people need the threat of global warming to see the value in buying a hybrid car
      how about cutting your fuel costs in half?
  • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -27/+12I dont see why the Europeans get so stressed out about so-called Global Warming.. when the Muslims take over, their economies will decay to that of the typical Muslim country and the problem will take care of itself.
    • xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Wow. Just wow. I have no words to express my utter shock at your total ignorance and apparent retardation. I really hope you get hit by a bus for not looking both ways or die in a car accident because you weren't wearing your seat belt.
    • Zanwar000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4...

      Can't you just post on a topic without bashing a culture/being ignorant?
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Did nobody except me understand the sarcasm in his statement??

      I guess you really do have to use the /sarcasm tags around here.............

      Stop digging him down idiots.
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Josh: Of course they don't get it. By ignoring the profound demographic and security issues facing Europe and instead fretting about some phantom weather change they get the warm fuzzy of problem-solving without actually acomplishing anything.
    • Methodius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9UglieJosh: I'm pretty sure that his second comment blew your case for sarcasm out of the water.
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sarcasm: A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

      I'm pretty sure that is what I was doing.
    • justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Yeah- that's why the dollar is valued so much higher than the Euro....
    • Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The Euro is so great, France wants to ditch it:
      "Like Molière's doctor, the ECB is killing the patient in order to cure it. Given their obstinant refusal to face up to errors, it is time to prepare for a return to our own national monetary system," he said.

      The dramatic stand comes after a grim set of data showing French growth ground to a halt in the third quarter, hit by sliding exports and a severe downturn in the French car industry. Industrial orders fell again in October. The euro hit fresh records against the yen yesterday, almost reaching yen155. Talk of bringing back the franc has echoes of lira nostalgia by two Italian ministers last year, rhetoric that broke the euro taboo and deeply unsettled the currency markets.


      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/12/12/cnfranc12.xml
    • tybris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Vincep1974
      I'm confused, are you European? You don't seem well-informed about Europe.

      I think you're just obsessed with something:
      http://www.digg.com/users/Vincep1974/news/dugg
  • Yareking, on 10/12/2007, -7/+65 letters word : Kyoto
    Please canada & us Please dont be lame!
    • Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8kyoto is a joke
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4So is your mum!


      Sorry... It had to be said..
      Digg me down.
    • greyfedora, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Considering the fact that it seems most signatories to the Kyoto Protocol have thus far failed to even come close to meeting their targets, I think you need to put your hopes in something more than a piece of paper. International treaties are nice but they don't do much good unless countries actually commit to adhering to them. And countries don't have much chance of doing that until their citizens commit.

      It's funny to me that in Canada people are so adamant that the government push the Kyoto Protocol, as if paying lip service to an international treaty is going to accomplish anything. I'm no environmental expert, but I do know this -- stopping climate change begins at home. People should stop waiting for the government to force them to be green and think about what they can do.
  • everfresh59, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Penn & Teller.....an oversized bastid and a balding man who doesn't talk....that's where the youth get their definitive sources....GOOD JOB AMERICA!!
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4They are more reliable than any book I read in school.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Umm, why? Because they're entertainers? They are more entertaining to watch and listen to than to read a book?
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8While I like Penn and Teller, I also realize they are HARDCORE Libertarians and use every media they can to push their agenda. I may be a social libertarian, but certainly not the economic kind.
    • niczar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I may be a social libertarian, but certainly not the economic kind."

      I'm a social libertarian because I don't want the ***** government to tell me how to live my life.
      I'm not an economic libertarian because I don't want the ***** corporations to tell me how to live my life.

    • valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@niczar:

      Exactly.
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3People that perceive standard temperature deviations as 'global warming' amuse me.

    The effects of global warming are an average of a couple degrees C over decades. Because it's 10 degrees hotter in your town than it was this time last year does not mean global warming has arrived at your town.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Ya, and thousands of climate scientists from hundreds of countries are making a mistake that sombody with college stats wouldn't make.

      Get a life man. You're not smarter than these people. In fact, you just proved you're much, much stupider.
    • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Ya, and thousands of climate scientists from hundreds of countries are making a mistake that sombody with college stats wouldn't make."

      They're not making a mistake, all their research conclusively sums up to inevitable increase in average global temperatures, much like the article suggests. Understand before you insult :)
  • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24A lot of people want to initiate an "Intelligent Debate" about global warming. I don't think it's very intelligent to debate it. It's like when you get bit by a raccoon, you don't wait and see if you develop rabies before you get the rabies shot. You get the shot because even though it stings a bit, rabies sucks a lot more. I think we should bite the bullet and accept the economic responsibilities of cleaning up our act, or face the possible threat of catastrophic climate change. The fact that a good deal of very smart people are saying that catastrophic climate change could mess things up for us very soon should be reason enough to take the ounce of prevention over the pound of cure.

    That sounds intelligent by my count.
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Odds are about 100-1 that you don't have rabies...............

      Am I the only one that wouldn't get the shots???
    • dilbert111, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Well not quite...you can directly test the effect of rabies with experimentation. With the climate you can hardly prove that humans are the primary influence on global warming. Solar flares, volcano's spewing co2, livestock burping and farting, or various other natural producing sources....what is the comparison between what humans are contributing vs these other influences? It's a wild ass guess.
    • Methodius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10What bugs me is that half of the measures that could cut down on global warming would also help a great deal with pollution. I think that a great deal of anti-pollutant activism is staved off, because we're spending so much time debating a rather abstract consequence of pollution, and it's in the name of this abstraction that a great deal of environmental policy reform is considered these days.

