Digg - Palin denies global warming is man-made

761 Comments
Who Dugg It?

l3oo, on 08/29/2008, -237/+241Cool.....That's a sure sign that she has a brain, and USES it.

Man-Made Global Warming is right there with the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
- cygnus2112, on 08/30/2008, -52/+120What are you talking about!
  
  Take a look at : http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/sp ...
  
  Humans caused global warming 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, 325,000 years ago, 400,000 years ago, etc etc. And the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are very real. Al Gore starred in a movie and said so.
  - enantiodromia, on 08/30/2008, -10/+5you forgot "God" and "Jesus"
  - swicken, on 08/31/2008, -7/+1So we've already matched the lowest, if it keeps going down to the point where we're greatly beyond the historical low points in history will you deny we have had an impact?
  - cygnus2112, on 08/31/2008, -3/+10Have you ever heard of the term "recurring trend"? The ice volume keeps getting lower. Do you think humans affected the last cycle over 100,000 years ago? That we haven't actually matched yet?
    
    Wait... put your thinking cap on.
    
    I'll give you a hint though: The Bering land bridge that spanned across Alaska and Siberia thought to bring nomads across that populated North America was about 15,000 years ago.
  - VOICESOF1, on 08/31/2008, -3/+0"Recurring trends" of this magnitude don't happen in a few years. Although I'm not completely convinced of the cause of GW- saying it's a trend isn't really applicable here because it's happening at such a high rate of speed. Use the cap to figure out what's escalating it maybe?
  - jhaks, on 08/31/2008, -1/+1There are a few other graphs (Wikipedia) similar to the one you posted that compare CO2 with global temperatures. It shows that the two vary in a similar fashion. In the graphs you see that CO2 levels never go above about 300ppm but we are already at about 400ppm and it is estimated that we will reach about 800ppm by the end of the 21st century. If CO2 is actually linked and causes global temperature increases and an increase of about 100ppm CO2 causes a 10*C change then going from 300-800ppm doesn't seem good. But I don't think any of us have the authority to say anything about this complex subject, but I would hope that the majority of professional climatologists are not stupid and know what they are talking about.
    
    Even if we aren't causing global warming having our entire modern civilization hinging on such a deletable source of energy is stupid. So if the climate doesn't kill us maybe we'll just rip each other apart. Seems to be the reoccurring trend; we don't really need help from Earth.
- ivlan, on 08/30/2008, -58/+1
  - pnkmtlflyd, on 08/30/2008, -0/+9Dont click on that ***** above
    
    [SID: 22979] HTTP Fake Codec WebPage detected.
    Traffic has been blocked from this application:
- stinkymonkey, on 08/30/2008, -35/+22Care to offer a fact to back it up from a real source, or are you just repeating what the Neocons tell you to?
  - Doji, on 08/30/2008, -2/+8Absolutely. There's plenty of sources, but here's one that puts it in a very easy to digest form: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-876753051 ...
  - l3oo, on 08/30/2008, -8/+8Why are you asking me to prove a negative?
    
    (and there are absolutely no facts to prove "man-made" global warming)
  - cphoover, on 08/31/2008, -1/+1neoconservatism has nothing to do with environmental policy and everything to do with foreign policy. I think republican would be the more appropriate term.
  - cphoover, on 08/31/2008, -1/+1and i3oo monkey is asking you to support you counter claim are you aware of how debate is structured? If anything your position is the one challenging current scientific thought.
  - stinkymonkey, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2I300 can't answer the Question. I'll ask again,....Why do you think man-made global warming is not real? why do you think Co2 levels have nothing to do with climate change? What makes you so sure about it. Prove a negative? I'm just asking you a question.
  - archiesteel, on 08/31/2008, -1/+1Uh, McCain believes in man-made Global Warming.
    
    Please try to reconcile this with your anti-scientific partisan beliefs.
- lalalalamppost, on 08/30/2008, -29/+22Santa "Clause"? Well played, moron. Well played.
  - Cuchanu, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1Santa "Claws"?
- stonewaljacksn, on 08/30/2008, -18/+8Global Warming? Let's get to the most important question surrounding Sarah Palin:
  
  Would you hit it?
  
  what's that? you want me to answer first? ok...
  Hell Yes, just because...
- seomike, on 08/30/2008, -26/+29great first post! soooo true!
- pintomp3, on 08/30/2008, -28/+29she sure is using her brain. she denies global warming and evolution. i wonder if she denies earth roundness too.
  - cJw314, on 08/30/2008, -8/+19I bet she can capitalize.
  - welliamwallace, on 08/30/2008, -8/+20she doesn't deny global warming. she just has a different opinion on the CAUSE of global warming.
  - Chonoon, on 08/30/2008, -11/+15...Wow. I agree with her. The human race is not causing Global warming. And this whole "Save the Planet" is bull *****. The Earth has been around for billions of years. I don't think a little climate change is going to destroy it.
    
    Side note: One volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the entire human race has in its entire history.
  - archiesteel, on 08/31/2008, -3/+6"Side note: One volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the entire human race has in its entire history."
    
    Completely, utterly false. Annual human-released CO2 in the atmosphere is about 30 times greater than a normal year's worth of volcanic activity.
    
    Science. Learn it.
- demonbaby, on 08/30/2008, -16/+15And big bearded men in the sky who made the earth in six days? Yeah, she believes THAT too, so I don't think I can take her opinions on other scientific matters too seriously.
- zunipus, on 08/30/2008, -10/+2McCain really missed out by not choosing l3oo for his VP candidate. Talk about brains! And what a joker! Very amusing l3oo. Look at all the people who thought you are acting like a retarded amoeba. Some people will believe anything.
- Hokke, on 08/30/2008, -13/+7The United Nations think otherwise. Ever heard of Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change?
  http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm I doubt you have read their reports.
  - DutchGuilder, on 08/30/2008, -2/+14You do know that the executive summary of the IPOCC report that says "global warming is man made" was not written by scientists and does not match the data in body of the same report, right? And that the body of the report essentially says "we're not sure", right? And that when scientists referenced in the report asked to be excluded because they disagree with the summary the IPOCC refused and kept them in anyway, right? And that the IPOCC was originally created by a politician to move the public opinion against striking British coal miners - not to perform science - right?
    Watch it for yourself: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=global+warmi ...
  - Xeworlebi, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3global warming ≠ climate change
  - cashman57, on 08/31/2008, -3/+4You do know that the only IPCC computer models that show global warming can only do so by omitting all data from volcanic activity,right?
    Not one of them includes volcanic activity, not one.
    You can believe in globalwarming/climate change or volcanoes, not both.
  - archiesteel, on 08/31/2008, -1/+4cashman57, actually that's not true. However, CO2 releases from volcanic activity *pales* when compared to human-produced CO2. That is a scientific fact.
    
    The fact that you are digged up proves that, on the issue of Global Warming, many digg users have chosen to abandon rational thought and let their cynicism be manipulated by anti-scientific deniers.
- RRJackson, on 08/30/2008, -10/+12Here's a better point, IMO. Whether or not "Global Warming" is man-made or happening because of some natural cycle, is it a bad thing for those of us talking about it on computers? I mean, it flat-out sucks for a peasant living in some coastal Micronesian *****, but for those of us in "wealthy" developed nations? Not so much. Overpopulation is a much bigger problem right now and Global Warming looks poised to help us out. Darwin would be proud.
  - cphoover, on 08/31/2008, -3/+2awesome comment.
  - archiesteel, on 08/31/2008, -2/+3Ah, our own Hitler-in-Residence has spoken again.
    
    So, RR, do you still think it's moral to exterminate an entire country's population in order to achieve victory over our enemies?
  - RRJackson, on 08/31/2008, -2/+2I think you need to move beyond 'good' and 'evil' before you can understand that 'morality' is a social construct that has very little to do with reality.
  - Nikkou, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2If I could digg that response a hundred times more, I would.
- gettodatruth, on 08/30/2008, -10/+1Not man-made?
  
  Refer to the World Almanac, Book of Facts...see that sharp surge in population over the past few decades...factor in many nations adopting capitalism which is "fueled" by oil and its derivatives.
  
  Not a chance this is man-made!.
  
  Our newest member of the scandal plagued politicos hasn't learned too much in college, I guess.
  
  For the benfit of the doubt, I'll agree, it's a natural phenomonon that happens now and then in the long and storied history of earth.
  
  Man's last inning input is just a mere needle in a haystack.
  
  Oh well, what can you do?
- Cuchanu, on 08/30/2008, -9/+4It's essentially a fact whether or not you believe it is not important. Yes, the reality is that our climate does change with or without us, but right now it's changing too fast. There are many factors for climate change, but one thing is true: those who question our part in it need to take a class in environmental science to see how even a small change in temp. could be devastating.
  
