What is Digg?621 Comments
- Berkana, on 05/01/2008, -23/+163Sen. Inhoffe disgusts me. They don't care what they jeopardize to secure the present profits of their donors, nor are they above brazen lying.
Quote from the article, some responses from the scientists on the list:
_______________________________________
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
"I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford - aliengoods, on 05/01/2008, -15/+102I haven't heard of many people who deny Global Climate Change. I have heard quite a few who don't believe in man-made Global Warming. They're 2 different subjects. Global Climate Change has been happening since the dawn of time and there are histories in the geological and ice core record to prove it. Also, we know about these things called ice ages. Global Warming is a type of climate change, but that doesn't mean that it must be man-made. Just a few hundred years ago there was a mini-warming in Europe, where England made some of the best wines.
The tough part is proving that current trends in global temperature are man-made. Even though the trend does correlate to an increase in CO2 emissions over the last 150 years, correlation does not equal causation. Also, there are problems with the data. During the period of drastic industrialization after WWII through the 70's, when CO2 emissions were skyrocketing, global temperatures were falling.
So when you make a statement that you can't believe there are people who deny Global Climate Change (and I assume you're referring to man-made global warming from your context), I would argue that anyone who doesn't question large spans of data which disprove the theory is ignoring the scientific method for political ends. - GregFD3S, on 05/01/2008, -12/+91"enlisted 44 TV weathermen"
Weathermen are not scientists. - WasabiBomb, on 05/01/2008, -12/+73Wrong. The easiest way for a scientist to get money is to agree to shill for the industries that would profit from denying global warming.
- kenrayd, on 05/01/2008, -16/+63Some people like it warmer.
- greenfyre, on 05/01/2008, -9/+52Of the scientists? or of people on the list? The title is used very loosely by the Denier crowd.
- idontlikeyou2, on 05/01/2008, -5/+47Global warming was never a accurate description. It was more of a gimmick name that would catch the public's tiny attention span. Climate change is more accurate to describe the more diverse changes in the weather pattern
- SirPopper, on 05/01/2008, -27/+67heh
I am interested in it, how many scientists of the 500 now do not believe. - Chahrlie5, on 05/01/2008, -9/+49So is it officially climate change and not global warming anymore? That makes it a lot easier for me to tell my non-believer friends it exists when it's still cold as balls.
- Bhima, on 05/01/2008, -4/+36I have never seen anything that had 100% support. That people don't buy into anthropogenic global climate change doesn't surprise me. Also given the behavior of the tobacco corporations a few years back the deception doesn't surprise me either.
- thechiman, on 05/01/2008, -2/+30Nit-picking on the terminology here, but scientists shouldn't "believe" in any scientific position. They should draw conclusions from experimental results. Believing in something because certain results support a certain claim isn't good science.
- inactive, on 05/01/2008, -18/+43Even more telling, there hasn't been a single peer reviewed scientific study refuting AGW. Not one study that says either a) the planet isn't warming or b) humans activity isn't a contributing factor.
NOT ONE! - MrColdheart, on 05/01/2008, -48/+72I still cant believe there's still people in high positions who deny Global Climate Change.
read this editorial written by a scientist who actually was contracted to be apart of a think tank to find out the facts.
http://www.dailyplanettv.net/2006/06/09/editorial- ...
- hydroplane, on 05/01/2008, -7/+30Can't believe this has been turned into a political issue. It's something obviously will effect everyone regardless of their beliefs.
- drgreenberg, on 05/01/2008, -0/+19Where did people get the idea that all the world's climate researchers have no idea about natural change? Do folks think that becoming a scientist means making up yesterday without a rich understanding of the existing state of knowledge? What we're talking about here is change much more rapid than any known past changes such that (a) adaptation will be difficult, especially for the non-human inhabitants of our planet and (b) humans have some control over the rate of this rapid change and thus might want to consider making some changes as the easier alternative to the harsh adaptations that will be required otherwise.
- omnithought, on 05/01/2008, -6/+25Denier just means one who denies. That's it. Any other inference is in your head
- TrevorBradley, on 05/01/2008, -2/+21Yes, it has been both warmer and colder in Earth's history... Earth has historically (geologically) seen changes of up to -50C to +50C of today's global average temperature in timespans of only hundreds of years. I'd not argue we're heading for those extremes ever again, but "normal" does not mean "nice".
Mass extinctions are also natural have happened in Earth's history.. the kind that paved the way for newer and better species.
