What is Digg?142 Comments
- jonmlm, on 07/21/2008, -2/+21a useful what? oh well
- jmpeagle, on 07/21/2008, -5/+22i am assumming eh would also want cars to be electric. So the electrical grid would have to absorb all the fossil fuels going offline plus the addition of all the vehicles coming onto the grid. If we succeded, it would work wonders for our capital accounts balance, but there isn't enough political will or even voter support for these measures. Too many unions, corporations, and other special interests would get in the way.
- L0C0loco, on 07/22/2008, -1/+16Whoever says it cannot be done probably flunked history. The US industrial complex (primarily the automotive sector) during World War II was challenged by president Roosevelt to produce 45,000 tanks, 60,000 planes, 20,000 anti-aircraft guns, and 6,000,000 tons of shipping. In the three years from 1942 to 1944, they built 88,400 tanks, 229,600 planes and 34,000,000 tons of ships (I do not have production numbers handy for the other items). There is no reason to think that we could not produce a couple of million multi-megawatt wind generators (1 coal fired plant = 1000 Megawatt) in 10 years. All we have to do is want to do it. Given the plight of the automotive sector and its workers, doing this could actually be good for the country. I might even boost our exports and improve our standing in the world community.
- Hrodrik, on 07/21/2008, -4/+18Only another shouted babyman submission could make it to top page without even having a complete title...
- palehorse864, on 07/21/2008, -1/+11Good, I've always wanted a useful. Was going to run out to the store to get a useful, but now Al picked one up for me.
- Setter, on 07/22/2008, -3/+12Narrator: In A.D. 2008, the election cycle was beginning.
Digg: What happen ?
AlGore: Somebody set up us the useful.
MrBabyMan: We get signal.
Digg: What !
MrBabyMan: Main page turn on.
Digg: It's you !!
ManBearPig: How are you gentlemen !!
ManBearPig: All your generators are belong to us.
ManBearPig: You are on the way to carbon neutrality.
Digg: What you say !! - batmanz, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9Sets us up for a useful...what? What is it?!?!??!
- bnorman, on 07/22/2008, -3/+11Yes, because flying around in a private jet and leaving your brigade of vehicles running for 20 minutes to keep the A/C running helps the environment so much.
- sk11, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9When people set a target, say, get lots done by the end of the week, if the resolve is there, then a lot can be done, even if not everything is completed. But if you set a long distant and lazy goal, like get something done in 5 years, the tendency is to do very little before it's too late. Procrastination is one of our worst enemies.
If government had set mandates for car manufacturers to produce electric cars 10 years ago, up to a good percentage would be driving them today. The demand would go through the roof at today's oil prices. Let's make some noise. - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -4/+11Oh God, any minute we're gonna be hit by the "global warming is a hoax" crowd. Look, maybe the scientists are wrong, and that's a possibility I'm willing to consider, but do you really expect me to believe that there's a global conspiracy to falsify data or something? Are we moving to "all scientists are crooks and liars," and if so, why only on the subject of global warming?
- digitalhair, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6generating the social and political support necessary for the successful implementation of such a change cannot be achieved by approaching the issue as if it's solely a scientific problem, which is why I'm critical of anyone who fails to perceive Gore's ability to implement his scientifically sound social and economic ideology while, at the same time, effectively playing the game of politics in such a way that he achieve its practical implementation.
Thanks for making my point by showing how attempts to undermine Gore's credibility are based purely on politics and not the merit of the real Science behind his apparent resolve and rare sense of accountability regarding the issue.
In other words, Gore wouldn't have to pretend to be such a politician if his detractors didn't make such inherently political attacks on him. Think about how effective the irrational talking points are: Al Gore and Global Warming are virtually synonymous in common dialog now.