  Most people that disagree with our role in climate change are simply ignorant, and that's not a good excuse (Bush).
  - Latentk, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2And you think you lack this inherent quality you named "ignorance?"
  - Cuchanu, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Latentk if you don't believe we affect the global temperature you are a dumbass plain and simple.
- oldgal, on 08/30/2008, -8/+4So relieved to know that all that crap we put in the air is good for us:) Still doesn't negate the fact that oil is a finite resource and for national security reasons we would be better off with alternative energy sources. But then I'm not from a state whose whole economy is based on oil.
  - cashman57, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2Three trillion barrels in Westorn Colorado proves we have plenty left and there's a bacteria that turns trash into oil, maybe you should read about the stuff going on before you make silly assertions again.
  - cphoover, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2so your telling me oil is not a finite resource? your telling me we have not reached peak oil? I'm pretty sure every scientist on the ***** planet would tell you your crazy.
- vbullinger, on 08/31/2008, -4/+5Good call, l3oo.
  
  Do a Google video search for "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "Global Warming or Global Governance?" to see what that's all about.
  - archiesteel, on 08/31/2008, -2/+3Oh, you mean the movies that have been *completely* discredited for their complete lack of valid scientific data?
    
    Yeah, great argument. Moron.
  - vbullinger, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1They lay out very explicit facts that are indisputable.
    
    Moron.
- Ultramagnus0001, on 08/31/2008, -3/+4I hope that was sarcasm l3oo. If it wasn't you're are an uneducated idiot, so just pick a religion and follow it blindly.
- johnquincysmith, on 08/31/2008, -0/+0I've never seen a comment with so many diggs and so many burys.
- ramiro, on 08/31/2008, -2/+5Good for Palin. Man made global warming is Bullcorn and it is merely a fabricated excuse to increase the power of politicians over society.
- nellieandcindy, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0True, this is a very complex issue which is all the more reason a "hockey mom" is not likely to be qualified to make a judgement. In such cases how does one decide what to believe? I am a scientist myself although not in this field. I choose to go with the opinion of those representing these groups:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
  
  In my past 30 years in science, I have found that the vast majority of scientists are only interested in the facts and these agencies represent the best knowledge we have available. Palin's views on global warming are similar to her view of evolution. Since it is called a "theory" lots of people try to shoot it down not realizing that the evidence for it is massively overwhelming to say the least. This is also accepted as fact by almost all trained scientists as well. What is somewhat humorous is that if Creation "Science" were actually taught in schools along with the theory of evolution, (by scientifically qualified people) it would become clear in short order which story has solid support and which one is a bunch of wishful thinking with very few facts to support it.
- OLDHUMAN, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0Everyone should read the IPCC's, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Crisis report which it published in July this year. It began it's research in 1988, and has findings that compare the earth's environment for the last 650,000 years. Among a lot of results that are concerning to say the least, the report says there's a greater than 90% chance that over the next century earth will have a temperature increase of from 2 - 11 degrees Fahrenheit, and that, yes, it's due to greenhouse gases, and yes it's due to human activity.
  - mcrunch2, on 09/08/2008, -0/+11st of all, UN report - hahaha!
    2nd of all, POLITICAL
    
    last year, 2007, the arctic ice melted quite a bit more than usual and the liberal scientists had mad-mouth disease and 'i told you so' out the wazoo. This year, things are back to normal but they won't take back anything they said. These are government paid, 'reputable' climate scientists.
    *sigh*, at least we will know what the real truth is in about 20 years.
Sonan, on 08/29/2008, -89/+35She's right. It's not man-made; it's woman-made! All that hairspray...
- urgeigh, on 08/30/2008, -2/+23No, that was the O-zone remember? :P That was our fault too.
  - secrity, on 08/30/2008, -10/+6It still is our fault.
- Flipperbw, on 08/31/2008, -0/+6I thought that was a good one...
  - Sonan, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Thanks. So why do I get so many negative diggs for the joke while you get positive diggs for complimenting it? Strange...
- coalpha, on 08/31/2008, -2/+1hahhahahah good one!! dumb bettys!
jeffbw, on 08/29/2008, -107/+240Uh oh, another oiler administration. And she's a total right-wing regressive and a creationist. So much for any Rethuglican "change campaign," this is the ultimate reinforcing pick: McSame + HYPERMcSame.
- BevansDesign, on 08/30/2008, -17/+38The more I hear about her, the more I wonder how anyone could possibly vote her into office. Unfortunately, I thought the same thing about Bush. Maybe being an ignorant, crooked fool is a sure way to get yourself elected.
  - FLUX, on 08/30/2008, -35/+7ever think your the ignorant fool
  - gidd, on 08/30/2008, -5/+11Yes, FLUX. Then I read one of your comments and I feel much better.
  - Wookie, on 08/30/2008, -18/+12She's "ignorant" because she's not a true believer and member of your environmental church? You should never take anything on faith. The fact that there are scientists on both sides should tell you that you're taking it on faith that one side is right. I'm not taking sides, just commenting on your profound faith that global warming is man-made. (The geologic record suggests otherwise.) I would argue that her being a native Alaskan makes her the most capable person to deal with environmental issues. She's intimately aware of the communities and economies that grow up around our exploitation of natural resources. She's also keenly aware of the environmental balance that must be maintained to preserve that way of life. Chicago isn't much of an environmental frontier.
    
    She's "crooked" because she took on corruption in both parties in Alaska, drove it out, and passed sweeping ethics laws to make it stick? How is that crooked exactly?
    
    Republicans hate McCain because he's too centrist on some issues. Palin was no fan of Republicans in Alaska because she drove out some pretty big, yet corrupt, people.
    
    McCain and Palin sound like the change that Obama keeps talking about.
    
    (Don't get me wrong, neither party is running on a constitutional platform so I'm still writing in Ron Paul on my ballot.)
  - Arramol, on 08/30/2008, -4/+9"The fact that there are scientists on both sides should tell you that you're taking it on faith that one side is right."
    
    Um, no. I evaluated the evidence and concluded from that, not from faith, that one side is right.
  - rpgmaker, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5Conservatives will vote for her.
  - Tomchei, on 08/31/2008, -6/+4Palin > Obama > Biden > McCain
  - BrandonWicks, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2@Wookie
    
    I'm a native of Michigan, and I don't know jack ***** about cars. I'm an almost native of Colorado and I don't know jack ***** about water rights. Being a native of anywhere does not qualify you as far as the issues associated with that region.
- TSK05, on 08/30/2008, -17/+37Oiler administration? She has imposed a new profit tax on big oil in her state, she wrote another act (herself!) which hurt a bunch of oil companies (including BP for which her husband works as a grunt), she exposed the Republican Party chair in Alaska for being in cahoots with oil companies and he was forced to resign.
  
  How are any of the above for big oil?
  - akchrs, on 08/30/2008, -15/+23they just don't bother researching anything, they just regurgitate liberal talking points.
  - ZebZ, on 08/31/2008, -3/+2She supports drilling in ANWAR?
    
    She is suing to get polar bears removed from protection because it is impeding oil exploration?
- brainscab, on 08/30/2008, -6/+1but she's a WOMAN! (same thing, different package)
  - welliamwallace, on 08/30/2008, -3/+5same thing, NO 'package'.
- fillbaxter, on 08/30/2008, -14/+16Why is it that every time someone denies AGW they must be linked to the oil companies? You are nothing but a puppet for the alarmist. Environmental groups bring in billion dollars and billions of dollars a year, they've been around for years, and they are entrenched in D.C. as much as the oil companies are. The oil companies are the biggest investors in research and development of renewable energy but all you people cry about is how the republicans give them tax breaks. Perhaps the less they get taxed the more money they would have to spend on R&D of renewable energy.
  - Mejari, on 08/30/2008, -7/+5So you noticed the connection between people who deny that global warming is man-made and oil companies too? How can you blame that on environmental groups?
- marsbeyond, on 08/30/2008, -8/+18She ran against the oil boy's guy you morons!
  - akchrs, on 08/30/2008, -3/+19she ran against a republican governor, beat him, then sold a jet that he bought for himself.
- IAmTheGuy, on 08/30/2008, -4/+10Regardless of whether she believes it's man-made or not, she still set up a committee in Alaska to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I don't like her at all but I'm sick of Digg denouncing so much as right-wing propaganda when they are as guilty, if not more so, as Republicans. Do a little research. http://dwb.adn.com/news/environment/story/8786824p ...
- forsight, on 08/30/2008, -6/+8WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.
  
  “Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.
  
  “Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.
  
  “This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”
  - TSK05, on 08/30/2008, -4/+10“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment."
    
