digg

Join DiggAbout

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

CBC documentary on Global Warming Deniers: The Denial Machine

cbc.ca — If the misinformation being flung around by the Global Warming Deniers sounds similar to the denials about the cancer risks from smoking, it's no co-incidence. The same gang of PR firms and scientists-for-hire are now shilling for the fossil fuel industry, trying to "refute" the validity of global warming. Website: www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jayloc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34The link goes to one of those web-embedded players that refuses to stream if you don't have windows media player. I dug up the link, so you can download it directly:

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/media/denial.wmv


    If you download it, it plays fine in mplayer.
  • jayloc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Also, It's too bad mr. antifederalist didn't actually watch the documentary. One of the main points they try to make is that climate change is to important a discussion to be the point of partisan politics the American and Canadian governments have made it into.

    I'm sorry you feel so sore about this issue. I just hope you don't live in a low lying city, or in the future dust bowl of the the central US/Canada, or near any coastlines which see hurricanes on a regular basis.
  • RockMyMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Well said Jayloc. Sure some may spin things a little hard, but that doesn't mean we should ignore information.
  • davenp35, on 10/12/2007, -24/+13http://digg.com/videos/educational/*****
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28Oh! Why didn't you say so,..the very credible scientist "Penn" says "*****". That's it,. --I'm convinced! I won't even bother verifying that understanding with garbage sources like NASA, the European Space Agency or the useless "United Nations". If Penn and Teller say so, that's good enough for me. Mmmmmmm pork rinds
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow you got the Un pegged just right. They are useless.
    • Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22What's next? quoting South Park episodes?

      oh, wait...
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You did know that both Penn & Teller are both members of the Cato Institute?

      I'll let you look into it yourself, but I'll give you a few clues:

      Chevron Companies,
      ExxonMobil Company,
      Shell Oil Company
      Tenneco Gas,
      The American Petroleum Institute,
      Amoco Foundation and
      Atlantic Richfield Foundation

      are all funders of the Cato Institute. If you look at other "*****" topics you'll find many have similar corporate funding (passive smoking, gun control and other ***** episodes are directly aligned with the motives of the Cato Institute)

      Penn & Teller=*****
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I used to like watching penn & teller. but that endangered species episode really turned me off.
      they used a disabled women as arguement for their cause. wow. that's low.
      I'm sure i can use a cripple to win my side of the arguement in any debate too.
  • WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Great submission. Very educational.
  • DarthBibble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Wow, I'm not done watching this yet, but it's great. I wish we got great documentaries like this in the US.
    • sievo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I caught it when it was on tv, great doc. Some of the cbcs stuff is great, makes me happy to be a canuck
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2makes me wonder if 60minute did something similar. if not, it should be on in a regular basis.
  • alantocheri, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The Fifth Estate is gold... pure gold.. if you don't watch it on a semi-regular basis.. you owe it to yourself to go catch a few more eps.. right now.. go!
  • linkbeat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11It's amazing how popular dismissing the globar warming subject is. After watching "An Inconvenient Truth" there were all kinds of people circulating that Oregon scientist hoax that supposedly refuted evidence shown in the movie. Many of the ski resorts in North America are feeling the hurt more and more every year (including the one out my window,) and after my visit to Glacier National Park this summer I've seen some pretty sad evidence first hand.
    • aran86, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8it's not so much people denying it's happening, it's how much man is the cause.
  • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I don't think anybody is really disputing anymore that global warming is not actually occurring, except the extreme right. However, what is in dispute among scientists is what the global impacts will be in the next 100 years. This is where the extreme left distorts the truth. Something you have to be careful of.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Yep - the Global Warming crowd basically plays the "god" card. What I mean by that is that believers in God often say "You can't disprove God, so he must exist" and the Global Warming folks play up the "Well, you can't prove that all the potential effects of global warming we espouse won't happen, so they must be inevitable."
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6The role of humans in causing the global warming is also in dispute.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's not just the "extreme right" or Christians or any one political party that wants to deny global warming. Your assumption that everyone in a group believes the same thing makes you look dumb. In the real world people are not clones of each other...not even the people you hate.
  • dd240sx, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6YOU MUST BE A COMPLETE BRAINWASHED MORON NOT TO ACCEPT GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE IT IS ALL AROUND YOU.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Personally, I'm a little cold. I would appreciate about a 5-degree year round bump, extending the golf season would be nice.
  • dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11I think people need to identify two things.

    Global Warming and Man's Impact on the earth's temperature.

    I believe the globe is getting warmer, that is irrefutable. I don't believe humans are causing the vast majority of it. Climate studies show that the temperature of the earth has never really been constant. It always increased and decreased. Using the logic that since the earth's temp is going up, we must be causing it, is like saying: since the earth got cold during the ice age, man must have caused it.