In essence, nobody knows how long it could take because it depends on our mutual acceptance and consensus on our ability to work together to meet any goal, but cynics like yourself seem to want it to fail so they can say "we told you so!" at the expense of any proactive resolve that might minimize potential problems created a lack of change - all of it, thanks to a petty political stalemate created be people protecting their wealth instead of honoring a reasonable call for innovation. - czeman, on 07/22/2008, -6/+11Al Gore's "research" is useless, and he sure as ***** didn't deserve a Nobel Peach Price. Global warming has played a part in the Earth's climate since it was created. Hell, other planets are going through the same thing. Al Gore is nothing more than a goddamn hypocrite if he honestly believes the crap he's peddling. I wouldn't fault him so much for preaching ***** and telling us how to live greener, but he fails to do it himself. Living greener wouldn't be a bad thing, but he has no room to talk.
- Dred, on 07/22/2008, -1/+6Is he going to do like T. Boone Pickens and put his own money into it.
- FATEorFORTUNE, on 07/21/2008, -2/+7thank god we're getting a useful!
- TheUngod, on 07/21/2008, -12/+17Gore has a great idea here, but nothing to back it up. There is no evidence or statistics or any logical reason he decided 10 years would be enough time to get the grid carbon neutral. I'm sorry but the man is a politician, not a scientist. He can claim to be an expert on global warming, but whether or not that's true, he's still no electrical engineer and apparently has little concept of how this all works. I've said it before, but leave the idealism for church. Science is based on reality.
- XombieRobot, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5my thoughts exactly, not going to read the article now.
- abran1984, on 07/21/2008, -13/+18When Al starts changing his lifestyle, I'll change mine
- radiofrequency, on 07/22/2008, -3/+8The electric car idea sucks. Right now with gas cars you can basically decide whether you want to drive or not and completely eliminate a particular source of energy from your bills. When everybody's overloading the electrical grid charging up electric cars prices on electricity will go up across the board and there will be no way for you to avoid the electricity monopoly unless you give up household lighting, computing, refrigeration, etc. Democraps are just great at jacking up prices and taxes to regular Americans but they can't balance the budget, discipline their spending, or come up with an idea worth a damn.
Why are gas prices so high? They refuse to drill for oil. They put the refining process under additional strains by forcing 50 states to use 40 different formulations for gasoline ... all in the guise of "environmental protection". How 40 different strains of gasoline for cars help the environment is beyond explanation. And when these dim bulbs added MBTE to gas in California, they didn't even bother doing a study on what the pollution hazards of that were. The MBTE additive actually increased consumption of gasoline because it made it less efficient.
Democrats = insanity. - toasty168, on 07/22/2008, -2/+7you can hide behind the need for numbers but whether or not the numbers are there, either way, it's a good thing and something we need as a global community on many levels.
- avengingturnip, on 07/21/2008, -4/+8Weird epistemological defect that reduces every issue to a science problem. Sorry, but economics and complex human behavior cannot be treated that way. It must be disappointing for you.
Wow! I have an idea for science experiment. Let's force the entire world to change the way it generates electricity in ten years and see what happens! - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4No. This the same Al Gore that used to be the Vice President.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -5/+9global warming is still a non-issue.
- ConceptJunkie, on 07/21/2008, -6/+10I actually agree with some of the things Gore calls for but his hyperbolic rhetoric, his misleading "statistics", his fear-mongering and his naked capitalization of this "crisis" for his own personal gain has done more to turn me off to his message than any merit the message itself to turn me on to what he wants to do.
I agree with moving away from fossil fuels and I personally predict it will be 2050, not 2018 when this will be accomplished. If we are not prepared to do without significant alternatives before that date, we are screwed. - woofers07, on 07/22/2008, -3/+7Those are some awesome citations you got there to back up that eloquent statement of yours. So lets just go ahead a burn up all fossil fuels with no regards to conservation what so ever then, right?
- digitalhair, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4quoted 1988 news report text FTA:
WALKER (12/30/1988): American computing scientists are campaigning for the creation of a “superhighway” which would revolutionise data transmission.
