What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Audition for 2009 Holiday Campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy0 - The making of Best Buy's holiday campaign. Real employees 'Jingle Belling' their way to a stardom.
161 Comments
- SillyRabbits, on 08/28/2008, -5/+37It has been well documented that the rise in Malaria cases is not due to global warming, but rather the blanket ban on DDT around 1969. Some experts have estimated that 60 million people have died needlessly because of a resurgence in cases due directly to that ban. And it's not just Malaria, it's all sorts of mosquito-borne diseases. To make it worse, the ban was based on now disproven junk science - bu the ban remains. Next time somebody asks what's the harm of doing something well intentioned when the science doesn't support it, well, this is an excellent example where junk science has cost lives.
- doctechnical, on 08/28/2008, -6/+27You mean the way I look down on the doomsayers of the 60's, such as Paul Erlich, who predicted that by the year 2000 half the population of the planet would be dead of starvation, and the other half starving? The way I look down on the "environmentalists" who got DDT banned, condemming millions of children to death by the #1 disease on this list? Remember Zero Population Growth? I do. Look how well that's been working for China, where the second X chromosome need not apply.
The historic track record of the "greens" sucks huge hairy balls. Based on previous performance, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the "Global Warming" thing. - smurfsahoy, on 08/28/2008, -4/+24You've got to be ***** kidding me!!! I am utterly serious in saying that environmentalists have now officially outdone the evilness of any dictator I know of in modern history.
Flashback: The EPA bans DDT in the 70s (based on a book that was pretty much completely wrong about everything, and was conveniently released at the same time as the Endangered Species Act, allowing Carson to claim that the ban solved all of our bird population problems, in one of the worst instances of correlation != causation stupidity that I know of). After DDT had conveniently already eradicated malaria in the United States, such that we no longer had to worry about it anymore, The US then proceeded to pressure an international ban against the will of most developing countries, forcing MILLIONS of people every single year to die needlessly in the name of (questionably) protecting a few species of large birds. (The chemical has no generally accepted acute impacts on humans). One child dies every 30 seconds from malaria, due mostly or even entirely to the completely unnecessary and criminal ban on DDT. It was one of the worst policy decisions that humans have EVER made in terms of lives lost. Ever.
And now... NOW environmentalists have the excruciating arrogance to suggest that global warming is actually what's been causing malaria to come back? WTF? ***ENVIRONMENTALISTS*** are what caused malaria to come back and kill millions more people. And now, not only do they apparently not have the balls to fess up to it, but they're trying to twist their own crime - one of the bloodiest in human history - to their own advantage, as a means of propagandizing global warming!!
This is tantamount to Germany coming out with a press release saying that all of the deaths in the Holocaust were all actually just the result of lack of socialized healthcare, and then trying to use that to guilt Americans into voting to boost medicaid... Except this is about 30 times larger than that.
And people are going to eat this up. I'm truly at a loss for words. All I can say is that if this becomes a major mainstream news story, I will be the most ashamed of my country that I can ever remember having been in my adult life. - follower64, on 08/28/2008, -2/+18What instances where these "environmentalists" have hurt humanity trying to protect the earth? Like when they banned CFC's and third world countries had no way to safely store their food, so thousands starved. Or when they banned deet, and Malaria went from a rare disease to a plague.
- spyd3rweb, on 08/28/2008, -3/+19I can't wait for a Global Warming episode of *****!
- frostbyt, on 08/28/2008, -2/+15Global warming is used to scare you into making a decision with only one outcome. Be careful of people who use scare tactics to coral you into buying something or thinking a certain way. Watch for key words like...
toxins
global warming
If you don't
You might - AmyVernon, on 08/28/2008, -11/+24And everyone says global warming's all bad. These diseases don't think so.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+14You can blame it pretty much on everyone but yourself or Democrats. Everyone else is fair game.
- 0dnj0, on 08/28/2008, -4/+16global warming huh? you guys still buying that?
- PlugMyDuck, on 08/28/2008, -4/+15I am still new to Digg, can I blame my being overweight on global warming or do I have to blame it on the fast food business?
- teh_spazz, on 08/28/2008, -3/+14You mean natural global climate change, right? Not the one invented by Al Gore, but the one that has been occurring for many millennia.