      We don't know for sure (or at least, we can't agree) that pollutants will eventually cause the earth's temperature to rise to ecology-wrecking levels, but I doubt that anyone here is going to debate that pollution does ***** like destroying ecosystems, damaging the ozone, making our air crappy, and tainting the Earth in general. I couldn't care less whether global warming is real or not. We need to clean up our act regardless, and if we do that then global warming (fact or fiction) is a great deal more distant.
    • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ dilbert111

      even *if* those things were the primary contributor to global climate change, shouldn't we still do something to stop it?

      I may not have lit the bushfire that is about to burn down my house, right now it doesn't matter who lit it, i should be fighting the fire.
      yes, there is some pyromaniac looking guy telling me there is no fire.. but i am prepared to take the chance that there is no fire and i wet my roof for nothing.
    • dilbert111, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@p0ss
      I always like to know what I get for my money.....if we spend 100's of billions what can you guarantee? Does it reduce global warming by 10% or .0001% or somewhere between? How did you come up with the number and is it any more accurate then they have been in the last 30 years(remember global cooling?).
    • webXL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Gtitian

      "I think we should bite the bullet and accept the economic responsibilities of cleaning up our act, or face the possible threat of catastrophic climate change."

      Who gets to decide what the economic responsibilities are?

      Are you sure they would they prevent a catastrophic climate change? What is catastrophic? The oceans slowly rise, there's more drought, more disease, etc. Is it going to come overnight? What if it's inevitable? Wouldn't it be better to *not* put the reigns on our economic engine and its ability to produce the necessary technology to alleviate such drought and disease?


    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Aardvark1878

      Intelligent debate is done by presenting referenced factual evidence to back up your claims, not continually trotting out the same old canards and bashing your opponent with variations of "You`re wrong, because it would destroy our economy if you were right."

      Please provide some referenced factual evidence to support your position.
  • carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25People will go absolutely insane over the slightest possibility of a terrorist threat.

    But show them something that could drastically impact the lives of BILLIONS instead of thousands or millions, and those same people are barely even curious about it.

    I just don't get it.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Exactly. The possibility of 10,000 people dying from a terrorist attack is enough to rally up an entire nation. But a possibility that the ice caps and the ice of greenland will melt (like they ARE) raising the sea level a bit enough to displace millions of people around the world living on the coast? Nah, its just some liberal agenda.
    • sebnukem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Americans don't like global warming because it has no oil and it can't be nuked.
    • Hockeymac18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5sebnukem,

      I'm an American and I found that hilarious.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Check this cartoon that has been on the front page recently:
      http://idrewthis.org/d/20040402.html
  • dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3OMFG...not the _Final Verdict_...hmmm so far in my life I've heard 'we're going to run out of food', there's 'global cooling' and now 'global warming'...oh yeah...and 'I'm from the gov'mint and I'm here to help. Jessh...something else to 'BOO' the masses. If it's coming it will be like an earthquake...there's nothing we can do to stop it. The temperature of this ol' rock has swung in different directions so many times it's not funny and most of them prior to mans arrival. Dear chicken little...watch out for falling eggs.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Your ignorance is not only conveyed by your words, but your tone as well. Nobody believes we're running out of food. Any scientist will tell you that we've escaped that age-old fear by using new agricultural technology that has multiplied production in ways previously thought impossible.

      However, global warming (or the euphemism: global climate change), is more than the simple theory of lack of food due to overpopulation, its a theory backed by over 70 years of data sampled from the atmosphere, as well as the hundred thousands of years we've been able to analyze through ice cap drilling. Yes, average temperatures of the earth do change, but nowhere in recorded history in that data collected has it ever risen this fast. The first and most plausible explanation is to point to greenhouse gases, the #1 of course being Carbon Dioxide, which is produced not only by the vehicles we use, but by the most popular form of power plants: Coal. There are other factors to consider but none of them are as likely to contributed to such a dramatic change in earth's average surface temperature than greenhouse gases.

      Don't brush it off just because its a 'theory'. You know what else is a theory? Gravity, evolution, light, etc. Just being a theory doesn't make it any less true or important.
    • dilbert111, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2i think you missed his point....not so long ago the "experts" said the same thing of global COOLING.....and with equal angst....
    • dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Gee...you're right, my ignorance must be showing (looks down between legs) hmmm, nope. it's all covered up (put this here so I don't end my sentence with preposition)...damn, did it anyway. I wrote 'in my life' and you must assume that I meant 'in your life'. The mention of the food shortages play back to the late 60s/early 70s and I was there and cogent enough to listen but not believe it either, even though they had 'plenty of data'. And as to the #1 predictor...you're real close there my friend, except that water vapor out classes CO2 by > 10 orders of magnitude and NONE of the climate prediction models take it into affect.

      You can gather up CO2 till your fingers bleed (which, BTW, will take DECADES to drop to pre-industrial levels and that's taking into consideration that some volcanic action on the order of Krakatoa doesn't disturb all those precious readings in the mean time) but it wont stop what's coming. So, sit back and relax and enjoy it...