    I do however believe that we need to be better to our environment, more for air and water pollution than for temperature reasons.
    • dd240sx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11but we still contribute alot to cause global warming.
      North America is the highest fossil-fuel, CO2 emitting region of the world with 1.73 billion tons of carbon in 2002
    • shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10So if it's a "natural" cycle, you think we should just sit back and do nothing. We should let the oceans rise, watch cities flood, and watch millions starve? Nobody argued about the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer, why is global warming so contested? Oh wait, CFCs didn't have big oil corporations backing them...
    • dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Once again, you can prove the globe is warming, you can't prove that humans have an effect on global climate one way or another. You also can't prove that catastrophic events will occur everywhere. You always hear the worst case scenarios because they make the most money (example: bird flu). Oil companies don't want to lose business and environmental companies want to scare you and make money. Neither can prove anything is or isn't being caused by humans.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Suppose your thermostat is set too high, so you go to turn it up even higher. Does that make sense? Just because there are natural cycles doesn't mean we need to be making them worse. And there are other effects besides global warming, such as the acidification of the oceans due to CO2 absorption. I'll bet that goes in cycles too, but should why should we make it worse?
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Did you guys even watch the documentary?
    • tedc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well, there is some basic science behind the reasoning that human activity is contributing to global warming. Say you have an air-filled chamber with a heat source in the middle, and you allow it to rise in temperature until it reaches an equilibrium. Now you double the concentration of CO2 in the chamber. You will find that the temperature near the heat source rises to find a new equilibrium point. Near the edges of the chamber, it actually falls. This happens because CO2 is an insulative gas, and an experiment like this is easy enough to replicate. You are welcome to try it yourself.

      Now, as far as the Earth is concerned, I can think of two possibilities for why humans may not be causing global warming. The first would be that the widescale burning of fossil fuels has had little to do with the 50% rise in the CO2 level since pre-industrial times. The second would be that other factors besides greenhouse gases are contributing the bulk of the observed global warming. In the former case, both the rate of fossil fuel consumption and the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere have been rising along similar exponential curves, which suggests a correlation. In the latter case, we have got a serious problem on our hands, since whatever impact the gases are having is being compounded by an external factor.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Did anybody here actually watch this CBC documentary?
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the external factor is debating fact.
  • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Climate change has occurred in the past, it will probably occur in the future. The important question, is there anything that we; the human race, can do about? Frankly, I question whether "we" have the ability to affect global climate one way or the other.

    Just "doing something" without a clear understanding of the cause/effect relationship could be more costly and no more effective than doing nothing.
  • uberchaoslord, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Yes the earth does change temperatures over time - most people probably don't know that Greenland was once fertile farmland that the vikings successfully colonized for several hundred years. It then grew too cold to farm, and the colonies died out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on conservation, recycling, etc... to help reduce our impact.

    However, global warming is enjoying a media frenzy lately, because the media has found something that all the lemmings are afraid of, and it makes them consume media to protect themselves. Everyone panic.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It is true that Greenland was green-er when the Vikings ruled Europe. But back then there wasn't 6.5 billion humans on the planet pumping greenhouse gases into the air, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere so much so quickly. The warm period occurred over hundreds of years. This warming is happening in decades, faster than any warming in 400,000 years. Is that reason enough to be concerned?
  • YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Suggest you look at the size of Siberia on any map. The Siberian permafrost is a massive methane sink. Methane in the atmosphere is at least five times worse than carbon dioxide. Once all that Siberian permafrost releases gigatons of methane in the atmosphere, we are faced with an atmospheric feedback loop we can't stop. The Ross Ice shelf is on the verge of collapse - once it goes and the Greenland ice sheet melts, ocean levels will go up at least 3 feet. People, wake up!
    • eexlebots, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I don't know why you're being dugg down, because you're absolutely correct.
    • bbarr97, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4He is being dugg down because he is sensationalizing the situation. Global Warming seems real enough to me but I and many other people question if humans are really the cause? The Earth has gone through many hot cold cycles before humans even existed. Who can prove or disprove that it is just that time again for the Earth to heat up. Scientists also believe the poles are switching and in the next 100 years (give or take 100) we will have eight poles during the transition! There is so much we do not know.