- dasamps, on 08/28/2008, -5/+14Global warming isnt a threat
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise. - uberchaoslord, on 08/28/2008, -0/+9What he means to say is "there's no such thing as anthropogenic global-warming". He's attempting to call into question the theory of human-caused temperature increase. The planet got warmer for the past 10 years or so, though it cooled slightly last year.
And as edwartica said "climate change" is a very real thing - its the new term scientists and the media are using because of the cooling over the past year, because their models don't fit their theories anymore.
I wish everyone would just realize less pollution is in our best interests without the fear-mongering. More efficient cars are a good thing, because you put less gas in them (I work for an oil company btw).
Please, please everyone, start thinking for yourself. I don't care if you come to a different opinion than me, just make it your own opinion. - Lavarock, on 08/28/2008, -0/+9Thank you for not making me write this same thing. Saved me time and frustration.
- fulibs, on 08/28/2008, -1/+9Another chicken little story on Digg?
The sky is falling, the sky is falling... - MikeSetera, on 08/28/2008, -1/+9that's because they aren't.
- MikeSetera, on 08/28/2008, -3/+11The irony of your statement just made my brain explode.
You global warming alarmists are sheep. Believing in Al Gore's ***** without question. He's a liar and a hypocrite. Humans are not going to destroy the planet. Nor can we save it. We have no ***** influence. Get that through your thick skull. In the 1970's the hype was Global COOLING. You think that after 4.55 billion years, the last 50 or 100 are going to cause our demise? You deny reality. - ConquistadorFor, on 08/28/2008, -27/+34there is no such thing as Global Warming :) get over with it.
- davidmiller72, on 08/28/2008, -2/+9Jean-Paul Chretien, the Defense Department's coordinator of overseas laboratories: "Weather patterns caused by the atmospheric phenomenon La Niña contributed to a drought in east Africa in 2004. Because of a shortage of fresh water, people rarely emptied buckets around their homes, giving mosquitoes an ideal breeding ground of standing water."
- JaySantos, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7Looks like the only safe place in the world is Madagascar!
- orlyfactor, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7yes.
- brettg102, on 08/28/2008, -4/+10Bring back DDT ***** the eagles. I'd rather humans live than eagles.
- chispito, on 08/28/2008, -2/+8The mosquito has spread as far north as Chicago?
You can't have ever been to the Midwest if you think mosquitos in Chicago is news. That's like saying "The seagull has spread as far as the California coast." - joe122370, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6so a priest, a rabbi, and a malaria walk into a bar.....
- uberchaoslord, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5There have already been 2 ***** episodes with global warming, though none about it specifically.
"Environmental Hysteria" was about the environmental movement in general, with discussion of Greenpeace, and some mention of global warming.
"Being Green" was partially about global warming - includes items about Al Gore owning a carbon credit company, and how the guy who revealed that fact got death threats. - edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -1/+6You're right, but climate change is a very real thing.
- TnTBass, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5While your reply holds truth (that fires will kill it off), it does not make me a "dumbass" in saying that cold winters kill off the pine beetle.
Excerpt from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle
"Temperatures down to −30 °C to −40 °C (−22 °F to −40 °F) for at least several days, or at least twelve hours of −40 or lower, kills most mountain pine beetles."
Yes, they have been around for thousands of years, contained in small areas (read my original post). They are now also thriving due to the lack of a sustained period of cold. Yes, a fire could have helped control the spread, but the sustained cold during the winters is what actually kept them in check.
Your reply shows neither education, nor actual intelligence. Calling someone a dumbass for saying factual (verifiable) information only serves to proves that point. If you feel the post is in error, point it out and back it up with factual information. Aka, was the fire 2, or 3 years ago? Which fire are you referring to (out of the many that occur each year)?
I may get dugg down, and you may get dugg up, but that doesn't make your point true, nor my point false. - nick111, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5That is so unbelievably ignorant it's hard to tell whether you're being sarcastic.
- TRScheel, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5Im all for green tech. Just dont force it down people's throats. People are still going to want to drive fuel guzzlers just like they still drive 1950's vehicles, horse and buggies, etc.
You make a better alternative and the average person will gobble it up - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -6/+11The mosquito has spread as far north as Chicago and the Netherlands and to higher elevations of the Andes. With no vaccine, “breakbone” fever is considered the most serious mosquito-borne viral disease affecting humans.
- uberchaoslord, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5My brain did explode Mike. Thankfully, I'm a global warming hysteria believer, so I wasn't really using it anyway...