Right now the climate is right in the middle of its two normal stable zones: Extreme ice age, and no ice at all. Some of the uncertainty comes from not knowing which way the house of cards will fall if we knock equilibrium out of whack.
The planet and even life will be just fine... It's us we need to worry about. - Acglaphotis, on 05/01/2008, -8/+25Because they deny the Global Warming is happening (im taking a neutral position?). It is the appropriate term, regardless what it is usually used to describe.
- L0C0loco, on 05/01/2008, -7/+24I just read the list. I work with one of the names on the list and personally know several other of the prominent names well. None of them should be on the list. This is a total fabrication.
- archiesteel, on 05/01/2008, -10/+26Please provide a credible source for this, as the Great Global Warming Swindle has been thoroughly debunked by now.
- inajeep, on 05/01/2008, -2/+18Yeah my neighbor's friend's cousin's first husband heard at bus stop it was all BS too. How about a little info to back up your claim?
- br0ck, on 05/01/2008, -0/+15There were merely 7 peer review articles about global cooling in the 70s. There was no real science behind it. It was a media driven concept and only the media thought there was any real possibility of global cooling. No scientific body endorsed the concept. Note that there were 45 peer review global warming articles in the 70s, and now almost every important scientific body has endorsed anthropogenic global warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-prediction ...
- joepacific, on 05/01/2008, -4/+18For a guide on what denialism is: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
Basically, deniers are people who use denialist tactics? What are denialist tactics? A quote:
5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.
Check it out for an in-depth look at what denialism entails. - subscriber, on 05/01/2008, -4/+18@aliengoods -- Although correlation does not equal causation, it can be used to support a theory based on an a priori causal link. It can be shown that CO2 traps heat -- you can demonstrate it in a greenhouse.
So if you can show that an increase in CO2 might cause a rise in temperature, and you can also show a high correlation between atmospheric CO2 and average temperatures, it makes a compelling argument. - pintomp3, on 05/01/2008, -5/+19you mean like these scientists?
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/ ... - wendelgee2, on 05/01/2008, -4/+18What a ridiculous unfounded accusation. If these brilliant scientists wanted to make money, do you think they'd be working as professors in universities? I would like to see one example, just one, to prove that this is actually happening.
- pintomp3, on 05/01/2008, -4/+18by that logic, cancer is a hoax because scientists get grant money to study it.
- ponchietto, on 05/01/2008, -2/+15There is no unanimous consensus whether the earth is flat or spherical, mind you.
And they just started verifying the names [from what i understood from the article]. - wendelgee2, on 05/01/2008, -7/+20Michael Crichton. Where did he get his PhD again?
- matrixbandit, on 05/01/2008, -2/+15Wow David, on behalf of the digg community I thank you for the 'heads up' and the cautionary words of wisdom regarding our names quite possibly being written in secret on lists we know nothing about, and yet would totally agree with if we did. Keep up the good fight. Sic semper tyrannis.
- relic180, on 05/01/2008, -1/+14That has got to be the most unbiased scientific proof I have ever seen. Especially the non-loaded verbiage of "swindle", "lie" and "biggest scam of modern times". Top notch journalism, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm ...
Oh damn, except for the part about "The film's critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." Bummer. - orangefly, on 05/01/2008, -4/+17i live in ohio so when i leave the house i take shorts, a snow suit, and an umbrella....climate change is every day here....
- A14049752, on 05/01/2008, -3/+15Good job! You get a gold star!
- ncairns, on 05/01/2008, -0/+12The IPCC didn't compose a list of scientists who believe in global warming. The official report the commission issued did support an anthropogenic origin to global warming, but nowhere (to my knowledge) did they put forward a list of names like you describe. There was a list of scientists who participated in the report, but it wasn't prefaced by the claim that all of them fully endorsed the majority opinion - it was just to give them credit for their work.
- kaelyiesta, on 05/01/2008, -6/+18Jesus ***** christ this is getting old. Everyone repeat with me "Consensus and opinion mean *****, evidence alone is worth considering". Remember when the last consensus from the IPCC turned out to be made up largely of psychologists, sociologists and other non meteorologist type fields? That should be a good reminder to be very skeptical of these groups. No matter which side its coming from, when you hear 'scientific opinion' or 'scientific consensus' make sure your ***** is turned on. These groups tend to be full of agendas, and empty on facts. Listen to peer reviewed research published to scientific journals. Do not listen to idiots jumping on a bandwagon.