    Her husband is like a driller, he's a grunt - not like board of directors or anything anywhere near that. I like how that article tries to misrepresent it.
    
    Not only this, but she has increased taxes on big oil and wrote an act herself (and got it passed) which hurt big oil significantly as well as exposed the Party Chair of Republicans in Alaska who had to resign afterward. She does want to open ANWR for drilling and that was one of the things she ran on - guess what? She got elected and has an 80% approval rating.
- iakovos87, on 08/30/2008, -8/+6Republican, right-wing, and a creationist? You just convinced me to vote for McCain and her? Thanks pal!
- bluezinc, on 08/30/2008, -7/+5She's a former beauty pagent queen, they are told what to think and what to believe in. Should we expect her to be different?
- slugicide, on 08/31/2008, -3/+4Don't use the term "rethuglican." It makes you sound retarded.
- russ3, on 08/31/2008, -2/+6Why is american oil bad?
- mcrunch2, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1I like oil. My care uses it. My kids cheap plastic toys are made from it. My Computer is half made from it. My power cords are insulated by it. Its co-conspirator, natural gas, heats my water and provides some of my electricity. Its great stuff - wish we had more of it!
SteveMTyler, on 08/30/2008, -104/+281I guess they are going all out on the uneducated vote.
- djcreamy, on 08/30/2008, -18/+63In the United States, that's a guaranteed winner.
  - bluezinc, on 08/30/2008, -0/+8Afterall, the sun still revolves around the Earth. Pretty sure scientists told me that. Also, nasa went beyond the sun and confirmed that that's where the angels live and they have a big throne waiting for George Bush for doing the lords work! And one of the angels told the nasa robot that liberalism is evil and furthers satan's agenda and that its morally right to hunt and publicly execute the gays. And that the media is run by a vast liberal Jewish conspiracy. And also global warming is made up by Al Gore because he's an anti-American hippie/terrorist. Then the robot took all this information and flew to Jerry Falwells house and told him. Then when McCain came to visit Falwell, Falwell passed on all the secrets to the world to McCain, ensuring that he will become president and lead us all to heaven some day!
- AssJuice, on 08/30/2008, -45/+15so that means they have yours
  - DTJunkie07, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1What a name buddy lol Judgeing by your comments it is quite fitting.
- stonewaljacksn, on 08/30/2008, -12/+26I want to say that "both sides are equally uneducated" but I can't because that's not what I would really mean.
  To completely blame global warming on humans is ridiculous at this point, and to insist that they don't affect it at all is ridiculous. If this wasn't turned into such a ***** partisan issue, a "veil issue" that is thrown over the most important issues of our day (vaguely: economics), then I'm sure the opinions of all involved would be MUCH less polarized. I just can't believe that people on either side would make themselves SO intentionally STUPID as to completely ignore the (usually) PARTIALLY legitimate opinions of the people at the opposite pole.
  
  ***** though, if we stop forcing ourselves to one of the poles on these vague veil issues, then we're actually gonna see the economic influences that set us up like pawns and find our common ground with all hardworking Americans!! Who would want such unity and solidarity???
  - RationalXubrnce, on 08/30/2008, -7/+6 That people are digging you down makes me lose respect for scientific acumen of diggers.
- workingsmart, on 08/30/2008, -17/+25Antarctic ice core samples have conclusively shown that global warming starts before CO2 levels rise. All through history, all periods of global warming PRECEEDED times of high CO2 levels by 800 years. Cause and effect says that the cause has to come first and the effect later, therefore CO2 does not cause global warming. This makes CO2 based global warming very hard to back up when Ice Cores are the most accurate information on historical CO2. Humans may cause global warming, but it's not by creating CO2.
  
  I'm not for creationism, killing polar bears, or destroying the planet, but she actually does have a leg to stand on. At least this time.
  
  Global warming may be happening, but the link that CO2 starts the process is busted. Humans may even be causing global warming some other way, but CO2 isn't the correct causal agent.
  - workingsmart, on 08/30/2008, -8/+10Here's an example of my references...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440 ...
  - Isidore, on 08/30/2008, -5/+15@workingsmart the 800 year lag in Antarctic ice cores do not bust the CO2 global warming link.
    short answer: warming precedes CO2 for 800years of the cycle, CO2 causes warming for the next 4,200 years of the cycle.
    long answer see here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
    
    CO2 IS a greenhouse gas - demonstrable evn in high-school soda bottle experiments.
  - jstone, on 08/31/2008, -0/+6Do you not understand the concept of a feedback loop? The natural warming causes oceans and other sources to release more CO2, and the excess CO2 drives the warming even farther.
  - kendog235, on 08/31/2008, -0/+0Traditionally it doesn't start with CO2, but that doesn't mean CO2 isn't a feedback and contributes to global warming. There weren't factories around before either, so releasing CO2 like this has never happened before.
  - coalpha, on 08/31/2008, -2/+1bla bla, you really spent time arguing on digg? meah
- venomsym, on 08/30/2008, -7/+5there has not been any real scientific proof that it "end of all" global warming exist. In fact, about two weeks ago, scientist came up with proof that we are entering a cooling cycle.
  
  Wake up you little lemmings, can't you see that there has been a lot taxes developed in the name of "Global Warming"? Government is screwing us all, and the stupid hippies are falling for it.
  It is smart to be an environmentalist, we all love our blue planet, just don't be so fricken ignorant.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 08/30/2008, -8/+3SteveMTyler, they are hoping to get your uneducated stupid ***** liberal vote....Steven.
  - LiberalKid, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2By presenting views opposite of ours? Way to insult the intelligence of your own candidate..
- payan, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Oh God! The uneducated vote. Is it a big percentage of the voters?
  - Gutterpunk, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Just a little over 50%, the tipping point being around Florida
- williarc, on 08/31/2008, -6/+0stupid ***** democrats. you are the uneducated ones. climate change has been going on for millions years. i'm not saying that we shouldn't go green now, but our actions are only partially to blame in a continuous cycle. go to college and learn something.
- PinkThing, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0I agree about uneducated and fear I also agree about them being the majority.. Ever read 'Wisdom of Crowds" -- the theory is that enough of us -- whether we understand stuff or not -- can make the right decision -- the only group this seems not to apply to is [oliticians -- wonder why -- read more at www.climatechangetriage.net
rahamm, on 08/30/2008, -70/+92I hear her baby might actually be her daughters.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-69834
- shooterx, on 08/30/2008, -15/+8Holy *****, her daughter is hot as hell.
- musikatie, on 08/30/2008, -25/+11Did the National Enquirer make you believe in man-made global warming too?
  
  Nutter.
  - choochee, on 08/30/2008, -4/+2Bush administration admits global warming is “man made.” U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said "Human activity is contributing to changes in the Earth's climate. That issue is no longer up for debate.”
    
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
  - Mejari, on 08/30/2008, -4/+2But see, she's a "Maverick" just like McCain for denying the smallest amount of science the Bush administration actually let in!
  - ShellShock11, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2No but they sure as hell told me about John Edwards.
- Brassbud, on 08/30/2008, -14/+15Right...and that was her daughter that went into labor during an Energy meeting in Texas...
  - Brassbud, on 08/30/2008, -10/+6why am I getting dugg down?
  - salinemist, on 08/30/2008, -12/+11The Dems know they're screwed.
  - funkyloki, on 08/30/2008, -5/+13@Brassbud: Because, according to the article, after leaving the meeting, she took a flight from Dallas to Seattle to Anchorage, all while in labor. Rather difficult, don't you think, since the flight attendants said they were unaware the whole time? Maybe she did it because, while in Alaska, her daughter went into labor and Sarah had to return home from Dallas, using her own "pregnancy" as a double excuse, leaving the conference early and to explain a new baby being here.
  - leahcim, on 08/30/2008, -8/+6When her water broke, it was all fake of course.
  - rahamm, on 08/30/2008, -3/+9When her water broke she gave a speech left Dallas and flew all the way home to Alaska while in labor. That does not seem a little odd to you? Her water broke.........she then gave a speech.......she then flew 8 hours home and no one on the plane even noticed? YES FAKE!
    