      The video made some very interesting points though regarding the White House's PR spin, which is distasteful. It is even more distasteful to have members from the Oil Companies as environmental advisors but are we surprised? Then again, the extreme left environmental whackos are distasteful with their "end of the world" rhetoric also.

      bbarr97
    • uberneoconcert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5that is not a sensationalist comment; he did not say the permafrost will release next year or in the near future. he was simply spelling out one factor in the global warming models. telling us there will be multiple devastating hurricanes IS sensationalist. remember what we were told last year? no one said that those scientists or even dr. gore that they were sensationalists. we're now hearing predictions for awful hurricanes next season. THAT is sensationalist.
    • uberneoconcert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sorry, my computer does not show the digg confirmation for posts.
    • wageslave1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2one of the important things to note RE: methane, and especially now that the UN cow-methane story recently recieved much attention, is that methane in the atmosphere is short lived.

      while it is bad, it does contribute to the warming, it is not the same cumulative effect. methane breaks down in (12?) years.
    • djepik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23 Feet???? O RLY??
  • tastle, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Everyone assumes that there is some balance to the earth that can be maintained. Perhaps the earth is on a much bigger temperature cycle, or perhaps the earth is returning to its normal temperatures? Nobody knows yet. Science (a process used to learn the truth) will eventually give us a clearer idea of what is going on. For the time being, I'll enjoy this video because I find it amusing: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Penn+Teller+*****+environmental&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7While you sit around on your ass scoffing at the doomsayers, the Earth gradually rises in temperature, weather patterns become ever more erratic, huge swathes of species are driven into extinction and millions of people and made refugees.

      I don't want to be proved right. I want to be proved wrong. But I do not want to take the risk. Let's err on the side of caution and try to protect our planet.
  • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12All the deniers on this list should at least watch the documentary.

    It's true that climate change has happened before. However, it has never happened at this rate. Virtually all climatologists agree on this. Those that don't are very probably on Big Oil's payroll.

    Denying humanity's impact on global warming these days is akin to burying your head in the sand. In any case, it's better to err on the side of caution, especially when the risks are so great.
    • sievo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Also, saying humans are not causing it is just as ignorant as denying it altogether...
    • dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Y2K, Killer Hurricanes in 2006, Bird Flu, Cell Phone Brain Tumors.... Global Warming?
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6We also need one on the "fear monger machine." Every time it's unseasonable warm or there's a tropical storm, suddenly it's the beginning of the end. Ever notice how all the effects are bad too when in fact there could be a lot of beneficial effects.
  • ptaylor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5No Global Warming? I'm not a scientist, but we are averaging about 10 degees above normal here in the Tri-State (NJ/NY/CT). It really seems like Christmas is coming during the fall.

    Put it like this, shopping for real Christmas trees outside in your shorts in northern NJ is something to think about.
    • uberchaoslord, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7What happened to "the worst Hurricane Season Ever" which was predicted? Bottom line is this is fearmongering at its worst. Yes we need to reduce our impact and look at new ways of producing energy and such, but every little effect is suddenly linked to Global Warming, but yet when those doomsday predictions don't come true, do we ever hear about it? No apology from the media? Shock and dismay.

      what do you call 10,000 reporters at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Actually, the "Worst Hurricane Season Ever" was delayed by El Niño, a warming event in the Pacific Ocean.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22005 was the hottest year on record.

      2006 will be the 6th warmest year on record, but only due to the cooling by the La Niña / El Niño effect, otherwise it would have been the hottest ever on record.
  • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Alarmism is multi-billion dollar industry. This is the fourth climate crisis in the last 100 years. Im not saying the mean ocean temp. hasn't risen 1C in a century but lets face it, global warming is sexy. Things heating up, moving faster, bigger storms, oceans rising, impending doom..is it getting hot in here or is it just me? Climatology is suddenly lucrative, im just waiting for the cats and dogs to start getting it on and we will finally have the full fledged apocalypse that humans have been predicting since the dawn of humanity.

    Lets worry about the terrible pollution problems that affect us every day first.
  • GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Lol, scientists. What a bunch of hacks. First they try to tell me I'm made of atoms and molecules, and cure diseases. The next minute these guys try to tell me there is such a thing as "Global Warming". Next thing you know they'll be telling me the sun is using nuclear fusion to make photons. Hah, everyone knows the sun is made of burning oil. Stupid scientists, you just hate our freedoms.
  • kaskarn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Who has never heard a 70-80 years old guy highlight how they used to have so much more snow than we do today? I saw plenty of videos and pictures of winter in the older times, and it seemed to me that we have a heck less of snow nowadays... The lack of snow is actually a grave concern in ski resorts (Well at least it is in the Alps). How can anyone still say that everything is fine and that the climate remains unchanged?
  • neave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6If anyone has any doubt remaining over global warming, please see the movie An Inconvenient Truth. You don't have to like Al Gore to be swayed by the overpowering scientific evidence.
  • kaskarn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1dig down please...
  • Legopirate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Everyone should watch this, and Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth"...
    These arn't Micheal Moore movies......
    use your common sense, and make your own judgments.
    This is something everyone must learn about.
  • YellowStar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Somebody asked what happened to the predicted hurricanes in 2006. Studies suggest massive airborne sand from the Sahara blowing across the Atlantic interferes with hurricane formation.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006101023305.html
    • bbarr97, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Almost sounds like the scientist who predicted the hurricanes in 2006 came up with the Sahara sands to cover his ass. All weathermen should use this excuse now when they botch their predictions.
    • blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6So what you mean is the environment is a constantly changing entity that can't be predicted with any level of accuracy and the impact of any single thing can't be measured due to the presence of an untold and incalculable number of variables that must be taken into account.

