What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
70 Comments
- hbyrne, on 11/19/2008, -2/+14Have to appreciate anyone willing to call the glass half full.
- snowblind113, on 11/20/2008, -3/+12State of Fear.. rip michael crichton...
also the focus should be on wildlife, trees, water, and land. protect those and you will protect our future. - TheMoniker, on 11/20/2008, -1/+8Sure, you could put your garbage in the trash can, but somewhere else someone probably won't. So, you should probably just start dumping your garbage out on the street, because it's not as though these things are cumulative or anything.
- no2gates, on 11/19/2008, -8/+14
Global warming = less clothing ;-) - Trots, on 11/20/2008, -3/+7Hey guys, let's listen to the 0.5% of scientists that say climate change is a hoax!
- Damoclez, on 11/20/2008, -9/+13James Hanson has been shown to be the leader of the scientific cheerleader's for Algore. See Jimmy's comment (above).
Also, NASA's data has been shown to have been made up out of whole cloth. Their most recent gaffe was the claim that this last October had been the 'warmest in historical record.' In fact over 115 different locations had cold records set, and that was just in the USA. In the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, there were an additional 224 cold records set. This turns out to be one of the COLDEST on record, and NASA and the Goddard Lab where he reigns, has had to admit that they ***** up. - greenfyre, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6Or at least some water in it ...
- protodon, on 11/20/2008, -3/+7I still don't understand how people think that almost 7 billion mid-sized industrial mammals have zero effect on the planet.
- voodoosteve84, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5You did a great job of creating an impression of doubt and uncertainty, but you have still provided no evidence that disproves global warming theory.
1) A semantics issue with a politician is supposed to bring down a scientific theory? If you want to know the real reason it has gone from global warming to climate change is because global warming doesn't convey the expected precipitation changes as well more extreme temperatures, both high and low.
2) There is no proof of lies and fraud. It was a mistake made in the automatic process of analyzing a large amount of near real-time data. It has been corrected and discussed openly.
3) Some bad data could very likely be found, but there are MOUNTAINS of data, not just temperature data either, from MANY sources that all lead to the same conclusion.
4) Saying it was cold some place doesn't disprove global warming. It is about GLOBAL and MEAN temperatures over time. The 'time' has to be sufficient as well. If it goes down for a couple years, it's still no biggie. If it went down for, say, 6 in a row, provided there wasn't some massive sustained volcanic eruption that spewed sun-reflecting dust into the atmosphere, that would be a real problem for the theory.
5) You laugh at global warming predicting more extreme cold temperatures. Common sense would tell you this is silly, but if you look at the explanation it makes sense. Do you even know the explanation? This is where google helps.
And I wouldn't listen to the heartland institute on global warming issues. They are basically big oil.
Prove to me you aren't just a nut and give me a response. A nut will not listen to reasoned arguments and will only listen to what they want to hear. They will not respond with reasoned arguments because they have none. - andergriff, on 11/19/2008, -10/+14Laughable.
- Rockkybox, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4Stop it
- yoda17, on 11/20/2008, -4/+7One of my good friends is a physicist and is also getting his Ph.d. in environmental science. He told me the other day that he has come to believe that the green movement is mostly a scam and also believes that most things being done as "green" are in the big picture detrimental because it is mostly about making people feel good without addressing the real problems. Like all the eco-gadgets I see posted to digg every day. The real trick is to learn to live without them while at the same time figuring out what to do with billions of people so that they're not bored in a destructive manner.
- geoffg, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3It gives people a pseudo "meaning in life" filling the gap that Christianity and other religions used to fill.
- protodon, on 11/20/2008, -1/+4both of you are retarded.
- NorthMass, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Stop spewing this crap to make Ron Paul look bad and grow up.
- inactive, on 11/20/2008, -4/+6blocked for being a babbling monkey. i bet you snorted at the suggestion there was a housing bubble too.
- nkleffman, on 11/20/2008, -3/+5All we need is a global tax on carbon to stop global warming, and all we need for that is global government, a new world order if you will. Carbon dioxide is bad! You must offset your carbon foot print! Having more that one child is selfish to mother earth, we must tax those with more than one child or better yet adopt china's one child policy!
Yes global warming is real, we must submit to global government or we're all dead.
This propaganda was all outlined decades ago, it's called the Report from Iron Mountain, it was claimed to be fake by the powers that be, but if you actually check it out it reads like a history of the last 3 decades. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3Although State of Fear is fiction it really opened my eyes to all the mularkey and pseudo science that they use to fudge up the numbers. I have since done some additional research on my own and come to the same conclusion as Crichton. These organizations (Greenpeace etc.) depend upon millions of dollars a year to keep themselves going and it is in their best interests to keep you very scared.