    If it is not fake do you think she is the lady you want running your country? The lady who went to labor with a baby she knew had special needs and was premature and instead of going to the hospitable flew home, an 8 hour flight, to Alaska?
- EdwardBella, on 08/30/2008, -3/+1The pic makes it look like her head is on fire.
- charm803, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Sounds like Desperate Housewives.
- oldgal, on 08/30/2008, -3/+11Not a fan of hers but it is irresponsible and unethical to put stories like this out without any substantive proof. Leave this crap to Karl Rove and the boys, then vote them out of office and maybe then we can get rid of "say any lie you want" politics.
- seth556, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Have any of you looked at her daughters?
- digitallysick, on 08/31/2008, -2/+2she is in her 40s? that baby was far to young to be hers
  - mcrunch2, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1haha - thats so funny. like your humor! :)
- mcrunch2, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Are you still stuck on that lie? Gee, let a woman have her baby won't you.
agentorange719, on 08/30/2008, -97/+108I don't quite understand why we lambaste her for beliefs on something that hasn't even been scientifically proven yet. I get very hot under the collar about people who aren't scientist thinking they have any real idea of the complexity of global warming. Everyone and their mother has seen Al Gore's move An Inconvenient Truth, but some people might be interested to see the other side of the story that actually is done by scientists.

Check out: http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrec ...

Check it out and try to make up your own decisions.
- Berkana, on 08/30/2008, -23/+40That documentary was very thoroughly refuted. They were outright misleading at the end, where they cut off the solar data at 1980, because after 1980, there was no good correlation at all.
  
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165664054 ...
  
  Please look at the counter-arguments to the claims made in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"; they glossed over the fact that though carbon dioxide has historically been a trailing indicator, it has always had a feedback effect as a greenhouse gas, and that in modern times, we are changing the concentration of carbon dioxide independently of the sun at such a rate that what used to be a feedback effect has become a leading indicator.
- honeymustardn, on 08/30/2008, -8/+23I can understand the other side of the argument, but come on man, using The Great Global Warming Swindle as evidence for it? Surely you can do better than that.
- NorthMass, on 08/30/2008, -17/+19Al Gore has been proven to have take graphs completely out of context to justify his points, and he is the leader of the global warming movement so why should I trust this movement when the leader has made lies? For example Gore will show a massive graphs spanning hundreds of thousands of years that shows that when carbon goes up, so does temperature. So we think that carbon goes up, then the temperature goes up. But Gore doesn't zoom in on the graphs, because if you zoom in it shows temperature goes up and then carbon goes up a hundred years later.
  - Bone1205, on 08/30/2008, -9/+6Al Gore is showing examples that do span over a few hundred thousand years. When you are speaking about geologic time, one hundred years or even a few hundred years are considered to be an extremely short amount of time. The fact is that humans are contributing to global warming. It is a proven fact that burning carbon based fossil fuels can increase the temperature of the earth. This has been proven by scientists all over the world with every kind of political system in place. Get the facts.
  - NorthMass, on 08/30/2008, -5/+9My whole point is that he implies that carbon goes up, then temperature by zooming the graphs out, but if you zoom in you see that temperature goes up, and then carbon. How is this not blatantley taking graphs out of context?
  - TheMoniker, on 08/30/2008, -1/+5There is a feedback loop working there: perturbations in the Earth's temperature caused by Milankovitch cycles (eccentricity of the orbit; obliquity in the orbit due to the pull of the gas giants; and precession of the Earth in its orbit) cause increases (and decreases) in greenhouse gas levels, which in turn increase the temperature in a feedback loop. The raise in temperature shortly after the interglacial cycles can be explained by Milankovitch cycles, but the full extent of the temperature changes in the thousands of years following the initial perturbations can only be explained by rising carbon dioxide levels (and the feedback loop).
  - Berkana, on 08/30/2008, -5/+5If you'd watch the link I provided, they showed that though it is true that carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator HISTORICALLY, and that it provided a feedback effect, in PRESENT times mankind is changing the carbon dioxide concentration independently of the sun's cycles and the Milankovich cycles. The result of this is that what used to merely be a feedback trailing indicator has moved ahead of the curve due to man's influence; the greenhouse gas impact of carbon dioxide, having been de-coupled to the Milankovich and solar cycles, is now driving the present warming trend.
    
    Al Gore didn't go into this much detail, but that does not constitute taking it out of context because his graph wasn't intended to show that carbon dioxide drives the climate. Carbon dioxide doesn't drive the climate, the sun does, but it does retain heat, which is the point of his presentation. All he intended to show was that relationship, and he succeeded in doing so.
    
    "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is the one taking things out of context; they showed the lag between carbon dioxide and temperatures, and failed to show the context of the feedback loop and the context that in present times, mankind is changing this feedback factor independently of the sun and Milankovich cycles. This is what is misleading. Nothing they spin undoes the fact that glaciers all over the world are melting, and that the polar ice caps are receding, among many other evidences of global warming.
    
    This is not a new hypothesis. Long before these factors were observed, in the 50's the hypothesis, along with predictions, were laid out, and time has proven them true. See this science educational video clip from the 50's:
    http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/07/28/just-another ...
  - radix2, on 08/31/2008, -1/+3Gore is not the "leader of the global warming movement". Gore merely brought the issue to the public forum. Scientists have been claiming that there is an impending problem of a runaway greenhouse effect for over a century.
    
    Now the data is coming in, it looks like they were right.
  - NorthMass, on 08/31/2008, -2/+1Funny, the guy who won a nobel peace prize for spreading "global warming awareness" is not the leader of the global warming movement?
    
    Oh, and if greenhouse gases are causing global warming then how come from 1945-1975 the earth cooled? We still had greenhouse gases back then, obviously not as much as today, but still wouldn't of the earth at least warmed a little and not cooled for 30 years if Al Gore is right?
- agentorange719, on 08/31/2008, -3/+4So basically all I'm gathering from this is that its a complex scientific argument, and although she isn't a scientist, she is criticized of agreeing with some scientists who have a certain belief on the subject. There isn't any hard proof of the presence of man made global warming just like there isn't any hard proof that it doesn't exist. I don't think there is any good reason to say that she is wrong and then continue to criticize her for something even the most brilliant minds have only a small understanding of the entire complexity of this system. This is just a vehicle to make Palin look bad, and not even the best one in my opinion. Out of all the liberal reasons we could choose to dislike her, this really shouldn't be at the top of the list.
  - Micktion, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2Yea... and if she's wrong, they do nothing, billions of people are going to die, and if she's right, we take action and it was all for naught? A few industries get ruined, a whole bunch of new industries get created.
    
    Which are you going to choose?
    
    I think this is well and truely a reason not to choose her, she's saying she's willing to take a punt on the lives of billions of people for the sake of keeping a few of her mates in business. It's just plain wrong.
  - agentorange719, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2That's just basic risk analysis. We could be throwing gobs of money at it to find a solution before we are even sure it is a problem. Everyone seems to skip the step of research to actually find proof of it's existence. If we didn't take these risks, that would stop us from doing everyday things like crossing the street or driving a car.
    
    I'm open to the existence of man made global warming, I would just rather put money into proving it first.
    
    I can say pretty easily the GOP stance on the war, abortion and the death penalty as well as McSame's pandering to the right are pretty good reason's to vote for Obama.
  - nellieandcindy, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0True, this is a very complex issue which is all the more reason a "hockey mom" is not likely to be qualified to make a judgement. In such cases how does one decide what to believe? I am a scientist myself although not in this field. I choose to go with the opinion of those representing these groups:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
    
    In my past 30 years in science, I have found that the vast majority of scientists are only interested in the facts and these agencies represent the best knowledge we have available. Palin's views on global warming are similar to her view of evolution. Since it is called a "theory" lots of people try to shoot it down not realizing that the evidence for it is massively overwhelming to say the least. This is also accepted as fact by almost all trained scientists as well. What is somewhat humorous is that if Creation "Science" were actually taught in schools along with the theory of evolution, (by scientifically qualified people) it would become clear in short order which story has solid support and which one is a bunch of wishful thinking with very few facts to support it.
- samyoungguitar, on 08/31/2008, -9/+3You are a ***** idiot. Go back to school. Take your vitamins.
- b0b0, on 08/31/2008, -2/+3What 'scientists' are you referring to? All of the major reputable scientific organizations in the country concur that human activity is responsible for global climate change. You better have a ridiculous amount of compelling evidence to the contrary if you wish to discredit their consensus.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
  
  The so-called controversy is being created by fringe scientists motivated by the special interests. This is no different from when the tobacco industry paid fringe "scientists" to voice dissent over the idea that secondhand smoke caused cancer; they too wanted to create a controversy where there was none, citing "imperfect" science and the like.
  - nellieandcindy, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0oops, didnt see your post, you beat me to the truth. It does not matter what the topic is, you can always find "experts" to disagree with the majority of experts. Tobacco is a good example. One has to ask what the reason the thousands of scientists who support the global warming idea are so biased in the wrong direction. What is the "secret agenda" of the vast majority? Seems much more rational that only a few might have some ulterior motives vs the thousands who disagree with them.
- Micktion, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2She's lambasted because its morally and ethically wrong.
  