      BTW, here's some of your ice core data http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

      Please tell me it has NEVER risen as fast ;-)
    • bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"we've escaped that age-old fear by using new agricultural technology that has multiplied production"

      You've hit the nail on the head. New technology eliminated the age-old fear. New technology is being produced and will continue being invented to solve the man-made problems of Global warming. I wouldn't mind driving an electric/hybrid/energy cell/etc car, but it needs to be economical and it needs to fit my needs.

      For every scientist spending time looking over the past to predict Global Warming, there is another scientist doing something about it. Today's data will be tomorrows history. We will be able to look back and see how silly it was getting all worked up about something that ended up being nothing. Just like Y2K.

      --For those who don't understand. I am not comparing the crisis of global warming to y2K.
      --This disclaimer is for those who need a label to tell them McDonald's coffee is hot.
    • straxus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Global Cooling was a fringe theory that serious climatologists never supported. In fact, though the theory gained temporary popularity in mainstream press (such as Newsweek), you won't find a single scientific journal that supported the claim.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

      There's just no comparing the two.
    • valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Isn't the whole point of the "warnings" to get people to start developing the technology to deal with the problem SOONER rather than LATER?

      I don't get the debate going on here.

      I believe that we have the technology and the brainpower to deal with whatever problems we may face. I don't think we all need to live in caves.

      But I also believe that climate change is REAL and is going to have a HUGE IMPACT on our societies and that it is in fact greatly influenced by man's bahavior.

      Could it destroy the world? Maybe. In all realities it will just cause massive problems that we need to find a way out of. Changing how we do things drastically.

      So it seems to me that the whole point people are trying to make is that it is CHEAPER and generally BETTER to plan ahead than to react after the fact. This means that we need to start investing the money and time and technology into these things NOW.

      There is no excuse for the fact that we are still using internal combustion engines. It has simply been too cheap for too long. Lets not get rid of cars - but instead figure out how to do them right. There is no excuse why we are not all living "off-grid". We have the technology. There are TONS of things that we should be putting money into - that we have not simply because corporations want to milk the last few cents out of century old technology.

      But why can't corporations get just as rich making environmentally friendly technolgy? They can. It is just a shift. With economics of scale, we can start making all these things available to everyone just as cheap as what we use now.

      Look at how the prices of solar energy have dropped as more and more money flows into the industry. The first company to make clean efficient transportation devices (cars?) will make lots of money. And the costs will come down as more effort and money is flowing into the research and development. Look at biofuels. They are getting more efficient and easier to produce every day. And we are finding new sources to make them from, and better ways to make them more efficient. But it took massive amounts of interest and money flowing into the industry to do this. Someday we will have biofuels made from trash and waste - without ever using any food or farmland. But the technology is not there yet so we need to invest in the processes and improve them.

      So instead of bitching about how we don't want to spend money to "solve" global warming, why not start investing in alternitive energy companies? How about buying stock in companies working on cold fusion? How about buying products that are "greener" to help grow those industries?

      If we start spending the money and effort now - it will benefit us no matter what happens with global warming, or climate change, or whatever.

      There is an old norweigan saying: "There is no bad weather, only bad clothing" (or something like it). Why not start desiging and purchasing good clothing NOW instead of being out in the cold saying "man I wish I had brought my coat".

      Anyway...
  • GrumpyFan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I don't get how all these so-called "scientists" can say without a reasonable doubt that Global warming is a fact, when we have less than 100 years of measurable data to validate it?
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Ice cores and tree rings don't lie!! It's impossible to even try to speak against the Digg Consensus. Take your Kool Aid and put on your tin hat, please.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Well actually we have mesurable proof of the incredible rise of Co2 levels for many hundreds of thousands of years, and we can compare this to the CO2 levels in the past 50 or so years. This has shown a massive and unprecedented increase in CO2 levels (even more than any Ice-age, a peak time for CO2 levels). It is basic science what the affect of CO2 has to the atmosphere.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Because there is a lot more than 100 years of measurable data. Ever heard of ice core samples? (And a wide variety of other techniques.)

      Do you people go out of your way to NOT learn about the subjects you criticize?
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Ever heard of ice core samples? "
      Thats what I was talking about :D

      Digg me down.
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3this isn't a criminal court, the onus is not to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that global warming exists before we take action to reverse it

      the evidence has been piling up and piling up and it is now a near consensus that global warming is in fact happening and that human actions are responsible for the dramatic rise in C02 levels that are causing it

      Risk = prob. of event happening * cost incurred if event happens

      given that the leading scientists are very much in support of the belief that global warming is happening
      and the incredible costs both in human life and money that would be incurred if it were allowed to continue unchecked

      it would be foolish of us to take no action at all and continue debating until every member of our 6 billion person jury is convinced
      we should take steps to reduce carbon emissions now.
  • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Group-think at its best.
    • straxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Groupthink: A term used by people who don't like the idea that they hold a minority opinion.
  • BananaGrabber, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Solution: Everyone pirate Vista
  • brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Too many people have their heads buried too deep into their asses to realize the harm we're doing to the planet.