- GeorgeTirebiter, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3I hope this global warming thing will speed up. I'm waiting to sell my future Arizona oceanfront property.
- Barackalypse, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Why do all these articles end up sounding like car commercials "there isn't much time to act"? Really? I'll bet if we continue doing for the next 20 years exactly what we've been doing for the last 75, everything will still be fine.
- TheMoniker, on 11/20/2008, -1/+3He isn't "the leader of the man-made global warming movement" in the same way that Dawkins isn't "the leader of the atheist movement" or "the leader of the evolutionary biology movement": he's just a spokesperson.
- Fixion, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2FTA: "Why? Mainly because climate-driven feedback loops are reinforcing one another. For instance, as polar ice melts, more dark open water absorbs heat that light-colored ice would have reflected, leading to more melting, more heat absorption, more melting, etc."
Yes, positive feedback tends to be unstable, now we just need to get that phase lag below 90 degrees. I recommend dominant-pole compensation. - pingudownunder, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Maybe ... but guess where all the idiots down south are going to move to, when Texas becomes too dry for them to live in.
- Ferretman, on 11/21/2008, -2/+3Utterly laughable. These folks have no clue, apparently, of how natural cycles work.
Why does every generation have the conceit that *it* is somehow living in "the most crucial time in history"?
Silly, silly Greenies. - anenokoji, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Sorry, but this isn't going to work. The banks have already proven, without regulation, they will not only ***** over the country(obvious from the get-go), but, ***** over themselves for profit. And it worked. They received hundreds of billions if not over a trillion dollars. So they can take 500k$ vacations and give multi-million dollar bonuses to the execs that ***** over the company to begin with.
I know Ron Paul would not have given the banks the money, but the banks would have still ***** everybody over. And you would still be ***** regardless of them getting money or not. - Peabdog, on 11/20/2008, -7/+8He's right. Something has to be done NOW. Otherwise, it'll be too obvious that AGW is a load of garbage.
- pingudownunder, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1Typical Western (dare I say it American Consumerist) thinking. Why not lead by example? Show India and China that we can clean up our act. Pressurise them by saying "clean up or we'll economically blockade you". Just don't resort to the childish, school-playground mantra of "well he doesn't do it so why should I".
- Spoomeister, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1This is not a bonus.
Have you seen the average middle-class, middle-aged american? - Isidore, on 11/20/2008, -5/+6Damoclenz
The aforementioned National Science Academies do know who the real climate scientists are and what they are saying about whether human activities are now one of the factors changing this planet's climate. They think the IPCC represents the consensus amongst climate scientists.
What is your evidence to back up your ad hominem against the IPCC? - NorthMass, on 11/20/2008, -7/+8Al Gore claims that carbon makes temperature go up with his million year graph, yet all you have to do is zoom in and you will find out that the opposite is true. How can I take this guy seriosuly when he blatantly lies? And he is the leader of the man-made global warming movement. Why should I believe humans caused global warming when the leader of the movement blatantly lies and won't even listen to scientists who disagree because "the debate is over"?
- NorthMass, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2Global Warming would not be an issue if we had Ron Paul type people running the country who actually allowed innovation in energy and didn't stop it by putting a million regulations and taxes on everything that allow oil companies to have a monopoly on energy. Why is it that it takes so long for cars to evolve compared to all other technology? Government gets in the way, and allows the car companies in place to stop competition, that is why.
- Damoclez, on 11/20/2008, -6/+7ISSY - You are repeating worn-out, incorrect and factually deficient information. Even the big IPCC paper which was released to the Vast Hoopla of Hype two years ago, shows that over 2/3 of the 'scientists' who signed it either didn't have PhD's or didn't have any training or work background even vaguely connected to global warming/climate change.
By the way, the climate is changing - just like it has for over a billion years on earth, the vast majority of the time done without man in existence. You are so arrogant. - crazyjake, on 11/20/2008, -3/+4i currently AM a meteorologist. man-made global warming is a joke you get laughs out of that just like you would if you say the clouds are made out of cotton.
- uevan, on 11/20/2008, -4/+5Global warming is just an excuse people tell themselves to jump on the trendy green bandwagon.
- Isidore, on 11/19/2008, -14/+15JimmySpaza
"The Goracle himself has changed from "global warming" to "global climate change". Why would he do this if global warming were so real?"