  We're playing for keeps here.
  
  Even if there were scientific evidence that there is a 1 in a 100 possibility that we may be triggering runaway global warming, that would be enough for any rational person to be morally obliged to react to. The fact is the scientific consensus is that its far more probable than 1 in a 100, it's not even 1 in 10.
  
  http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c ...
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article- ...
  
  This is happening now.... the predictions that have been made, have so far prooved to be grossly conservative and what had been predicted to happen in 50 years time looks like it will actually occur within 5. The new scientific predictions are of hope that their original models which gave us more time to adapt, may still turn out to be true.
  
  Today polar bears, tomorrow it may be whole nations of people. To sit back in an office of power whilst having your pockets lined by oil money and say, "lets just wait and see", in face of all the evidence on hand, is completely unethical.
- nellieandcindy, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0OK, you have a link to a film with a dozen (I did not count) or so scientists expressing a contrary view. Please go to the link below and note that dozens of the worlds leading scientific agencies representing thousands of scientists have made official statements that global warming is largely being induced by human activity. Why should one believe a single film with a few scientists vs thousands of others who represent the vast majority of studies done on this issue?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
  
  Please explain why all these people are wrong and you and your film are right?
- OLDHUMAN, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0I think you're talking about Nigel Calder and his "Great Global Warming Swindle" book and documentary. This has been called a "polemic" by all the experts in the field. Please read the info on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm ...
  
  The evidence is overwhelming in favor of humans causing our world-wide temperature and resultant 40% loss of polar ice-caps. Especially on this issue, it's critical that we all be responsible citizens of the earth and take the trouble to try to find out if our opinions have any basis in fact and are not just what we want to be true.
daonlyfreez, on 08/30/2008, -57/+48Of course not! Don't you get it? This warming-up thing is God's preparation for Armageddon! He is giving us "good Christians" the sign we have been waiting for!

And this is why we need to "discuss" creationism in science-class, God wants us to do that! And you know what? It's easy! Any awkward question can be answered with "God did it", or if that sounds too harsh: "The Devil did it!"

Just remember to keep looking for those horsemen in the sky!

/sarcasm
- AssJuice, on 08/30/2008, -17/+10You people are idiots
  - Chonoon, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1Most are. Including almost the entirety of digg users. I dugg you.
  - MixMastaKooz, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2You pretty much preclude any use of "idiot" or any other insult directed at someone's intelligence by using "AssJuice" as your username. Ass Juice.
  - brycelb, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2Sorry MixMasta. You should learn proper english before you spout off about the content of someones post.I don't see how you can complain about anyones username with the one you have.
  - MixMastaKooz, on 09/01/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry. How is my grammar deficient? Sure, I could have used a comma to bookend my subordinating conjunction, but the meaning got across. Also, my last sentence is a fragment, but some license can be taken when you're going for dramatic, or in this case, comedic effect.
    
    Anyhow, MixMastaKooz is a pretty sweet username.
    
    "Sorry, MixMasta. You should learn proper English before spouting off about the content of someone's post. I don't see how you can complain about anyone's username with the one you have." There. Fixed your post and your poor use of possessive, indefinite pronouns, too. No need to thank me.
- Roger_Ramjet, on 08/30/2008, -6/+4Daonlyfreez keep talking like that and show the world what a religious BIGOT looks like.
- diceau, on 08/30/2008, -3/+3I'd be classed as on the left but even I'm not a fan of the global warming thing, it seems like the Earth naturally heats up and cools down over time regardless of Man's existance ... I think we should live in a cleaner environment because it is better in every way and I love to be healthy in a healthy world. There's no reason why we shouldn't try to clean up our act is the point.
  
  However, McSame and Pawn don't think along those lines, and never will, so screw them. Dugg.
Easty, on 08/30/2008, -56/+153Oh boy. Biden's been around for 30 years and the Republicans have had weeks to find dirt. Palin's been around for 3 and we've already found this cavalcade. It's fascinating. Maybe the left are just masters of The Google.
- TSK05, on 08/30/2008, -7/+44This is dirt? This is the view of (almost) any Republican.
  - fajitamelt, on 08/31/2008, -1/+1And maybe the Republicans are saving the dirt on Biden for later...all of it would be forgotten by November if it was uncovered now. And believe me, there are things to be uncovered about anybody.
- DogsArePeople2, on 08/30/2008, -27/+15Maybe the left are just easier to spoon feed and accept the first thing that they can comprehend without stretching their brain too much.
  
  Oh, the real reason why Mars is also warming globally is actually because that's where Republicans have stationed their baby-cloning factories to supply future Earth with reinforcements. The real secret though? shhh!! keep it quiet . . . Haliburton fuels the factories!
  
  You guys amaze me.
- fillbaxter, on 08/30/2008, -18/+16What's so wrong with denying AGW? There is a lot of research out there that could go either way no one can prove irrefutably that AGW is occurring. So before we start electing politicians who want to enter into cap and trade agreements which would only stifle the US economy lets do some more research.
  
  Also if you are looking for Biden dirt your not going to find it here. Digg is nothing but a left-wing love fest.
  - notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -7/+7Hell, what's so wrong with denying gravity? Do you see gravity? I don't. Just because things happen to fall lots of times, but what about birds? What about the blueness of the sky? Why doesn't IT fall down? How about clouds? Damn leftist scientists say clouds do fall, in the form of rain! Yeah right! Clouds are white or grey, and rain is CLEAR! These damn gravity conspirators just don't want us to have the freedom to fly around.
    
    Did you read that? That, my friend, is how stupid it sounds when politicians who are paid off by companies that want to pollute, find regular citizens to be mouthpieces in arguing against what every scientist on Earth attests to be true.
  - fillbaxter, on 08/30/2008, -4/+7That is a ridiculous reply, I think you are the mouthpiece and you are being played for a fool.
    
    You are wrong when you say every scientist on earth believes in global warming. There was a letter circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action in the mid nineties that Clinton and Gore used to site as a claim for consensus of global warming. This list had over 2,600 alleged experts on climate change but upon further inspection only one was an actual climatologist. Among the experts on global warming there was a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, one hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven linguists, and one whose background was in Chinese medicine. Claims about consensus are false, even if they are true (which they are not) it doesn't make a difference
    
    Even Patrick Moore a founding member of Greenpeace stressed scientific evidence would prove global warming, not a consensus opinion.
    
    In the 1970's global cooling was a big debate and there was apparently consensus then. To quote Douglas Colligan from a 1975 Science Digest article he said "The world's climatologists are agreed... Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."
    
    I don't blame you for your opinions, I think you are very misguided.
  - Wookie, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3nonanidiot:
    How was church? The sermon must have been good, you're all fired up! Scientific evidence contrary to AGW isn't an attack on your faith. You can keep you faith, it is a free country, and I would fight to defend your rights to believe whatever you want. That said, the me and the rest of us want to maintain the separation of church and state.
  - notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Sure, believe what you like. Because it makes complete sense that the scientific community, who has no motive to pollute, is lying to us, while the corporations, who lose money if hindered from polluting, are just lobbying for "the truth."
    
    Wookie, wtf are you talking about? Faith is not based upon science, otherwise it would be called "theory," or "law." Humans dump 10 billion pounds of carbon dioxide into the air every year, and scientists have done studies that prove beyond any shadow that carbon dioxide absorbs heat and causes the greenhouse effect.
    
    Fillbaxter, you mentioned that Al Gore had 2600 experts on that list, but you only discredited about 10 of them as not being those who would necessarily know scientific data related to carbon or climate change.
    
    You should probably take a moment out, and realize that when you argue this, you are literally agreeing and revoicing opinions spouted by Rush Limbaugh. Rush frickin Limbaugh!
    
    Do you really want to be put in that category, because you're there now. Think! Figure it out! If you reaaally think Rush is right about this, or anything, just go on, and live the rest of your life in the complete recognizance that you are helping to perpetuate an argument made by the biggest idiot in the entire media. Congratulations!
  - fillbaxter, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1You're right the scientific community doesn't have a motive to pollute however they have incentive to give preferred answers. Most research grants they get come from environmentalist groups who support the idea of AGW. If they gave an opinion to the contrary they would lose their grants, and a lot of scientist who've disagreed have been smeared and lost their jobs because of this. That's the problem with all current research on global warming it's tainted. A good idea is to make grants anonymously donated.
    
    I don't know what Wookie is talking about but you mentioned the fact that faith is not based upon science otherwise it would be called a "theory". We'll that is exactly what global warming is, a theory. I don't disagree that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and that it has increased because of humans. If fact that is the ONLY thing about global warming that MOST scientist actually agree on, those two facts and ONLY those two facts. However humans simply don't produce enough to make a significant difference.
    