    @GrumpyFan, what I don't realize is how you can talk rubbish with so much conviction but so little knowledge.
  • Ryan83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Do we have any way to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide in large quantities? What are the realistic possible solutions to this huge problem?
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Yes, more CO2 means more plant life will grow. It is controlled by natural processes. CO2 is not really even a very effective greenhouse gas compared to others like water vapor.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1A group of scientists believe they have foudn a harmless chemical which removes CO2 from the air in large quantiies, yet is still being developed. This chemical has been shown to work incredibly well on a small scale, but the earth is such an unpredicatable variable that they cannot be certain, but more development and testing time will only tell. We can also try using green energy in the mean time.
    • demoralized, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The realistic solutions are to be more environmentally friendly instead of allowing old power plants to pump out as much pollution as they want to just because they are old. Just one power plant built by the TVA during the new deal pumps out as much pollution as all the cars in America each year. There are many of these power plants in America that still use grandfather laws to stop from updating. The technology to clean the air is out there and not too expensive. They just updated one near me in Asheville NC to cut down the pollution from it by about 90% and it is only raising power bills about $20/year for everyone that gets power from them.
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@demoralized
      So build nuclear plants. The worst possible thing we can do is regulate the ***** out of industries. We are finding it harder and harder to compete with foreign counties as it is. Telling our own companies they can't even compete on a level field is like grabbing them by the balls and squeezing. The environmental fundamentalists would have us go back to the stone age, while 3rd world counties pass us because they aren't regulated by fascists.
    • RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@killinger777

      The only reason we're "finding it harder and harder to compete with foreign counties" is because we're giving them free access to our markets and we're only doing that because domestic U.S. corporations are taking advantage of cheap third-world labor and then keeping their profits out of the United States where they won't have to pay taxes on it. All that crap could be stopped overnight if we had the will and motivation to put a stop to it.
    • catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Plants don't convert CO2 if you cut them down or burn them for farmland or pave them over for houses and cars.
      Plant trees, and control urban sprawl. LOTS of trees. Design new cities to be vertical, and public trans should be walking or electrical. Electrify cars, eliminate them when possible. Control the methane producing herd numbers.
      We're doing the opposite. Satellites show the rain forests burning to make room for all that farmland to make food everyone thinks we'll always have enough of.
      And this may be the wrong thread, but NO. Technology has not solved the population bomb. The growth curve is infinite, and overwhelms any tech in century or two. The mass of the human race grows to become the mass of the planet in just over two thousand years, and then goes on to absorb every particle in the universe in less than five thousand years. Something breaks before that happens.
      Global warming is the first thing to break.
    • MomoTheCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You asked what can be done? Read this:

      http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/31/heres-the-plan/#more-1027

      This is a condensation of George Monbiot's exhaustively researched plan of action for alleviating catastrophic climate change outlined in his book "HEAT: How to Stop the World from Burning".
      Monbiot's book is the most concise, utilitarian and steadfastly anti-***** book on climate change that I've read. The author is a British investigative journalist who is as aware of the science of the issue as he is the political hurdles that necessary measures will come up against. He has as little tolerance for the hypocrisy of certain green groups and false hope schemes (like buying carbon offsets and going tree planting in summer) as he does the ideologues who manufacture the Climate Change "Debate", which makes him a rare and valuable voice in this issue.
      I can't think of a journalist in the world whose word I trust more implicitly.

      I highly, highly recommend picking up his book if you're planning on learning the costs of either avoiding or attempting to prevent catastrophic global warming.

    • MomoTheCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Regarding capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, there have been theoretical methods developed, including an attempt to stimulate CO2-absorbing algae in oceans, but all that I've heard of of have either been failures in practice or, due to unforeseen side effects, actually exacerbated the problem or introduced a new one. One admirable method theorized using chemical scrubbers to absorb CO2 from the air, which though works on paper, proves to be astronomically and debilitatingly expensive in practice.

      Tree planting outside of the tropics, though a pleasant endeavor, will do nothing or close to nothing to prevent climate change.
      In temperate zones, the trees only absorb CO2 during the warmest of months and during the cold season simply trap more heat under their canopy and block the 'mirror' effect of exposed snow, in many cases a leading to net gain in temperatures for that region.
      Even in the tropics it is not a magic bullet; while here trees can work year-round to absorb CO2, new trees vary in both their carbon absorption and maturation rate and it can take upwards of 60 years before the carbon output of clearing land for planting (which releases CO2 from decaying brush that existed before in its place) is countered by the matured trees. Global warming requires much quicker action that tree planting alone can ever solve, perhaps by several hundred fold.

      The answer is not to capture carbon already in the atmosphere but stop releasing so much into it.

      Carbon capture and storage can be a very efficient and inexpensive process for power plants burning fossil fuels, including coal. Not only can the underground cavities left by harvested oil be used as reservoirs for captured CO2 from power plants, but this process can help to squeeze out any remaining oil left in the cavity and increase our net yield from it.
      Energy efficiency for all buildings, homes and vehicles can help to reduce the CO2 we produce by going about our day. If our homes were properly insulated, our electronics energy efficient, and our modes of transport not excessively wasteful, we could collectively reduce our per capita carbon output by and exceeding 70% without losing anything we'd miss (jet planes are another story), nor mean any major harm to world economies. Japan, South Korea, much of Europe and especially the Scandinavians have all implemented some solid energy efficiency standards, not only failing to damage their economies in the process (many have actually increased profits by losing overheads lost to, say, air-conditioning) but in most regards insulating themselves from the coming economic calamity brought about by declining oil and disastrous climate change.



  • adambeazley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Weather or not you believe that Global Warming is a true threat, I think we can all agree that alternate forms of energy is a good thing.
    Not only do we clear up some of the environmental issues, but eventualy we may be able to break our addiction to foreign oil.
    Solar Energy is definently the way to go, you can even rent it now, see for yourself: http://www.Powur.com/freesolarpower
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1BTW adam, your being dugg down cause of the spam.