Legislation has already been laid before Congress by Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, calling for government funds to help establish the new network, which scientists say they can have working within five years, at a cost of Dollars 400 million. - digitalhair, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Here's the real story behind that fraud...
I titled it specifically for justananomaly's apparent apathy for putting truth above political ego-porn.
Learn precisely what Gore said in context with the political dialogue related to converting ARPAnet into what we now know as the internet:
http://digg.com/politics/Stop_saying_Al_Gore_Inven ... - pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5If only FDR had been a scientist or an engineer, then maybe the Manhattan Project would have seen some fruit. If only Kennedy had been a scientist or an engineer, then maybe we would have made it to the moon.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" - Robert Kennedy (not a scientist or an engineer) - monoa, on 07/22/2008, -3/+6Because the tool's account just got deleted, you idiot.
- 0biKwiet, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3As impressive as that is, this would be harder. And the only reason that we accomplished what we did in WWII, is that every single person personally wanted to produce those things as much as the guys calling the shots.
- zosoIV, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Someone set up us the useful.
- benburned, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4I hope this means that Teslas will become part of the mass market.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Don't we already have enough science conspiracy nuts with all the Creationists and the autism-vaccine people?
- jaxcs, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4Because you like the putz that is making us pay 5 dollars per gallon of gas?
- chadszinow, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Is the US or Earth? The NASA correction had no effect on the Earths 10 hottest years on record list.
- Isidore, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4@evilbob333
To me this looks like scientific consensus that humans are changing the climate:
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement:
"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."
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.
2007 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ...
For other scientific organizations see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
but maybe the armchair climatologists on Digg know better and prove it with ad hominem, sarcasm and irrevelancy.... - pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Bzzzt. More oil is not the answer, thanks for playing.
- stanleyford, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Best comment ever.
- avengingturnip, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5What color is the sky in your world? Implement a scientifically sound social and economic policy? You might want to study history because, historically, when a few elitists have tried to do just that lots of people always end up getting killed. Not that you care. As long as it is scientific. I am such a cynic that I care more about people than about proving myself right at peoples' expense.
- pashdown, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Come on man! I know we have to fight the Japanese and the Germans, but give us a few decades to get it together!
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2I'm rather shocked to hear that from someone who is apparently a global warming denier. Usually it's you guys who are opposed to any sort of rational discussion. I mean, I've always been on the fence about global warming, and so I would try to hear out both sides of the "debate." Over time, I found that it was a pointless endeavor, because anything I said that wasn't complete and total agreement with deniers would result in getting insulted and buried. No attempts to correct me, to point out why what I said was wrong... So eventually I gave up. Honestly though, I'm still on the fence about global warming, but I'm just so goddamn sick of the deniers that I don't even bother trying to hear them out anymore, because they never want to explain anything - they just want to hurl insults.
I'm sorry for using the word "denier" and it may be unfair of me to lump you in with them, but I'm just frustrated with the whole thing. - inactive, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Sure, the consensus isn't solid, and sure, the plans to stop global warming are ridiculous. However, it is a far leap from that to saying that global warming is a hoax. It implies that all research that supports the theory of global warming is fraudulent and that all scientists conducting that research are liars. Now I sure as heck won't disagree with you on the politicization of global warming, but again, it is one thing to say that politicians are exploiting the theory of global warming, and quite another to say that the theory itself is a complete sham.
- NuclearIsShit, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Zeraw08 is an Idiot
- czeman, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3Nuclear energy is perfectly safe if the power plant is constructed and maintained properly.
- vrbanabanana, on 07/22/2008, -3/+5I agree we need to move away from fossil fuels, but 10 years? What about airlines? Even if we had the technology to store enough electricity to fly an airliner, it would take at least 5-6 years before even a single airliner could be used to carry people. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but lets be realistic here.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when a lot of people start driving electric cars the price of oil will go down and the price of electricity will shoot up. Since it take forever to build power plants, we'll be in the exact same spot we are currently in only 10 years later. That's the nature of supply and demand. - jonmlm, on 07/21/2008, -3/+5i still find it funny that people perpetuate the myth about his "claiming to invent the internet".