    Regarding the 2600 experts, I understand I only disputed about 10 of them however there are many others. Those were simply some of the most ridiculous, but seriously out of 2600 "experts" only ONE was a climatologist. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no consensus, it's a lie. Like I said you are being played for a full. You hear one thing and you blindly believe it.
    
    If you want to compare me to Limbaugh than fine. The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it. I can't help it if some ***** has the same opinions as I do. There are plenty of pathetic enviromentalist who I would not want to be grouped with either.
    
    To quote one of you wacko environmental friends Paul Ehrlich "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" (1969), Here's another one from him "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." (1970) what a moron. Just take look at the people you associate yourself with, Paul frickin' Ehrlich.
    
    Here's another, "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS". That was from an Earth First newsletter.
    
    Do you really want to be put in that category, because you're there now. Think! Figure it out! If you reaaally think Paul Ehrlich is right about this, or anything, just go on, and live the rest of your life in the complete recognizance that you are helping to perpetuate an argument made by some of the biggest con artists in the entire world. Congratulations!
  - notanidiot, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Ummm, Paul Ehrlich obviously was making these statements forty or so years ago,... so I'm not sure that is a good comparison to how the AGW deniers are simultaneously voicing the exact same words as today's idiot, Rush Limbaugh. Paul Ehrlich knew nothing of global warming, and his comments may have had a chance of being true, if not for the raised awareness of protecting the environment.
    
    Its funny, because there have definitely been changes made in the way we've lived since the environmentalist movement began, people and governments recycle more now, automobile emission standards tightened up, businesses forbidden from dumping toxic waste into waters. Then we have people like you who like to look back at statements from the past, as if to say "See these people were crazy, we're doing fine!"
    
    Did you ever stop to think what this world would be like if we didn't start recycling, how smoggy LA would be right now if California emissions standards hadn't tightened up, what our rivers would look like if any corporation was allowed to dump green sludge into them?
    
    Yeah, you're welcome.
- ZenMojo, on 08/30/2008, -7/+3The dirt has to actually be there.
- spinchange, on 08/30/2008, -7/+12No we found the dirt on Biden immediately, and it did manage to make on digg's front page ever-so-briefly, but everyone quickly rationalized it away that Biden is, "just the VP" ...most of the same who are now foaming at the mouth about this VP pick.
  
  -Biden claims to have written the Patriot Act (responsible for surveillance, military tribunals, secret evidence, subversion of due process, and more )
  
  -Biden has written numerous pieces of "war on drugs" legislation. Including the "Rave Act" in 2002 which tried to criminalize glow sticks and bottled water as "ecstasy paraphernalia"
  
  -Biden got the Bankruptcy reform bill that was written by his largest campaign contributors passed in the Senate. Obama, Feingold, Kennedy, and others all opposed - as well numerous consumer advocacy groups, etc.
  
  -Biden is one of the most RIAA/MPAA influenced politicians in Washington. He's been behind failed bills that make it a felony to install "unauthorized" software on your computer or hand held device, He's horrible on copyright, tech issues, and actually even supports making anonymous encryption keys illegal.
  
  On the issues that should matter the most to diggers, Biden is a complete disaster. He got liberal religion a few years ago and started speaking out against the Iraq War (that he initally voted for, and helped draft the authorization for), Abu Grahib, and some of the other injustices that he and other democrats were pretty complicit in allowing to be created in the first place.
  
  The real icing on the cake is that Biden was saying as recently as *this year* that Obama was unqualified to be the President. He supported McCain for Kerry's VP ticket in 2004 and is close personal friends with him.
  
  When I saw him get announced as the candidate, he messed up Barack's name almost everytime he said it...until he got to the line about Barack being a politician who understands the importance of compromise.
  
  Exactly. Change we can compromise on.
  
  /Rant off - we can get back to piling on Sarah Palin, now.
  - notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -7/+3Wow, that has got to be about the stupidest thing I've seen on digg in a while. Congrats!
  - Dhawk777, on 08/30/2008, -5/+1What makes Biden different from Palin though is that Biden is a 65 year old man who probably won't become president. Even if Obama wins 2 terms I bet Hillary or someone younger will become the next Democratic presidential candidate. Whereas with McCain, we have a 72 year old man who's health is questionable and an inexperienced fundamentalist crazy who will replace him if he falls ill or dies.
    
    I don't agree with some of Biden's policies but it's relatively unlikely he'll become president. I, and most of America, don't agree with any of Palin's right-wing point of view arnd the prospect of her become president literally frightens me.
  - spinchange, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4@ notanidot - care to explain or elaborate why anything that I said so stupid? do you think it's untrue, or just don't like it?
    
    @ Dhawk777 - Obama has as much as said that he wants a VP who will be an active partner in governing and challange him on things. Biden is going to be an Obama's administration's equivalent of Dick Cheney - working the gears and machinations of DC to advance their administrations overall agenda. He is going to actively be involved in the creation policy - not just a "back up" Palin is not nearly as "right wing" as she is being portrayed in social media (the life issue notwithstanding)
  - mrraven200, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Both parties do suck but I have say at least Bidden's not a creationist beauty queen. What the hell is this 72 year old 4 time cancer survivor thinking putting this lightweight bake sale queen so close to the Presidency. Can you imagine her debating NATO and the Balkans with that shark Putin? I can't WAAAAAYYYYY out of her league.
  - wainman, on 08/31/2008, -0/+0links?
  - spinchange, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2@ wainman:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/23/152749/472
  - spinchange, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2@ mrraven200 - frankly, I can't imagine Obama staring down Putin or Ahmadinejad either. And while it's not foreign relations, this former point-gaurd nicknamed 'Sarah Barracuda' his risen from PTA Mom to the youngest, and first female Governor of the state taking on some of the most powerful and corrupt politicians from within her own party. She called for increasing taxes on the Oil Companies up there! She hunts moose for crying out loud. I think she probably has sharper elbows than you're giving her credit for.
- NightVortez, on 08/31/2008, -3/+6Are you ***** kidding me? The dirt was found within seconds, hell, it had been there before Biden was Obama's VP, you just don't see it on digg. He's written the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, voted for the Patriot Act, Iraq War, Real ID, has voted for almost every tax bill that came to his desk and WANTS TO TAX THE INTERNET! There is so much dirt on him it's amazing and the majority of digg is completely ignoring it, why? Because he's Obama's VP therefore is God.
  
  http://gizmodo.com/5041044/vp-candidate-biden-is-n ...
  
  The fact that Palin denies global warming as man-made isn't dirt, that's the general Republican perspective.
  - mrraven200, on 08/31/2008, -2/+1The fact she denies evolution as well shows she's a first rate dumbass who would endanger our ability to produce kids who will keep up with biotech in the 21st century. Was McCain high on painkillers and porn when he made this ***** decsion? American really are just ***** stupid aren't we? That's he big dirty secret no one wants to talk about...
  - spinchange, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2Dude, she doesn't "deny" evolution! You must really think people are dumb because that is a deliberate mischaracterization bordering on a lie. She was asked - in a political debate - how she felt of this intelligent design stuff being taught in school. She said, "why not teach both...debate is healthy, etc" She's done nothing in terms of policy to hinder or set back science and/or education.
- vbullinger, on 08/31/2008, -2/+2Well, Al Gore did invent the internet, afterall.
ieee, on 08/30/2008, -23/+34If global climate change was politically damaging to democrats Pat Robertson would be finding passages in the Bible condemning Hummers and President Bush would be calling polluters terrorits
- Roger_Ramjet, on 08/30/2008, -4/+1What's a terrorit? Is that some religious bigot slang?
- vbullinger, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2I was about to correct your spelling, but then I realized it wasn't a typo: Bush probably would say it like that.
  
  Oh, and bury Jerry Curley, every chance you get, ok? He's bingobongony. Google that stupid troll.
willengage, on 08/30/2008, -16/+2changeBACK
argoff, on 08/30/2008, -39/+127I wish people would understand that the real issue isn't about global warming, that's just a proxy battle for the main one which is: the size of government in our lives. The fact is that the US govt already takes up over 40% of the economy, yet there are people who still think that it isn't enough. It makes me wonder what's wrong with them? How can people just be so desperate to hand more and more control over their own lives to someone else, and then get all shocked when things get all screwed up.
- itraylor, on 08/30/2008, -5/+30A lack of personal responsibility encourages people to want the government to step in a just "make things better."
  - graphictruth, on 08/30/2008, -3/+2Why is it when I hear "a lack of personal responsibility" from a "conservative" these days, it always seem to be aimed at blaming someone else for failing to support their silly-assed faith-based substitute for common sense and decency?
    