No he hasn't - it's always been Climate Change. IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE Change, It was established in 1988. 1988 - there is no backtracking from Global Warming to Climate Change.
National Science Academies are the elite amongst academic scientists - they know who the real climate scientists are and what the expert consensus is. The following National Science Academies:
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
said
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
2001 http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... Royal Society
2005 http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... Royal Society
2007 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ...
If we were discussing a matter of medical fact and one person cited qualified doctors and medical scientists and the other cited assorted bloggers, sci fi writers (Michael Crichton), think tanks (Heartlands), politicians (Sen Inhofe), assorted bloggers and google - which set of sources is more authoritative?
Your sources are not climate scientists. Here are some Climate Scientists, for those who want to know about Climate Science
NASA intro to planetary climate change
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
UK Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths
www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
Climate Scientists at Real Climate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 ...
Oxford University intro to climate
www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html
In science, one opinion is not as good as another eg is the medical opinion and skill of a surgeon who has spent many years training at a recognized university as good as someone who has spent 20 minutes googling? Who would you trust with your life and why? - dekuscrub, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warm ...
- chirt, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1FSM says global warming is a farce. Believe it for that reason and that reason alone.
- Rockkybox, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2I meant it more as a general stop trying to be funny, but yours works too
- Ryouken, on 11/20/2008, -1/+2If you have the knowledge that scientists don't, please share.
- MarioBrosCom, on 11/20/2008, -2/+2Global warming has definite beneficial potential in the face of a possible mini ice age. From a purely selfish perspective, it would be great to have a warmer climate in places like Canada.
- chirt, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1I wish i could digg you multiple times
- AbsurdParadox, on 11/20/2008, -3/+3blocked for being a moron.
- inactive, on 11/21/2008, -3/+3#1 It's not real.
- TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1Have they gotten to you too? How much will it take before you understand that these theories (and 'theory' is just another word for "blind guess") are just ways for them to make money before they destroy us? We know that global warming, evolution, gravity and the germ theory of disease are JUST THEORIES. I'll tell you what isn't just a theory: THE BIBLE. Listen, you need to WAKE UP! 9/11 was an inside job too, they won't teach you that in school--where they breed these liberal, atheist scientists!
Start your education here: http://www.davidicke.com. - TheMoniker, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1Why are you trying to hide the message? Don't you understand the threat that the reptilians pose? Why do you keep buying into this garbage? WAKE UP!! Listen, what is anthropogenic climate change but a theory, anyhow? Just like evolution, gravity and the germ theory of disease. THEORIES != FACTS!! Theories are just basically guesses. Do you want your children being taught this scientific nonsense in the classrooms? We live in a DREAMWORLD that we take to be real!!1!
Start your education here: http://www.davidicke.com. - scout29c, on 11/21/2008, -2/+2I hope we are causing global warming. I hope we are that powerful. In the long run there are only two climate futures: global warming or global cooling.
Global climate-stay-the-same is not an option. It’s idealistic and naïve. The climate will either warm up or cool off. Always has. Always will. The climate we have been in for the past 3 million years is an Ice Age, interrupted periodically by brief warm period, which we are in now.
If the natural climate is king, we will return to the Ice Age in spite of our spewing huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Glaciers will form. Canada will become uninhabitable. New York City as well as all major cities in North America and Northern Europe and Aisa will be wiped off the face of the earth.
If we can cause global warming, we have it in our power to control the climate. No more Ice Ages − and no runaway greenhouse effect either. It’s within our power.
But one thought to think over: our species thrived in the last glacier maximum. ***** erectus walked into the last Ice Age, but ***** sapiens walked out. We may not be so fortunate in a hot house world. We could become like so many other, extinct, but life will go on, and in the final analysis, isn’t that what really matters?
Causing global warming is one thing. Controlling the climate is a whole nother thing. Let’s get to it. - elwill, on 11/20/2008, -3/+3If you watch this video you will no longer believe in the UN's laughable claim that CO2 is responsible for climate change (no longer global warming because the data can not support it)...I guarantee it. But we wouldn't want to look at data...we are scientist.
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrec ...
BACK OFF MAN I AM SCIENTIST!!!!! --DR. Venkman - Dralha, on 11/20/2008, -4/+3Buried for global warming denialism religious propaganda.
- partrow, on 11/21/2008, -2/+1You have to be kidding . . .
- starmanfalls, on 11/20/2008, -1/+0Ha Ha we are all going to die. Whatever makes you believe that??
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is