      Digg me down.
    • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Aardvark1878
      about those local oil supplies, i think you will find that there is significantly less oil left in the US than you seem to believe, and that what is left is mostly in deep reserves or shale layers, making it much harder (read: expensive) to extract.
    • Raidenwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am pretty sure if we would have spent 250 billion dollars (the very conservative price of IRAQ war) to create solar farms for all federal, state and local government buildings. We would have still had power left for Colleges hospitals etc... Being horribly inefficient has very little effect when the fuel is free. I am sure once the government figures out how to tax sunlight they will push solar power.
  • Todalion, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3ITAZURA----------------------------
    Did you know that the number one contributor to the heating of our planet are the Oceans? Thats the only PROVEN substance that actually has an effect on climate change.
    Global warming is occurring due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. The oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, which is the cause of ice ages.
    Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air, as indicated by the chemistry and the stability over time at extremely low levels. Otherwise there would a large amount in the air, and it would fluctuate drastically (like smog does).
    Principles of chemistry indicate that regulation by oceans must be absolute. CO2 disolving in water establishes an equilibrium. Equilibrium means absolute regulation.
    Production and sequestration of CO2 are totally irrelevant, because they do not regulate. They would leave excessive and highly varied amounts in the air, if oceans were not regulating.

    http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

    Please follow this link. Im sure you are concerned about the environment, but please, you and all your friends need to quit shoving this ***** down our throats.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So the fact that the CO2 levels (at this rate) will be almost triple that of any ice age in only a few decades doesn't indicate that something "fishy" (punned!) is going on?

      Exert from the link:
      "There is not a scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide causing global warming. A lot of scientists tried to say so, but they were silenced by frauds."
      Really now? They proved every single one of these scientists wrong?
    • Ryan83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sweet source. That page also advocates Intelligent Design. All of the pages feel so sciency too!
    • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html Please follow this link."

      Fascinating site -- ignoring the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, your nutty professor not only doesn't believe in global warming, he thinks that relativity and prion diseases are also hoaxes: http://www.nov55.com/ovr.html


      "Im sure you are concerned about the environment, but please, you and all your friends need to quit shoving this ***** down our throats."

      I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head. It'd be bad enough if you had something rational to add but in fact you're sending us to some paranoid crank's website who thinks that he's the only one who understands that all of science is totally wrong.

    • Todalion, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0why dont you get out of the Starbucks for once. Maybe thats whats heating the environment, your smugness and a frothy frappuchino mocha latte all over your PowerBooks battery. Dude, just cause the website i showed you to look at isnt a liberal enviro-wacko sponsered site, doesnt mean its any more right or wrong than the one submitted by your counterpart at the top of the page.
    • Ryan83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Occam's Razor: an exercise
      1) your professor has the multidisciplinary genius to comprehend a dozen scientific subjects so thoroughly that, if his claims were considered true, would revolutionize their fields.
      2) He just signed his name to a handful of nutcase anti-science bandwagons.that completely discredit him.
      You don't think your source's credibility is important?
    • straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's true that our oceans absorb CO2. It's also true that our production of CO2 is outpacing it's ability to absorb.
    • tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1haha.. that was the most ridiculous source I have ever seen posted on this site

      you must have forgotten where you are. take that ***** site and show it to some friends at Liberty U

      then you can all sit around your 3000 year-old dinosaur fossils and laugh about how many people are deluded into believing in "absurdities" debunked by this wonderful site... absurdities such as: evolution, relativity, big bang theory

      wow, how could we have been so wrong!
  • DataLifePlus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The phrase "final verdict" should not be in a scientist's vocabulary.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Now that, even as a global warming activist, is something I can agree with.
  • mdollarsign, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yeah yeah.. we're all going to die...i get it.
  • maddla, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHH*breath*AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.H
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    *no more air to breath due to global warming*AHHHHHHHhhhh h h h
    h . . .
  • ThisIsBob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Sure is hot in here.
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2yawn
  • RoundysSince, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Well, one thing is for sure. All of these studies and claims are based on records and the time frame of those records are just a blink of an eye compared to how long the Earth has been here. These leasing experts have history of misusing data and they simply don't know. They'll predict global cooling one decade and then global warming the other. They'll report things like "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.." and then turn around to contradict. It's all guessing work and people with political agendas are using it to turn you into their little toy soldiers.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4or perhaps our understanding of the science has become more sophisticated since the 60s when the idea of climate modeling involved cardboard, cotton balls and glue
  • hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1check the signs (physical & biological) in your part of the world
    http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html
  • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Well, one thing is for sure. All of these studies and claims are based on records [...]"

    Your ignorance is impressive. See eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
  • demoralized, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Yes, more CO2 means more plant life will grow. It is controlled by natural processes. CO2 is not really even a very effective greenhouse gas compared to others like water vapor."

    Except we are killing off a lot of plant life for continued development, and land based plants have a fairly negligible effect on the CO2 levels. Most CO2 is taken in by phytoplankton in the ocean. The bad news is that these phytoplankton grow much faster in cooler water (which is why the water is so clear in the tropic areas) and now that global ocean temperatures are rising their growth rate is going to slow, which will increase CO2 and rise ocean temperatures higher.
    Read this:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uoc--gwi120606.php
  • Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Communism didn't work when they tried to sell it as a means of making everyone equal. So now, they sell it as the way to "save the world."