- monoa, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3 *** Now that scamerica has started pasting his debunked list multiple times in each thread (presumably in an attempt to 'hide' posts that debunk him?), can I suggest everyone starts reporting him for abuse as well as burying him. Removing his pointless, dishonest noise from Digg would be pleasant for everyone.... ***
Short version:
scamerica is dumb, dishonest and quite possibly posts his comments from a mental facility. Check his profile for evidence of someone struggling to connect with reality.
Long version:
The list can be summarised by the author of it, Lawrence Solomon: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." - http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=12d ...
1. A detailed look at this list:
* Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
* Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
* Prof. Paul Reiter is a medical entomologist (he studies insect-borne disease) and therefore has no training in climate science. He has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.
* Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is a retired aeronautical engineer. He has provided no evidence to counter the accepted scientific consensus, and seems mainly concerned with the effect of turbulence on climate models.
* Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
* Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.
* Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
* Dr. Tom V. Segalstad - he provides no evidence for his claim re. "most leading geologists". He claims "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 .... is small" and has, again, provided no evidence for this claim which runs counter to all other measurements (atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315ppm to 387ppm in the past 45 years). He collaborates with the discredited Dr. Jaworowski on many of his published articles.
* Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"
* Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature...". He now says "The cause of this climate change is unknown".
* Dr. Richard Lindzen is also a member of 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which receives major funding from ExxonMobil. He also works for 'Cato Institute' - again funded by ExxonMobil.
* Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - his claims that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change have been discredited - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb ...
* Dr. Richard Tol, an economist, does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, he has merely debated the economic impact.
* Dr. Sami Solanki - "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
* Prof. Freeman Dyson - "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
* Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change and says "there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much." - http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
2. Many of the people on this list are taken from the discredited Heartland Institute - http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-scientist- ...
3. Who should you believe? The handful of discredited or misquoted scientists on this list or the thousands of credible scientists in *every* national academy in every developed country on the planet who say dangerous climate change is happening and is largely due to human activity?
4. "...no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
5. There is another, equally dishonest and discredited, list of 31,000 'scientists' who deny anthropogenic climate change will cause "catastrophic heating". It's known as the 'Oregon Petition' and has been debunked as oil-industry propaganda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
So, the entire list is composed of lies, misquotes and discredited claims - and this is all the reality deniers have available to them, along with wilful ignorance and dishonesty. Again, the author of the book, Lawrence Solomon, says: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."
Also, Lawrence Solomon, who is not a scientist of any kind, has demonstrated his complete lack of integrity and honesty: http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/b ...
scamerica keeps pasting this list even though he knows it is fraudulent. That makes him some combination of dumb, deluded, dishonest and deranged. - richardstaboner, on 07/21/2008, -3/+5Moving along, Zeraw08 just launched his own personal war against science.
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -3/+5Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful....
Tragically this digger of Global Onset Onanism Fever before he was able to complete his sentence.
Please donate to G.O.O.F. so we can eradicate this global warming scourge before it's too late. - ayeroxor, on 07/22/2008, -3/+5MBM, I don't mind the good stuff you submit, but what kind of ***** title is "Al Gore's call for renewable energy sets us up for a useful"?
You make it difficult to be on your side when you're just a lazy ***** slob. - evilbob333, on 07/22/2008, -3/+5Well the "consensus" is not as solid as everyone likes to proselytize and the solution for both global warming and now global climate change (cause cooling might and did happen) seems to be severe restrictions on the use of energy to the detriment of people's quality of life. And I am not just talking about Americans and Europeans. I am talking about third world countries who can't even get affordable energy to power things that we take for granted like refrigeration. Global warming has become a scientific theory that has become a political movement.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 