    The climate IS changing. The constitution HAS been violated and we ARE engaged in an illegal war led by war-criminals who have thought it prudent to pardon themselves pre-preemptively.
    
    Btw, Canada's governement, which has all kinds of "socialist" aspects to it, like professionals who are paid to give a practical crap about the econonmy, the labor force and the less fortunate, is in the same ballpark.
    
    As is everyone else : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_200 ...
    
    Makes me wonder how we manage to get so much less benefit per-capita for roughly the same investment?
    
    Maybe it's that we have the same level of welfare spending as any other nation, but we call it "defense spending."
- FLUX, on 08/30/2008, -6/+18amen
- stubarwick, on 08/30/2008, -4/+23I don't desire government interference in the lives of Americans, or any persons for that matter and if I'm correct so do most Republicans. But I find it ironic that they are so adamant about same sex marriage and choice/life. Isn't restriction of rights for the party's in each of these issues government interference?
  
  So why are people so concerned over outlawing these issues? To me it seems like Republicans operate under the guise of small government while making it bigger.
  - Revlution4ever, on 08/30/2008, -2/+9you've figured it out. congratulations, you won the internet today. since bush has been in office, he has created more intelligent agencies, more spying agencies, paid off bigger corporations, etc etc
    
    the "small govt." is really the definition of the libertarian and ron paul, NOT Bush adn the Religious "Palin" Right.
  - vbullinger, on 08/31/2008, -1/+3I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
    
    I think Sarah Palin is an unwitting dupe. She's too innocent. She's one of the CFR members who don't know what the CFR is all about and she's just hob-knobbing with the elites.
    
    Still not voting for McCain. Bob Barr all the way.
    
    Oh, and AWESOME post, argoff!
- dood, on 08/30/2008, -3/+7Never forget that we are the government. That control we hand over to them, we really keep for ourselves through our power to elect our representatives.
  
  If you don't think this is a government by the people, for the people, then I suppose there's no convincing you of the above facts.
  - graphictruth, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1I would tend to believe that, being a lifelong sucker for the wonderful myth that is America - but unfortunately, I read the Brad Blog.
  - SouthsideIrish, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1Oh, really? Just come to the Land of Lincoln, where elected positions are passed from father to son, or daughter. No election is needed, it is all done in smoke filled rooms. And the last person to do it was the man the taught Obama everything he knows.
  - anarcurt, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1While it is true that we have the power to elect how many of us use it wisely. How many people actually research candidates and positions. *****, half this nation cares more about who's getting their Idol vote than their presidential vote. They think that they can be good, informed citizens by watching the nightly news. While I would never take away someone's right to vote I believe some people need to look in the mirror and say 'I know nothing about these fools who am I to choose between them.'
    
    In addition, while this is a government by the people it is certainly not for the people, at least none of the people I know. Unless you are a K street lobbyist or a CEO you hold no voice with your national representatives. Politicians have one of the greatest job security rates in the country. We so rarely hold our representatives responsible for anything that they simply don't care what their constituents have to say, only what will make their interests profits.
    
    It's sad, but we haven't been a true democracy in 200 years.
- 0xABADC0DA, on 08/30/2008, -10/+3The real issue is that there are Republicans that are so stupid and uneducated to think that Man is not responsible for climate change. Or take 'Evilution'. Before they even denied that climate change was actually happening, so at least there's *some* hope for them. But when you are surrounded with so much WILLFUL ignorance then a 'big government' clue stick to club them over the head until they finally get it is tempting.
  
  If you are really for small government the best thing you can do is a) stop being ignorant and b) help other to stop being ignorant. If people felt like you could personally be responsible for even your own education then they would have a lot more confidence in your ability to function without government help. Personal responsibility MEANS to not ignore the truth just because it offense your delicate sensibilities.
- EarlOfLade, on 08/30/2008, -10/+6Word salad...
  
  Insecure and ignorant, uneducated and religious, typical right winger.
  
  Go back to school and learn to use science rather than pull ***** out of your own ass.
  - Badandy127, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3You're flat out wrong. There are many intelligent Republicans who are not religious, believe in evolution, and are actually fiscally conservative. Of course, you never see those people being made fun of on Digg so you have a completely warped view on the diversity in the Republican Party. Stop being ignorant.
- fillbaxter, on 08/30/2008, -2/+12Thank you argoff, I've been reading some of these comments and I was getting worried about the future of the US. I agree it's more about a grab for power and regulations then about global warming.
- NorthMass, on 08/30/2008, -3/+23Most Republicans are not conservatives anymore. Ron Paul is a true conservative.
  - mguice, on 08/30/2008, -2/+3Ron Paul and most Republicans do not meet the criteria for the term as expressed by Edumund Burke. A conservative is for incremental change. Meeting the Libertarian or Republican platforms would call for radical change -- as does the Democrative platform.
  - Badandy127, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5Because Edmund Burke figured out the current connotations of the present day Republican party...
- ZenMojo, on 08/30/2008, -4/+6Regulations and power are not one and the same. There was this word long ago called "muckraking." A Republican was fond of the term. The idea was that there is so much ***** in the world that someone has to comb through and find the razorblades hidden underneath.
  
  Government does that. A small government is no more an inherent good than a large one or a medium one. The question is, how can we influence that government to make it do what we want or need. It is easier with smaller governments to restrain and influence them but easier with larger governments to accomplish tasks.
  
  Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a slaver and a rich landowner. His love of freedom was a love for the freedom to put people in chains and control our resources. His personal interests can no more be transmitted to the needs of modern or middle-class Americans anymore than the personal interests of King George III.
  - wtbuser, on 08/30/2008, -1/+7Regulation and power and entirely the same. Regulation is control, power is control. When the government is given the ability to limit CO2 admissions in this industry or tax this company for "windfall profits" the government has made themselves king maker. They then have the ability to determine what companies.. what industries rise and fall in the market place and as a result people as well.
    
    People rant and rave about the "massive" profits of the oil companies, but the fact is that the amount of oil in the world controlled by Western oil companies is well less than one half of all reserves. Yet people not dare recognize the inefficiencies of the nationalized oil for contributing to its rise, its the (ironically) small oil companies fault. You'd have government tax them for what reason? That they are good at what they do? That you are dependent on them? That you don't like them? Where were we when Google, Microsoft, or what not made their profits.. uh.
    
    Its all these sugary analogies of razorblades, needles, or lead paint that defenders of the state love... but when the state takes away their speech or detains them at an airport then its big brother! If a company or a consumer is dumb enough to use lead paint... to litter razorblades or needles... there were and are already actions in place to deal with. You don't need Uncle Sam everywhere.
- pintomp3, on 08/30/2008, -7/+5OMG regulations. when the government mandates seatbelts in cars, they were just oppressing us and taking over our lives!
  - fillbaxter, on 08/30/2008, -1/+6Wow, terrible example! I was thinking more along the lines of the Kyoto treaty and such.
  - Badandy127, on 08/30/2008, -1/+10I agree. Not wearing a seatbelt does not cause potential harm to anyone else but yourself. Therefore, it should be legal.
  - notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -1/+2Badandy, at first, I read your argument, and for a while, being the open minded individual I am, I thought "Well, he has a point." But it didn't take long to figure out several examples of harm potentially caused by not wearing a seat belt.
    
    First of all, the main danger of not wearing a seat belt is flying through your window in the case of an accident and slamming into the cement at about 60 miles an hour, or however fast you were going. Now lets just assume that you don't need a financial punishment to help you realize how stupid a risk this is, maybe the thought of pavement at 60mph is exhilarating to you.
    
    But what about the guy that has to scrape your body up off the ground? How is he going to feel about it, and who is going to pay him? Also, we can't have blood stained highways, so they need to bring in some sort of cleansing solution to get that crap off of there! You think the market is going to do that? Nope, thats the government, and its not free!
    
    Also, lets assume that accident was your fault really, you slowed down too fast and got slammed from behind. The poor sap that hit you sees that you're all over the highway, and he ends up in a deep depression for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
    
    Then, what about children, who take the example of their parents? Kid sees parent always without seatbelt, kid gets first car, never wears seatbelt, drives idiotically like teens do, gets in wreck, dies because of no seat belt.
    
    Should I go on?
  - AllyOfReason, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1How about being a danger to the passengers in the car when you become a human missile?
  - wainman, on 08/31/2008, -0/+0@ notanidiot: i like the argument but it made me think, when can you do anything without having indirect effects on other ppl? I would like to think of an example of a law that seemingly only affects the suspect, but actually affects many other ppl. I can't right now tho. Anyone else like to?
- notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -6/+1Government is better than the market, oh i don't know, maybe becaaaause, they can be held accountable by us, and are voted in by us?
  