    Funny how the environmentalist leadership are *all* socialists and/or Communists. . . no?

    Government controls to save us from ourselves. And now they've invented the perfect boogey man in order to scare us all ***** and give up our evil capitalist ways. Hot summer? Climate change. Colder winter? Climate change. Biggest hurricane in years? Climate change. No hurricanes making land fall at all this year? Climate change. Declining fertility rate of salmon? Climate change. Increased fertility rate in tuna? Climate change.

    Ever notice how the alarmist reports always state: "globe at its hottest since common era" or some such nonsense. . . most often even reaching back into the pre-industrial era. Well, doesn't that beg the question. . . if it was that hot then. . . what caused it? I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't driving an SUV.

    Global warming and/or climate change is most *likely* caused by natural cycles. The increase in temperature over the last decade was no more severe than the rise that took place during the 1930s (a cooling trend followed). The difference is that there are not billions of dollars of research funds at stake to study something that we can't do anything about. . . so it's a lot more lucrative (and makes climatologists feel a lot more relevant) if they choose to believe that *IT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL!*

    The climate is *always* changing. . . and there are *many* accredited and respectable scientists out there who don't agree with the "consensus" that is a figment of the mainstream media's imagination. Heck, just today this came out: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Natural cycles caused all of the planets mass extinctions. I'm not interested in seeing another one. Even if global warming is natural, I'll take an unnatural stable ecology over it, thank you.
    • deff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. The Earth experienced what "might" happen roughly 50 million years ago.
    • justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Studies now exist that indicate that the most productive nations have a healthy balance of social welfare programs and capitalistic incentives. Not everything is as black and white as your feeble mind needs it to be.
  • Robozilla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I am alarmed at how many people in this forum alone don't believe in global warming. It almost makes me ill. Things like the exponential decay of the polar ice caps, are irreversible, and dangerous.

    It is unfortunate that I think the world will not react until serious damage has been done. The oceans don't have to rise much to flood many of the most populous places in the world.

    In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to not make ***** worse... buying those lightbulbs that use way less energy, not driving, and at least trying to spread some this information around.

    Al Gore, as awkward a character as he is, has done a great thing. I urge everyone to see that film, regardless of your opinion. I can only hope that more films will be made that address the issue, perhaps a film that can reach across party lines, and perhaps change the minds of the non-believers.

    I feel like we're on the verge of the world waking up and stopping this, with plenty of airtime given to the issue, but we are only at 1% of what we need to be doing.

    Solar power FTW.
  • TeraForce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@ Ignignokt01 who wrote "Really? Where are the opposition? Seriously, if you're going to say that there are other expert climatologists that disagree with the majority stance on Global warming, you better back that up with at least a name or a link to somewhere."

    Here's plenty of opposition. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
    • lastobelus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@teraforce

      After reading this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels what intelligent, reasoning person would give much credence to the content of http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ ??

      Are you an intelligent and reasoning person, or just someone who does not want to bother considering the fact that your lifestyle may be having a negative effect on the world?

      If you read the article, you know that the report being cited is the not just the consensus opinion of thousands of climate experts, but that they have only included the points considered indisputable.

      This document, in the consensus opinion of thousands of climate experts, represents the indisputable facts of global warming.

      What credentials do you have that we should pay any attention to your nay-saying.

      Maybe what we should do is this: set up a registry where people pick their side on global warming. Those who accept the consensus finding of scientists AND adapt their lifestyle accordingly, and those who reject global warming as "liberal nonsense". In another decade, the data should be conclusive. At that point, if it turns out global warming was bs, the supporters agree to pay double taxes for the next decade to make up for the negative impact on the economy of tackling global warming. If it turns out global warming is real, and will have the predicted negative effects on human society, including 100s of millions of deaths, the naysayers simply agree to voluntarily die first.

      Are you up for that TeraForce. Or are you just a selfish *****?
    • Z@phod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Many scientist opposing global warming theories have been pushed out of the business. Their funding is cut. Their research is not made public. Their theories go unheard. What we are hearing from people like Al Gore, and the author of this story is meant to simply stir up negative attention toward the corporations. That's right, I said corporations...my comment is sure to get buried now!. You asked for a name? Here's an excerpt from The Wallstreet Journal (April 12, 2006).

      "Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."
      -Alfred P. Sloan, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
    • Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Z@phod

      "Many scientist opposing global warming theories have been pushed out of the business. Their funding is cut. Their research is not made public. Their theories go unheard."

      Two decades of seeing the actual data contradict their theories tends to have a discouraging effect. That the way it works in every scientific field.

      ""Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."
      -Alfred P. Sloan, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT."

      Now that's funny, oh master of details. "Alfred P. Sloan" is part of the guy's title. His name is Richard Lindzen.

      At least you've picked (perhaps accidentally) the right guy. You've managed to quote virtually the very last climate skeptic that has a relevant publication record and enjoys some measure of respect from his peers. On the other side are a huge majority of the world's climatologists, thousands of them. That's whats important about the IPCC report. Its a broad survey of the current thinking of the world's climatologists.
  • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Anyone who tacks on "the final verdict" to anything in the realm of science, is either full of *****, selling something, or both.