      I just love how anyone that has any doubt about OMGlobal Warming is a DENIER. No skeptics. Just DENIERS. Like we're denying the Holocaust or some *****. "BUT OMG!!! AL GORE SAID IT'S REAL!" Whoop de *****. I never said it wasn't. I just highly ***** doubt that you can single out any one thing as being THE ROOT of climate change.

      Learn the difference or go ***** yourself with a knife.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But, the people in this are 'deniers. Its not meant to be an offensive term, but rather an adequate adjective for people who "deny" that humans are having an impact on global warming. A skeptic would say: its possible we have an influence, its just not certain. But the people in this video aren't skeptics, they're saying: 'no its not possible that we have an influence.' Cool it on the CAPS LOCK.

      "Learn the difference or go ***** yourself with a knife."
      Why the hell are you so emotional about this?
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@blackmariah:
      "So what you mean is the environment is a constantly changing entity that can't be predicted with any level of accuracy and the impact of any single thing can't be measured due to the presence of an untold and incalculable number of variables that must be taken into account."

      You are confusing climate - the average behavior of the system over extensive periods of time - with weather - what the weatherperson on the news predicts for tomorrow and the day after. We have 800,000 years of ice cores measuring climate change, as well as 1,000 years of daily weather records, correlated against CO2 levels for those periods, which scientists use to construct their models. One measure of the accuracy of a model is its predictive power, and when new climatic data is reviewed - whether from the far past, because the ice cores analyzed have moved progressively older - or when models are compared with the current era, for which we have daily records - has matched predictions.

      "I just love how anyone that has any doubt about OMGlobal Warming is a DENIER. No skeptics. Just DENIERS. Like we're denying the Holocaust or some *****. "BUT OMG!!! AL GORE SAID IT'S REAL!" Whoop de *****. I never said it wasn't. I just highly ***** doubt that you can single out any one thing as being THE ROOT of climate change."

      Actually, the issue is not whether Al Gore says it is real or not. He, and many others, have merely reported publicly available information about an overwhelming consensus among scientists around the world, based on publicly available data which you can look up for yourself. It is scientists - specifically, climate scientists experts in this field - who have said that it is real. As for "singling out any one thing", I choose to take the word of the world's leading scientists from every developed nation over whatever political talk show hack or oil-company spokesperson you take your propaganda from. YMMV, but your mileage will still spew the same global warming crap that will effect you as much as the rest of us.

      Denial of existential danger in the face of overwhelming factual evidence as interpreted by credible, peer-reviewed experts is, in fact, similar to Holocaust denial, and will have similarly catastrophic results. I am here today only because my grandfather refused to listen to his fellow Austrian deniers and got his wife and their daughters, including my mother, out of there just barely in time. The rest of the know-it-alls burned in the camps.

      "Learn the difference or go ***** yourself with a knife."

      I suggest you practice what you preach and educate yourself minimally about the actual science, and actual empirical evidence, in this case - or, indeed, violate yourself with the sharp edge of your ignorance.
  • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9An inconvenient Truth = $29.99
    Toyota Prius = $30,000
    CBC programming = $taxes

    Living in fear = priceless

    Some things money can't buy. For eveything else, there are fear mongerers.
    • Legopirate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4you forgot happy feet, apparently thats Global warming propaganda also.