- TrevorBradley, on 05/01/2008, -5/+17"Even though the trend does correlate to an increase in CO2 emissions over the last 150 years, correlation does not equal causation."
That's true. But science isn't based on logical deduction. It's based on data, correlation, theories and repeatable experiments. The data is there. The correlation is there. We have a theory (do you have a better one that fits the data?). And while we can't do the large scale experiment, small scale experiments show it's pretty darn obvious: Add CO2 to a closed environment and it gets warmer.
Yes, there are other contributing factors we don't understand. But even the theory of gravity has this problem. We have "large spans of data" on the Pioneer effect... but that doesn't "disprove the theory". And we can see from our data that these factors are secondary to atmospheric CO2.
If you're keen on debunking the anthropomorphic climate change hypothesis, pony up a better theory that holds under testing. Until then, I'll be working on refining the existing theory.
I don't understand how one could argue adding an extra third of CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase temperature. - jimmy17, on 05/01/2008, -3/+15[citation needed]
- variant5, on 05/01/2008, -1/+13That's a good question. How many were? From what I've read, it was a handful of scientists that talked about the possibility, an idea that was picked up by some rather popular magazines and spread from there.
- dortiis, on 05/01/2008, -3/+14this in turn leads to the same issue.
If our abuse of the planet has caused next to no difference this far, what makes you think that all of these super environmentally friendly "solutions" are going to do a damn thing either.
Mother Earth is stronger than she looks, and if we abuse to much, she will dispose of us. - inactive, on 05/01/2008, -4/+15"The same thing happened when someone made a list of X number of scientists who believe in GW"
source? - elasticsoul, on 05/01/2008, -3/+13Nice spin, but the article in question is pointing out that the scientists on the denier list are shocked to find out they are there, and are forcefully saying they do support the truth of human-caused global climate change. EG:
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University - EJTower, on 05/01/2008, -5/+15What the hell does that even mean? Are they praying to the evolution god, the god of geological strata, and the god of objects that do not fall up too?
- LokitheComplex, on 05/01/2008, -0/+10Therefore it isn't true?
- Rotzooi, on 05/01/2008, -26/+36/waits for the fact-hating Republican Diggers to bury this as 'Elitist' and 'inaccurate'.
- drgreenberg, on 05/01/2008, -0/+10Doesn't work that way. As a scientist in another field, I can assure you that funding is for the investigation, not the for the answer. If you don't believe in global warming yet still want grant money, you just frame your proposal as an investigation into whatever question you think is the distinguishing piece of data.
- inactive, on 05/01/2008, -0/+10There are other reasons besides global warming to change our behavior. Smog, our dependency on oil from the Middle East, the fact that oil is a limited resource... These are all pressing issues that need to be addressed, AGW or not.
- drgreenberg, on 05/01/2008, -1/+11There is no valid scientific question for which consensus is unanimous. This includes general relativity and quantum mechanics, theories that have successfully guided space travel, our GPS system and all of solid state electronics. There are credentialed folks who believe HIV has nothing to do with AIDS as well. While all theories are, strictly speaking, incomplete and thus wrong, the scientific process is about constantly refining them so that the level of doubt shrinks. At this point, the question of climate change is such that there is little doubt among trained, published scientists that there's some contribution from human activity. You simply need to look through the actual peer-reviewed literature to see this.
- jizzatch, on 05/01/2008, -18/+28It's called correlation vs. causation. Ice core data shows correlation, but it doesn't prove a causal effect. I don't care how many scientists are upset that their names appeared on a list, that doesn't prove anything, aside from the fact that the person that compiled the list didn't check it twice afterwards.
Let's move on to real environmental issues like mercury emissions from coal plants, toxic waste being dumped in our rivers, depleted uranium munitions being used on the Middle East, GMO frankenfoods, ethanol use that has driven up world food prices and leading to riots, drug resistant bacteria like MRSA from overuse of antibiotics, etc.
Climate change is real. Global warming is real. No dispute there, but scapegoating carbon dioxide as a pollutant is a ruse. It is a deception that allows our corporatist-fascist system to continue to exploit and rape the environment while making the public think that they actually give a *****. - SovereignGFC, on 05/01/2008, -4/+14Yet more evidence the deniers will say and do ANYTHING to advance their cause... Ironic, isn't it, that these people say global warming is "pulling the wool over people's eyes" yet they seek to do exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing in order to advance their point of view. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 620 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is