    "To the best of out knowledge, given the current data" I can live with, but don't speak in absolutes when in reality it is only an educated guess.

    Note: I am not trying to refute the conclusion, only the presentation.
  • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this is innacurate. There can never be any FINAL verdict, science and human thought changes as new facts come along. I'm not saying global warming doesn't exist- it does- but these people are really over doing it. Sending out doomsday messages and warnings of some near-apocalypse only affects the loonies, like greenpeace or sierra.
    • Robozilla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I guess you're right. I mean the oceans rising isn't that big of a deal...

      http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/sea_level_rise/florida/slr_usafl_a.htm

      This WILL happen if we don't stop it, people WILL die, and it is quite similar to an apocalypse. The world will not change if we simply say "well I guess it's gonna be warmer guys."

      It's not that we want to cause some type of panic, but global warming is happening faster and faster, it is urgent that this information is presented quickly and accurately. Millions of people WILL lose their homes to floods, millions WILL die of starvation, if we don't make it clear that we must stop it now.
    • Crusoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People will DIE?

      What, they can't outrun, or build houses as sea levels rise a meter a century?
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Crusoe

      If global warming gets to a point where the sea levels do rise quickly, I'm certain it'll be the very least of your worries in the broader scheme of things. What you fail to realise is that there will be other effects happening simultaneously.
  • pdwolfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here's a story for you all...I think this scientist might just have a little bit of credibility...just a thought... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=5c8d30c6-9d77-4ccc-99d9-c3a095750cdc&p=1
  • Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1People that think global warming is caused by humans are eviroreligous nuts. Theres not proof humans are making it warmer. Why is there vegetation under the ice caps? Because there hasn't always been ice there? NO WAY.!

    And feel free to use enviroreligous . :)
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3i love it when the nutz come out to comment makes the block button sooo worthwhile...and maybe you can learn to spell your own word
    • Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I can spell it anyway i want . And i love how people that claim to be so open minded are the most narrow minded, so please block. thx.
    • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thing is - your word is not very good.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, there's quite a lot of 'proof' that humans have attributed to the rapid increase in average temperatures we're seeing now. But since you've already made up your mind that there's NO PROOF I guess I'm wasting my time.
  • slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Just to address a lot of the comments here, not the global warming thing.

    Look, you're human beings. Your ability to form patterns out of random data is world renown. Quit citing anecdotes of how it was 65 yesterday in the middle of January as reasons why everyone "knows" how bad global warming is going to be.

    You only live on average 80 years or so. You cannot talk about weather patterns from your life experience. It just doesn't work.

    Now global warming is going to amount to a few degrees temperature rise over your lifetime. Are you really telling me that you can remember when you were 20-30, and then when you are 60-70 you can say to yourself, wow, you can really feel that 3 degrees (or whatever) averaged out over all of these years. right.

    Don't be dumb. You are not going to be able to feel the effects of global warming in your lifetime. Scientists may have data that shows it happening. Sea level may rise, etc. etc. But nothing you personally experience will mean a damn thing.
    • lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So the mega-storms, torrential rains, searing heat waves and the like that we very rarely had in Scotland, but now have frequently, wont really be experienced by me in any meaningful sense? Or anyone else here?

      Well, that's ok then - I'll stop giving a ***** about all the dead people from our new mega-storms, torrential rains, searing heat waves and the like.

      I'm most reassured to learn at least it wont be in my lifetime. Tough luck for those in our future.

    • straxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@slothlovechunck

      Incorrect. Tiny increases in the mean global temperature also cause local climate change, the effects of which can be quite dramatic. Mountain peaks that no longer have snow. Islands that are now under water. Longer and more dramatic hurricane seasons. If the ice in Greenland goes (and it's already beginning to) there's a good chance it will cut off the flow of warm ocean water to Europe, which would plunge temperatures there.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mega storms? Yes, the UK has had big storms the past week. They were the biggest in 17 years... wait - 17 years? That means we had a bad storm before all the global warming stuff was heard of, then they died down! One season of storms proves *nothing*. Mega heatwaves? Yeah, we had one last summer, but the summer before that was *****. Again, one hot season means nothing. At some point in the future we're going to have an *even worse* storm and an *even hotter* summer - but that still won't prove anything, because inbetween those freak seasons, we'll still have our ordinary crap weather.

      You simply cannot take a 5 or 10 year sample and use it as proof of anything. The earth doesn't work in years, it works in hundreds of thousands of years.
    • slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. More people proving my point.

      Stop forming patterns from probably random data without doing rigorous data collecting.
  • dle5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Global Warming doesn't exist :)
    • dle5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Put it this way, it doesn't exist the way the phony government grant bribed scientists wished.
  • QuantumLo0p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It seems we have managed to upset cyclic global climate change...
  • Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2---
    "In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to not make ***** worse... buying those lightbulbs that use way less energy, not driving, and at least trying to spread some this information around."
    ---

    It's statements like this that just make me believe that environmentalism is more about people's self esteem that it is the environment.

    Normally, I'd say that, much like every other major environmental doomsday theory, this will all blow over in fifteen years and everyone will be worried about something else that is certain to devastate the planet. . . but in this day and age of constant 24-hour media coverage, too many people have bought into the hype and staked their careers (scientific and/or political) and reputations on it irretrievably. . . hence the calls for unlicensing dissenters and the witch hunts and character assasination we're now hearing about with skeptics. Wasn't it Gore who just said that global warming skeptics are as morally reprehensible as holocaust deniers.