      btw;
      quoting ***** commercials that don't know when to stop.... = retarded
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11An Inconvenient Truth = $5 DVD rental
      Sitting, watching and thinking = $0, 1 hour 30 minutes
      Taking action to save ourselves from extinction = priceless
    • bbarr97, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Perhaps, but Happy Feet truly convinced me that all animals in the zoo are completely insane. They need to jack up prices to pay for zoo psychologists. Don't look them in the eyes next time you go to the zoo . . . they're watching you . . .
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, it is ignorance that costly beyond measurement. Educate yourself, since clearly no one else in your life has bothered to do it.
  • Digitalfuneral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Very good. I find it damning that the "scientists" that backed the tobacco industry against cancer are now backing the oil companies on global warming.
    Its amazing what money can do to people.
    • dagnome1984, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1And the "scientists" that are backed by the United Nations don't have an agenda they must follow? World government is not in their sights? What better than a "global crisis" to achieve the U.N's long term wants. Looks like those so called scientists don't even know a basic gas constant. It only took one climatologist to smash holes into the U.N's pseudoscience theory.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
  • MrFoodMonster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Global warming is BS. That is all.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You're really not very open-minded are you?
    • Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats not closed-mindedness, thats pure ignorance. Even the deniers (finally) admit its happening, they just question if humans are the cause.
  • sandiegojoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I'm sick of hearing about global warming. It's become apparent to me that NO ONE knows for sure. You got a guy on one side who says it's absolutely true and sites all sorts of evidence and statistics and says you must be a fool for not believing it. Then you get a guy on the other side who sites the same evidence and statistics in an entirely different way and calls you a fool for believing in it. WTF???? It's the same thing when people debate the reasons for gas prices. Apparently NO ONE KNOWS!!!
  • MrFoodMonster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1neave, you shouldn't be geting your lessons on world issues from someone trying to make money through theater and dvd sales.
    • neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Of course I don't get all my knowledge from one movie. I only saw it the other day. I'm just recommending that people who don't know much about climate change should see it. There is waaay too much Al Gore in the movie, but as a primer, it's a good start.
  • randroid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4The bias displayed in just the first minute of this piece is incredible. There are only two sides allowed in this debate, apparently. You either believe global warming is occurring and is a man-made phenomenon that calls for massive government intervention in order to avoid catastrophe or you are an idiot/shill who wants to "ignore the problem." And my tax dollars paid for this garbage.
    • fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Like it or don't like it at least respect that the CBC is willing to air things that no other north american news network will touch. Sooner or later the CBC is going to be budget cut into oblivion and it's the fault of people like you.

  • btljuice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think people who don't believe global warming is real are just too scared to accept the reality it can bring. We're not talking rocket science.
    • dagnome1984, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2^^ People who say the above have learned everything they "know" about climate change from the idiot box.
  • kamtsa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thanks you Ralph Nader for wonderful 8 years.
    • rhombus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Ralph Nader had nothing to do with it. He wasn't enough for the swing vote in any state.
  • khastings, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The Earth isn't as warm now as it was during the Medieval Warm period before a "Little Ice Age" drove the Viking farmers out of Greenland. Warmer temperatures didn't sink the continents under water and I'm not aware of any overabundance of SUVs or human population at the time. Maybe the time to panic hysterically is when Greenland's currently Arctic climate turns green again.

    But I'm all for lower greenhouse emissions. If Statists must tax, let them force the brick and mortar stores into oblivion because of the evil auto traffic to the malls, but keep the Internet tax free, because the online catalogs and paperless contracts and payments will get products to us via clean electric parcel delivery vehicles.

    Sincerely,
    Web Developer Guy
  • AngryStoat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Like most important issues there's no easy answers. I watched Gore's movie and he may be sincere but that's not enough. Science isn't absolute, it's a tool, a method to make sense of the universe. Anything I've read about Quantum theory makes my head swim; since my grasp of physics is limited I have to assume that the scientists have very good reasons for postulating said theories. Can I trust them? In the day to day world you have to justify your value to an employer, whether it's Starbucks, NASA, Exxon or Greenpeace. You want the funding to continue in the form of a paycheck or research grant. Fraud, egotism, jealousy and ignorance exist in all fields. What's the big picture? Who immediately benefits from data being interpreted one way or another? We think in the short term, it's tough to not procrastinate or indulge in a bit of denial. I know I'll probably get more involved in the debate if the ocean starts lapping at my door. Like most people I'll find a way to navigate the issue so it does'nt impact my life too significantly. Global Warming? Bring it on!
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1+1 for recognizing that all funded scientists have agendas, not just those paid by "big oil".
  • neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels are now over 380 parts per million.
    Average global temperature can be directly correlated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere:
    http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif
    (there are other graphs around, just search for CO2 + temperature)

    There are many other factors, but this connection between CO2 and temperature is blindingly obvious. Man-made carbon emissions have meant an increase in CO2 levels of over 100ppm over in 30 years, something on a scale which has not ever happened in the last 400,000 years (at least).

    The globe is warming. How can anyone believe human intervention is not responsible?
    • RushLimbaugh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@neave
      We obviously all need to stop breathing to lower the CO2 emissions!!
  • JHW539, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Regarding the Penn and Teller BS, if it is the same one on environmentalism that I watched, it was a scathing rebuke of nutty fringe environmental groups like the Rainforest Network. Quite enjoyable light entertainment. It did not even lightly brush on the legitimate proponents of global warming (the UN, or all the first world National Academy of Scientists for example). Making fun of young 'uns opposed to hydrogen dioxide use is a far cry from rebuking the facts that climate change therory tries to explain and predict: The warming of the globe, satellite temperature records, recession of glaciers, ice core data and prehistoric atmosphere samples, etc.

    Global warming deniers insist loudly, "We're just too stupid to possibly explain all this data, but I'm sure your most feasible explanation that fits all the facts known, aka theory (like gravity and evolution) is wrong." And then they act indignant when we look at them like they're idiots. Sigh.
  • coustoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Climatologist agree that warming is occurring, CO2 or green house gases contribute to this, but how much man made emissions contribute to climate change is sketchy at best, That's why there are so many contrarians.