  Corporations not so much.
  - Doji, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3No, Corporations much more so.
    
    You vote with your dollar.
  - notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1You vote with your dollar, which means that the rich people have more votes than the middle class. Thank you for making my point so clear.
  - psdabfm, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2Let's look at this another way notanidiot, you get to "choose" your politician every four years and you hope that the policies which will come from him/her will be what you heard from them during the campaign. If the politician doesn't do what you want, you have no recourse and you have to suffer their rule for the next several years.
    
    In a market, however, you spend your dollars how you see fit. If a product or company doesn't do what you want, then you don't give it/them your money. It's that simple, individuals will make millions of economic choices in a year instead of a single choice every four years.
    
    The more power you give to a government, the more you hurt the influence you can have on the market with your dollars.
  - plummerbob, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1Yes, you are an idiot.
  - notanidiot, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1thank you plummerbob, I've never heard such a witty retort before, now go play with the other children, the adults are talking.
    
    OK, psdabfm, heres the thing:
    
    Its no secret that at this time, the government is in the pocket of the markets. If the markets were not so powerful, this would not be the case. Democracy is a concept we are so proud of, that we try to spread it across the world, but democracy is all about government by the people.
    
    You wanna know who really has it right? Mike Gravel. Mike Gravel has the goal of making a completely new branch of government, a lawmaking branch consisting of any people who want to be a part of it. Nowadays we actually have the technology to make it work, and that would really be democracy...
    
    But the markets own the media, something that was supposed to be ours. They tell us who we can and can't vote for, and they do it to better their own interests. No amount of boycotting will stop that, because we need food and shelter, electricity, etc to survive, and since the market owns the media, people who do attempt to boycott get no coverage on the news, so there is no possible way for "voting with your dollars" to work.
    
    There is a real problem when people want to reduce the size of government here, because our government is supposed to be "of the people", and so if it were so, it would be ridiculous for anyone to want to reduce its size. The problem isn't the size of government, its a more fundamental problem with the nature of government, and that problem is that the people in charge are all rich and greedy for power, and they lie, and as you said, we only have an opportunity to choose once every two years.
    
    I say, don't reduce the size of government, open its doors to the public. That, my friend, is what the forefathers meant by freedom, not eliminating the social welfare so that rich people don't have to pay taxes.
- YEEK, on 08/30/2008, -5/+0Seems to me that I would rather live in a country with a gov't concerned about our welfare, verses one that doesn't give a crap. You pick- USA, Canada, Most of Europe, Japan verses most any other country in the world. Which countries always have the higher standard of living? Democracies with large governments.
  - Doji, on 08/30/2008, -1/+1But which ones are freer?
    That's right, USA, Canada, most of Europe...
  - graphictruth, on 08/30/2008, -2/+1It takes a good deal of social and practical infrastructure (and vigilance) to support individual liberty. Meanwhile, it's clear that the conservative ethos is to concentrate as much wealth and power into as few "reliable" hands as possible. How to go about doing that? "You can always hire half of the poor to kill the other half."
- monoa, on 08/30/2008, -3/+6No, anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with politics - it has everything to do with science and reality.
  
  How nations respond to the reality of climate change is about politics and government and common sense. Given the short term-ism of most politicians ("what do I do to get re-elected?") and the majority of people ("I want more money for stuff I don't need"), there's a good chance that the future of the planet is largely *****.
- DMTek, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3What a thoughtful right-wing Republican reply to an issue that wasn't even being discussed. But....since you brought it up you might want to check your facts on which party is trying to control individual rights and enact laws to force its will on everyone else. You might want to check on the Republican record on deficit spending while your at it. I feel sorry for your ilk. Try using your own brain and quit paraphrasing Republican rhetoric.
- Genghis1, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1deniers!
- ykinc, on 08/30/2008, -0/+0Very good question, but maybe you could read Machiavelli: The Prince (http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm) since there is a very good answer about this kind of compliance of a nation.
- filldeviant, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1rAmen!
- b0b0, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1No, the real issue is climate change.
Cheeseburgers, on 08/30/2008, -83/+139that would make her correct.
- psylence, on 08/30/2008, -10/+32It's fun when dissenting views are stifled, isn't it? I highly doubt many people here on either side of the issue could cite empirical facts supporting their side to a conclusion.
  
  Yet they'll just believe what they're told without question. Fun, productive...
  - musikatie, on 08/30/2008, -10/+31Yeah, all Palin is saying that she's not a scientist and has not been convinced by any scientists that man is solely to blame for the warming trends of the last 120 (40 really) years.
    
    The hockey stick graph has a lot of problems and so does Al Gore's where temperature spikes precede CO2 spikes.
    
    Anti-capitalists cling on to the man-made theory as if it came from Newton or Einstein, just so they can promote their agenda.
  - DragoonWraith, on 08/30/2008, -13/+4"Solely" to blame? No. "Primarily" to blame? Yes, as far as the world's experts can tell.
  - ajames01, on 08/30/2008, -4/+13DragoonWraith: For every expert's man made global warming claim, there are the same amount discrediting it. The worlds experts are not decided on either side actually.
  - notanidiot, on 08/30/2008, -8/+2Well, we pour 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and the effects of CO2 have been shown in lab experiments to absorb heat and create a greenhouse effect, and so I suppose if you want to really know for sure without doing your own research, you'll have to wait until its so hot, people are dying in the street. Sound like a plan, retard?
  - AllyOfReason, on 08/31/2008, -0/+2@notanidiot
    
    The Earth is not a lab grade greenhouse by any stretch of the imagination.
- ryanwarnersteel, on 08/30/2008, -15/+19I don't understand how all of these people on digg are always harping on evolution because its scientifically proven. But when climate change caused by people is also proven, it gets denied by these same people because they don't want to change their lifestyle.
  The same scientists are using the same science method for proving these issues. Pick and choose, pick and choose. Just like Christians who pick and choose what to believe from the bible.
  - loki49152, on 08/30/2008, -0/+5The climate is changing - and there has never been a time in the history of the Earth when it wasn't. Human activity driving climate change is not proven. It's speculation, at best, based on assumptions and laboratory experiments of dubious value.
    
    Here's an inconvenient truth: computer models do not tell you how reality works. They don't. They tell you how the mathematical assumptions and initial conditions you put into them will work out - in a purely mathematical way. That doesn't mean that your assumptions are correct. It doesn't mean that you've accounted for every variable (essential or inconsequential). The fact is that the model itself is only a simulation of a description of the physical world - not a replay of physical processes actually happening. Models are not *evidence*, much less *proof*. They are, at best, a means of pointing you to the places you should look for evidence.
  - AllyOfReason, on 08/31/2008, -1/+2"climate change caused by people is proven" - wrong
    
    Comparing the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse warming to evolution is an absolute absurdity.
- pintomp3, on 08/30/2008, -9/+8the way she is correct about creationism?
- Metasquares, on 08/30/2008, -2/+2No, no, that was *last month's* popular Digg sentiment.
- FutureGuy, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world ...
  
  sure it can't be proved 100% just like evolution can't be.
- Greg2k, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1If only cows would stop farting methane gas all over the place...
THETEH, on 08/30/2008, -61/+60Perhaps she also thinks that humans don't cause deforestation. The forests just fall down by themselves! And we just so happen to be holding the axes!
- flip2trip, on 08/30/2008, -30/+26Man-made Global Warming is a hoax.
- Neiby, on 08/30/2008, -13/+18Your argument isn't sound. We can show absolute, incontrovertible proof of deforestation by humans. No such thing exists to demonstrate man-made contributions to global warming. All we have are various competing hypotheses, some of which seem to have more weight than others. But our global climate is insanely complex. We would be arrogant to suggest that we understand all of the factors involved in its cycle of changes. And if you make one or two very minor changes to our computer models, the supposed human impact disappears.
  
  I'm not saying we should continue to trash our environment, which we most certainly are, but I'm also not sure that the path to change should depend so much on the politics of fear.
  - Nordjak, on 08/30/2008, -3/+3It's quite simple: Humans have increased atmospheric Co2 levels by 30% over the past 200 years and the greenhouse effect is a proven concept of physics. The problem is that people like you get distracted by a bunch of non-sequiturs and misinformation and forget that scientists understand and account for natural cycles in their climate models.
  - Badandy127, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3And Nordjak, the problem is people like you get distracted by environmentalist propaganda because you ignore the fact temperature change has preceeded CO2 change, making your 30% figure meaningless.

Palin denies global warming is man-made

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Palin denies global warming is man-made

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

Sarah Palin 2009 Calendar Becomes an Amazon Bestseller

Green Algae Bloom Process Could Stop Global Warming

Croplands May Wither as Global Warming Worsens