- dougmc, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4Your well-written rebuttal to global warming has worn me down, and I am now convinced!
- smurfsahoy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4DDT was not technically banned, but it's use for "vector control," so they say, is so restrictive and so much more labor intensive that countries which need the chemical the most are often unable to distribute it effectively (you have to go spray in individual homes now, not by plane) due to cost, insufficient infrastructure, and political unrest, or even when they are, the results are limited to forming an unstable shield around areas of human residence, rather than entirely wiping out the disease, as is possible with widespread and agricultural spraying.
As is typical for the United States and the west, WE benefited from unrestricted usage until we got what WE wanted (elimination of malaria entirely), and then we turned around and restricted usage for everybody else to levels that simply keep them at the status quo of an endemic plague, which they can never quite escape from. And then we tried to act like we were being nice guys and doing them a favor by not allowing them to rid themselves of a number one pathogenic killer once and for all, because we're (maybe) helping their environment! Yay!
The developing nations aren't stupid, though. They KNOW we're screwing them over! This is such an unpopular policy that some countries actually continue to perform widescale DDT spraying despite threats of sanctions, because the potential rise in malaria from using DDT the way the US and co. want them to is more of a threat than international retaliation. It's that big of a difference.
Bottom line: DDT used full scale can and has wiped out malaria ENTIRELY in areas where this tactic has been used. it has not been shown to have any serious health effects on humans, and has barely if at all been shown to have negative environmental impacts either. Thus, every single death from malaria, resulting from less than the degree of spraying required to eliminate it entirely - every one of those deaths is preventable, and can be attributed directly to the ban on DDT for uses other than "vector control." - mellowmonk, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5***** that! Pour oil all over the *planet* and light it on fire, 'cause mosquitoes could be hiding in buildings and caves and *****, man!
- joe122370, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4the planet is self correcting, leave it alone
- BossKey, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Except for the part about no fish to eat.
- dasamps, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Ditto. Didn't anyone see the South Park about manbearpig?
- joe122370, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6and it's still cooler than it was in the 1920's
- mi6bomb, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Do you understand the idea of a food chain? Lots of animals eat mosquitoes, exterminating them would cause much more harm than good.
- sklter84, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4The anti global warming brigade is strong.
- allan17, on 08/28/2008, -3/+7No one who wants to be taken seriously denies that the global warming is occurring. The argument is over whether or not we are the main cause.
Even if global warming was pure *****, going with greener tech, and reducing reliance on foreign oil isn't a bad thing. - dasamps, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Seriously. What happened to 30 years ago when we were going into an ice age? The environmentalists told us they wanted to melt the ***** ice caps. Great idea. And I thought acid rain was going to destroy society as we know it.
That is why you don't buy into retarded scare tactics. - geotraveler, on 08/28/2008, -4/+8Malaria is no joke! I can tell you that
- dasamps, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3I'm digging you up because I understand sarcasm.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4You must blame Bush.
- Mufaka, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Lies! Your eye would fall out.
- edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Blame Ron Paul and Apple.
- PGPirate, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Isnt Cholera what I used to die of all the time on The Oregon Trail?
- mbraynard, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3You know how many around here want W and Cheney and Gin Rummy all brought up in the Hague on war crime / crime against humanity charges and then hung in public?
Is it fair to start advocating the same for Al Gore, politicians who support support ethanol subsidies, and those who keep the DDT ban in effect? At best the former crew killed a few hundred thousands through collateral damage. The latter crew killed MILLIONS and continue to kill and starve. - smurfsahoy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3No, it's not good enough for a sense of scale and appropriateness, because significantly fewer people died there overall (civilians and military on both sides) than in the holocaust, much less than due to Nazi Germany overall, and unlike the holocaust, the Vietnam war was not trivially preventable were it not for a handful of people's unfortunate world views.
And since you seem uneducated on the subject, DDT was actually first synthesized in Strasbourg, not the United States. It was then quickly put to use in the US and almost all of Europe, and after that, (this is all before it was banned), it was being used in full scale malarial combat throughout the entire world. This includes Africa, Asia, Australia, most of the South Pacific, and most or all of South America and the Caribbean.
So if by "America ***** yeah!" you mean "Humanity, ***** yeah!" and in a non-sarcastic tone, since the DDT campaign was entirely successful in eliminating the disease everywhere it was put to work consistently and for long enough, then yes, I agree. -
Show 51 - 100 of 165 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