    There is nothing wrong with Cutting CO2 Emissions and having cleaner air and an environment and working on greater energy efficiency away from non renew-ables, But using scare mongering tactics to achieve these objectives is like Bush saying Iraq had nuclear weapons to go to war, its false inaccurate and irresponsible.
  • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3FACTOID: Cows produce more green gases than all made made emissions.

    Should we kill all the cows?
    • Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2have a citation for that factoid?
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ah... Factoid:
      Cow Farms are a man made industry.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sure...

      It's from a UN paper that just recently came out...

      I can't find the link to the exact paper but here's a short article that talks about it...

      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23377733-details/Cows+'do+more+harm+than+cars',+says+UN/article.do
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@bitcloud:

      Granted...

      My point was that people focus on making changes that would hurt the US economically whereas there are other areas that could be targeted for change that would not have such a economic impact.
    • shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Cows do not alter the equilibrium though. Cows release carbon dioxide from the plants and grain that they eat. Those same plants absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The net carbon dioxide does not change. When a car burns oil, however, millions of years worth of absorbed carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere in a matter of minutes, severely altering the balance.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@shad0w,

      There is no equilibrium in this universe.
      The universe goes towards greater entropy.
      This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

      Humans as well as every living organisms alter the balance. They have to do so to remain alive...
    • Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am going on the assumption you meant "man made" when you typed "made made"

      The report your citing actually states: "Cows generate more greenhouse gases than all forms of transport combined, a United Nations report has revealed."

      Forms of transport.

      overall cows account for 1/5th of the output of Mans activities.
    • rhombus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cows are as much a part of the problem as cars -- you have to address both of them. For one thing, ranching is the cause of extensive deforestation around the globe. For another, particularly in the developed world, ranching is fueled by large inputs of fossil-fuel based fertilizers and mechanized farming for the production of feed. It's all interconnected.

      I laugh when I read people saying "you can blame it all on one thing" -- that's the joke. It's not all one thing. It's a litany of things -- we have to attack the problem from all the angles.

      I think the biggest problem is this. Nobody can fathom that "they" let this go on for so on. People think, "Government and industry and the scientific community, they're smart people -- this can't actually be happening. Look at all this cool stuff we built! Everything will be fine. Nothing can go wrong. I'm late for work, and my friends are coming over for beers tonight."

      This has happened before in history. Many German Jews were in denial right up until the mobs smashed in their doors. Americans were in denial until the Japanese bombed the crap out of Hawaii. Dubya pretended there wasn't an outside world until it flew airplanes into 85th floor.

      Change is unpleasant. But it happens whether you like it or not, and it will drag you along even if you kick and scream. Even if we entertain the idea that human activity isn't primarily responsible (more denial) it doesn't change the fact -- this is happening, and the consequences have already been dire -- they will be even worse if we sit back and do nothing.

      That is why we have big brains -- because they help us anticipate consequences and pre-empt them. For my part, I think climate change is a selection event in the making. Some of us will make sensible decisions, try to reduce our impacts and prepare for the consequences, and some of us will whine to the GOP when half our family gets washed away in coastal flooding. At least they won't be creating more evangelical Christians afterwards.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Dweller,

      You say that cows about for 1/5th of man's activities. That is still an enormous number!

      My point is simple. There have been fluctuation in the earth temperature in the past few decades. We're moving towards more "normal" temperature. Is this natural fluctuations or is this man-made? Nobody knows.

      If the world is to change, then the ENTIRE world should make changes. If you ask some countries to make some changes while others don't, it really doesn't do anything except hurt some economically.
  • fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Is it just me or is anyone else really embarrassed that we (Canadians) were major proponents the Kyoto accord and under the insightful leadership of our wonderful new p.m. have backed out of it completely and towed the American line? Honestly it is worse than the US policy which has at least has been uniformly wrong. We're liars.
  • djepik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I'm gonna cry :( I wish there was a place that all of us non-believers in Global Warming could go to or better yet a place for all the believers to go to. They're spending all our tax money on something we don't believe in.

    I'm a sad panda :(((((
    • shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Global warming is not a belief, it's a scientifically backed and very well supported theory.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There is a place all you "non-believers in global warming" can go - right alongside the non-believers in the Holocaust, evolution, and a round Earth.