    When you need to use rhetoric like that, there's something wrong.
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's statements like this that just make me believe that environmentalism is more about people's self esteem that it is the environment."

      Perhaps so, but in the very least, the person you've quoted is trying to reduce their footprint. He/she should be commended, not flamed.

      We live on a fragile planet. It's not unbreakable, it's not permanent and most importantly we don't own it individually or collectively. The Earth's systems have, for much of it's existence, been in equilibrium. These systems, like the food chain, the CO2 cycle and climate to list a few, are largely inter-related. All it takes is one large change in one of those systems to effect and possibly seriously disrupt the others. Enter humankind... the most intelligent species ever to have walked the planet.

      It can only benefit us (as a species) if we waste less, recycle more, use less energy, drive more economical and less polluting vehicles etc. This whole global warming thing is a product of our actions in a perpetual quest for better lifestyles, with little regard for much else. We collectively create much of the pressure exerted on the Earth and ALL of it's systems. You may well be right about global warming blowing over in 15 years (although I, and a lot of the scientific community beg to differ) but with that said, what's so wrong with being environmentally conscious? Your descendents may live a better life because of it!
  • Crusoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2OH KNOW! The C WILL RIZERS 1 METAR in 100 JEARS!

    I guess we'll move further inland....? Because, ya know, we only have 100 years to do it in...

    Also, one good thing is coming out of this. Because of the warming climate, the storms on the african coast are making it further inland, causing the Sahara to become green again. Look it up, it's happening. The sahara is shrinking. That's ironic, since as a kid in the 80s, they were always talking about the Sahara EXPANDING, and all the drought in Africa.

    So 'global warming', whatever the cause, is not all bad. In a few centuries, rivers will flow in the sahara, and the hippos will return to where they once lived, if you believe the cave paintings there. Egypt used to be a lot greener as well.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1571446,00.html

    And it's already happening.

    So there will be 'losers' and 'winners', but we are all not going to die, and neither is the world.

  • xoctor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I don't believe in global warming. Sure, I know that the only scientists who dispute that basic idea are greedy antisocial hacks paid by Exxon, but they are still scientists, and while they exist, I can pretend there is still 'debate' on the issue.

    If I was willing to entertain the possibility that global warming might be real, then I'd have to think about the catastrophic consequences. THEN, I would have to feel guilty about my god-given entitlement to conspicuous consumption. I'd have to pay more to live a greener lifestyle, but why should I?

    Sure, destabilizing the weather, leading to droughts, floods, food shortages, etc is probably not desirable, but I'm wealthy enough to flee to somewhere habitable should I need to, and in the meantime, I just can't live without my SUV (not while the Jones are driving a Hummer, anyway) and cheap electricity.
    • mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Now there is a guy with the guts to tell it like it is!
  • Hurin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Remember when it was all about the Rain Forests? And before that, the ozone hole?

    But my favorite was the rain forests. Their depletion was going to lead to global warming because there was a consensus that they provided stability to the climate by absorbing CO2.

    Now, we don't hear a damn thing about rainforests because the eco-commies have found a much more direct way to attack the prosperity of the West. . . just tell us that our prosperity is causing climate change. . . and then no matter what happens whether it be hotter summers, cooler winters, bigger hurricanes, few hurricanes, droughts, or floods. . . blame it on "climate change" and Western prosperity.

    Sadly, everyone's buying into it. Even though *everyone* throughout history has believed that they've seen the climate get worse under their watch. . . two thousand years ago I'm sure there were some priests in Rome claiming that the storms in the Mediterranean had been getting worse and wreaking havoc on shipping because the Cult of Neptune had fallen into the hands of the unrighteous.

    "May you live in interesting times. . ." Everyone always has. . . and we always want to believe there's some cause or purpose. . . so we go looking for things like "man-made climate change" to help us explain the senselessness of a Katrina, or snow in Malibu. When, in fact, these things have happened throughout recorded history (I remember snow in San Jose CA when I was four!. . . we just didn't blame it on some weather boogey man).
    • QuantumLo0p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The "rainforest" cause was a good one. What a joke. In Costa Rica the government outwardly appears to be sympathetic to preserving the forest but behind every ones back is making deals and accepting bribes to allow almost totally unregulated logging. Corruption, all the way to the top levels of government, seem to be the norm from Mexico to Tierra Del Fuego.

      I used to see flatbeds in rural areas loaded with cut trees about 2 meters in diameter. This was a constant and sad sight, indeed.
  • catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Enjoy "teaching the controversy". Physics doesn't care. A little warmer, every day.
  • xoctor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Crusoe

    Crusoe - what is it that makes you think your opinion on this is worth sharing? "...losers and winners..."??? Give me a break! Get educated before spouting such dangerous rubbish next time. Forming an opinion based on a couple of segments from FOX news does not inform you well enough to contribute to such an important conversation. Say whatever you like about Paris Hilton or Baseball, but global warming is life or death. Contributing misinformation that may reduce our chances of tackling this problem is about as smart and responsible as drunk-driving.

    The CONSERVATIVE estimation is 1 meter in 100 years. That's the minimum that 1000s of scientists could agree on - not even the average. The point is that even the BEST CASE SCENARIO is a major disaster that will costs thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

    This is a sudden and unprecedented change for the Earth. We can only make