      Unfortunately, no matter how far out you are, you won't escape the reality-based consequences of....reality.
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2as the article points out, only because of the PR spin, do people now call it a theory.
      it's fact.
  • SocketNine3Nine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1George Bush is lame, Look at what his ding to this planet! Bush + Science = Confused Bush.
    • fido99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think its sad that this is even a debate, anyone who actually does the background research can see that this is not just another warming period. I think Al Gore had the title of his documentary right it is "An Inconvenient Truth". I think non-believers in global warming are alot like believers in God. They want there to be a nice explanation. It's kind of upsetting to think that we all just die and that there is no afterlife. Its much more convenient to think that there is a purpose to our life and that death is just the beginning. In the same way it's upsetting to think that we are all contributing to the destruction of the planet but it being upsetting is not a reasonable way to refute sound science. From what I can see the people that are saying global warming is not a problem aren't really providing any evidence to the contrary. If you can find one reputable scientific study that supports your claims then by all means lets see it. Otherwise comforting yourselves is not going to help solve the problem.
    • bbarr97, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Fido99
      God is not really a good example as he/it/she cannot be proving or disproving. Whether you like it or not every single person is "faith based" when it comes to death. Some people have faith that they just turn to dirt after they die while others have a different "faith".

      Global warming has been proving by fact but there are still many theories as to what is warming the earth. Is it just a natural cycle, is it solely because of man, is it a combination of both? No one has given solid proof of either, just conjecture. To claim that conjecture is true is what people refer to as "the fear monger machine."

      Either way, we all need to keep the earth clean and do whatever we can to minimize our impact. . . especially with 6 billion of us and growing (that's a lot of CO2 right there!). Perhaps we will have cars in the future that only expel water vapors but then the earth's atmosphere will get too humid and the clouds will thicken blocking out the sun causing all plant life to die and then it will rain for 10 years flooding the earth and we all die which circles back to the topic of god, faith and death.

  • scom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Does anyone else think that Canada has become the oil dealer to an oil addicted world. Oh crack is bad for you, but here how bout I sell you some crack.
    Hypocritical Canucks
    • fido99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Care to further develop that opinion because I'm from Canada and I have no idea what you mean. Are you referring to Alberta? We all know that's where all the world's oil comes from. So because we produce oil we're hypocrits. Noone in this documentary said oil was bad they said that it was bad that oil companies are financing pseudo scientific studies refuting global warming where the scientific community is in complete agreement that it exists. So unless I'm missing something I don't see what you're saying. Oh and scom if you're American calling Canadians hypocrits is laughable because that is exactly the way the entire world sees Americans.
    • Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Canada is actually one of the worst contributers of greenhouse gas emmissions globally,.. I'm not proud of it, but per capita, Canadians are better polluters than Americans. We all need to get our act together.
  • SkubaEL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Hey, I'm a skeptic on the issue and i need some crosschecking in order for me to be swayed to the believers side.
    Can someone help me answer these questions:

    1. Is it true that the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is only about .3% when water vapor is taken into account?
    2. Is it true that since 1998 the yearly global average temp has remained relatively the same, if so what is the cause behind this?Should it be rising continuously?
    3. Do computer models fail to factor in certain variables that render their forecasts inaccurate?
    4. Will sea levels actually rise significantly? Do increased vapor and precipitation and the absence of the displacement of sea ice negate a significant rise?
    5. How much where would ice need to melt to create the disaster scenario depicted in "An inconvenient Truth"
    6. What scenario caused the little ice age? Could it happen again soon? Could an unseen natural occurrence negate the warming?
    7. Does solar variability play any role in the warming?
    8. In the little ice age, were there warming spikes comparable to recent warming around 1600-1800s?
    9. Is the current data set of warming (Around 40-odd years) enough to extrapolate a long term warming trend?

    Please don't see me as smug or a conservative. I just want to separate fact from hype and deception.
    • dagnome1984, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2How dare you think for yourself!!! Everyone!! Off with his internet connection!
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If you actually were interested in separating fact from hype and deception, you would know that all of those questions have been answered, exhaustively and repeatedly, in the process of evaluating the evidence and peer-reviewing the conclusions within the scientific community. You would also know that all of the answers to your questions are available freely online.

      Of course, since you deliberately insert parroted bits of misinformation and careful propaganda in the midst of your "questions" (such as suggesting that the data set is "40-odd years" when in fact it is the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature which is the issue - evidence of the correlation going back 800,000 years, and a dramatic spike in co2 levels starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - and, since I was around 40 years ago, I assure you we already had steam technology in the 60's.

      The "facts" you spread here are, in fact, smug, conservative propaganda tidbits you copied and pasted from denialist sites. You are nothing like a "skeptic". Skepticism is an essential part of the critical thinking toolkit, aka the scientific method. Skepticism does not mean cynicism, nor does it apply in cases where one starts with a conclusions and then cherry picks data, uses emotionally-loaded terminology, distorts analysis, takes cites out of context, and outright fabricates conclusions. Rather, skepticism is why it took several decades of peer review and continual demands for additional evidence before a broad, global consensus emerged among the leading scientific experts in the field that, in fact, anthropogenic climate change is real and is an imminent threat to the Earth's climatic equilibrium and a threat to human civilization at its current standard of living.

      The time is long past when too many are fooled by clever dissembling and ideological cant. You can't fool all the people, all the time. The inconvenient truths are becoming known, and deniers exposed.

      Of course, you could just be completely and utterly ignorant, but, given the specific wording of your "questions", it seems more likely the less charitable option is the correct one - that you are a deliberate dissembler.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Quirk of the new interface, I guess, my full comment was posted after all.
  • TheNoz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Last month I sent a letter to the editors of Scientific American on essentially this topic. The September SI had a great article on outgassing of methane from various natural causes. Page 91 of the same issue offered retail customers a chance to buy a CD-based inventory of the world's volcanoes.

    Considering there are volcanoes, in Russia and elsewhere, that emit more CO2 in a few weeks than the USA does in a year, you would think this would be an important question in assessing humankind's role, if any, in global warming. To my no knowledge no such inventory of volcanic CO2 emissions, or natural methane emissions from lakes and oceans, has been made. In the absence of such an inventory the global warming modeling is not complete. Only when such an inventory is done can one assess whether or not it is a significant contributing factor.

    Consider Krakatoa, Pinatubo, Mt. St. Helens. Wouldn't you think that the gas and particulate emissions from these and other major eruptions might have an impact on, among other things: concentrations of atmospheric gases; reflectivity of the upper atmosphere; shading and thus cooling of the overall atmosphere (back in the 1970's a comparable concern was broadly voiced over global COOLING aka "nuclear winter"...

    Consider forest fires (lightning strikes cause forest fires)! Cellulose burns, and sequestered carbon turns into CO2. I would like to see an inventory of CO2 emissions from, say, the 10 largest forest fires in the Western US over the last 10 years. Some researchers believe large amounts of particulates in the atmosphere causes more lightning... hmm...

    The amazing thing (amazing unless one has the overall inventory implied by this comment) is how stable the overall earth-air-water-atmosphere system is despite all the natural interactions.
  • philophile5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's really dissapointing that so many people seem to think the complex nonlinear dynamics of global climate change can be summarized with isolated anecdotal trends. Is this simply related to the fact that the average tv weather anchor is a vapid dork and thus people conclude they can forgo the rigors of scientific study if they've stored up a bunch of cheeky one-liners? There are literally oceans of data to be pored through and a large number of scientists from various disciplines tasked with studying this data. My very neophytic two cents: Statisticly speaking, the odds that the relatively few overhyped contrarians in the scientific community who question the human connection to global warming are overwhelmingly more likely to be full of it than the vast majority who conclude otherwise. When you add to this the fact that CO2 reduction equates to a profound economic detriment for many rich and powerful people, it's easier to make the case that the contrarian voices are probably not speaking for the best interests of humanity. There is still significant work to be done to digest the scope of the changes taking place, but at this point there's not much left to debate as to whether climate change is happening or whether human CO2 production is implicated.
  • philophile5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's really disappointing that so many people seem to think the complex nonlinear dynamics of global climate change can be summarized with isolated anecdotal trends. Is this simply related to the fact that the average tv weather anchor is a vapid dork and thus people conclude they can forgo the rigors of scientific study if they've stored up a bunch of cheeky one-liners? There are literally oceans of data to be pored through and a large number of scientists from various disciplines tasked with studying this data. My very neophytic two cents: Statistically speaking, the odds that the relatively few over-hyped contrarians in the scientific community who question the human connection to global warming are overwhelmingly more likely to be full of it than the vast majority who conclude otherwise. When you add to this the fact that CO2 reduction equates to a profound economic detriment for many rich and powerful people, it's easier to make the case that the contrarian voices are probably not speaking for the best interests of humanity. There is still significant work to be done to digest the scope of the changes taking place, but at this point there's not much left to debate as to whether climate change is happening or whether human CO2 production is implicated.
  • philophile5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry for the dupe, connection problems.
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The earth is BILLIONS of years old.
    It has been MUCH hotter and colder than it is currently.
    Fluctuations in the earth's temperature is NORMAL.
    30 years ago these scientist told us that there was gunna be a global ice age- didn't happen.
    So yes I think scientific debate is necessary.
    To have a debate you must have people debating both sides of the issue.
    There is credible evidence both ways.
    For global warming freaks telling me the sky is falling, and not to listen to other scientist, only listen to their scientists, is just closed minded.
    • spootwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that everybody needs to wake up. When the news says the icecaps melt in 2040, it doesn't mean relax and mark December 31st 2040. Have you ever watched an ice cube melt in water? Did it just hold out till the last minute?

      Just suppose the sky started falling this minute...how much time would I have to duck for cover?

      Also, yes the earth has been hotter before...but have you ever been a dinosaur?
  • carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2These greedy oil industry ***** and the white house will be sorry they ever did this, we're all on the same planet, and we're all going to pay for it sooner or later.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.