What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
109 Comments
- Spindig, on 06/26/2009, -18/+63FTA: “Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation,” Greenpeace’s Muffett explained, “we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest…”
Regardless of your position on "climate change", you should oppose this bill as it is only about getting more money and power for the government. - mwilhelm, on 06/26/2009, -10/+48This bill is a bunch of crap.
It gives Utilities the right to pollute and directly taxes consumers. They are double-dipping again.
Where are the real solutions, and why must Wall St. be involved in everything? - itstodd, on 06/26/2009, -27/+56Breaking: No one gives a ***** about greenpeace.
- mnocket, on 06/26/2009, -11/+33Or, maybe they are just opposed to cap and trade. In this case the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- inactive, on 06/26/2009, -12/+30If it helps kill the bill before it is rammed through, I don't care who opposes it or why.
Just kill it. - JHJester, on 06/26/2009, -4/+22Since when is greenpeace about the environment? Their founder left because they became anti-capitalist instead of environmentalists.
Also, didn't take long for digg to break the page. - drmangrum, on 06/26/2009, -9/+26This bill is the wrong way to go and I'm glad an organization like Greenpeace is stepping up.
If the goal is shift to a non-fossil fuel based energy source, then create legislation that encourages alternative sources; NOT legislation that discourages fossil fuels. Taxing the people isn't going to curb usage, it just creates a new revenue stream for the government and makes it harder for people to heat their homes in the winter and cool it in the summer. All you have to do is see who benefits the most from this bill and that should give you reason enough to be skeptical.
Of course, on the flip side, organizations like Greenpeace need to make some sacrifices and stop blocking alternative energy power plants. You can't have it both ways. We need energy. You can't *****-block every wind and solar farm because it takes up a lot of room. - LouisCipher777, on 06/26/2009, -9/+22no it's a willingness to work with and support others who you may not always agree with to work towards a common goal.
- geoffg, on 06/26/2009, -23/+36This new USSA we're living in sucks major polar bear balls.
- LouisCipher777, on 06/26/2009, -26/+38so, if the earth has been changing for billions of years, the climate, the land masses, the oceans, everything; what the hell makes you think you can stop it now?
- RonPauls, on 06/26/2009, -5/+16They oppose it cause it doesn't slow down the economy enough for their liking
- BDOUG, on 06/26/2009, -4/+15I don't know enough about the bill to know if it's good or not,but the entire environmental movement has been bogged down for decades in a self-destructive spiral of obstructionism, NIMBY, BANANA, and nothing ever being perfect enough for organizations such as Greenpeace. Pissing and moaning is not an end unto itself as they seem to think.
- SmokenJoe, on 06/26/2009, -1/+12This should be no surprise it is similar to a EU bill that did not work. Looking at past failures is not exactly a bad thing. Not a huge supporter of greenpiece but if something doesn't work it doesn't work.
- funkedup, on 06/26/2009, -1/+12Yes, I agree Not only is this a massive tax hike in disquise, but even staunch enviornmentalists say it won't make any difference at all. The only thing that I know for sure is that my electric bill, which already costs me nearly $150 a month ($200 in the summer), will be raised by 100% if this legislation passes.
I'm sure other services will be more expensive too...cable, internet, phone services. This doesn't even include rising food prices and the like. I'm not happy about it... - xman8, on 06/26/2009, -5/+15Breaking: Conservatives keep their campaign promise. "Vote for Obama and get higher taxes".
- nixfu, on 06/26/2009, -6/+16
One of the chief meteorologists at Accuweather says we are headed back into the 1970's style weather pattern for the next decade. Get ready for the calls of global cooling!
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?partn ...
This summer's cool start across much of the US is not just a coincidence or fluke.
I believe the powerful La Nina of 2007-2008 has engraved the long-term pattern across North America with evidence of significant change during not only the winter of its occurrence, but through summer of 2008, and now driving its icy iron fist down through an increasingly chillier North America to present day. Just look at the past few summers; they have been growing cooler, more evidently the eastern US FROM 2002, when considering the significant drought which led to the extreme heat. Since 2007's blistering heat across the West and Southeast, two-straight winters of fierce cold across Alaska and Canada have laid down the carpet, and the evidence shows up in last summer’s chill from Alaska to the lower Midwest; when I say chill, I mean lack of extreme or record-breaking heat. Winter 2007-2008 was a prelude to even greater things to come in '08-'09 with a deeper but more significantly expansive distribution of significant arctic air, this time around covering much of Canada and the northern tier of the USA for much of winter, rather than smaller pockets of deep arctic air that would come and ago. That wider, deeper pool of super cold air has had a tough time shrinking, leaving Canada frigid in its interior throughout April and May into the first week of June. The tail end of that unusually cold late spring air is significantly chilling the northern Plains, Great Lakes and Northeast and pushing the jet stream to unusual early summer positions, with the chill eye-catchingly evident on June 1 when heavy snow fell at Saranac Lake, NY, as well as in Ontario and Quebec. Mount Washington, NH reported a low of 18 degrees, and winds gusting to over 80 mph pushed wind-chills below zero. Even take last May, one of the USA’s coldest, and June 2008 brought 40 inches of snow to Browning, MT, all evidence of a cooling continent. The longer, deeper and more expansive the cold becomes, the harder it is to get rid of. The cold corridor I alluded to in winter 2007-08 simply set itself up with the strong La Nina episode that simply remained, albeit in a more modified summer state, through the 2008 summer season, but then re-fired again when winter struck early in 2008-2009 (as early as September in the Arctic thanks in part to a strong positive Arctic Oscillation). The cold of 2008 was simply there all along, strengthening through early 2009, but only the field of cold was EXPANDED, and with a strong stratospheric flip at the turn of the year, this simply shoved all the bottled up arctic cold over Canada south into the Midwest, bringing the coldest period in 15 years.
Once again, the lasting effects continue to live on, haunting the pro-global warming community as Canada experiences one of its coldest ever Mays, and that more expansive cold pool (than 2008) will stick a knife in the heat balloon throughout this summer across North America as the northern Plains, likely the Northeast, Southeast and even potentially the West, end up COOLER than normal when the June-August period is calculated. With an El Nino knocking at the door now, the equation is changed, BUT NOT FOR A RECORD WARM YEAR COMING! I believe the opposite.
La Nina of 2008 will be remembered for not only bringing once-in-a-lifetime snowfall to the American West, Quebec, Ontario and New England, as well as the Alpine region of Europe, but may have shaped the next 5-10 years, and the La Nina represents the COLD PDO, which was like a sleeping giant. The other giant appears to be reawakening after a dormancy of some 30 years, bringing many human beings into a false sense of security and also pulling the big boys of government and science out of the woodwork who "believe" they can construct a new industry in its own right and a way of getting global attention and sense of godliness for their almighty doomsday theories... manmade, elaborate and with NO EVIDENCE to support them. Thing is, we have FACTUAL EVIDENCE of global warming which was FOLLOWED, yes FOLLOWED, by exceptional cooling. Remember the 1970s? The 1930s were hotter than the 1990s when high temperatures are concerned, despite record highs breaking, it was nothing close to those records broken in the '30s that have never been touched since, then after that hot period, we saw the brutal winters return and rumors of an ice age surfaced, I wonder if those rumors will return in the years ahead, and I‘m not talking 50 years from now. - drmangrum, on 06/26/2009, -5/+15Despite what you may think, right-thinking people on this issue can probably see the forest for the trees (pun not intended). This just happens to be one issue where two groups happen to agree.
Honestly, you're putting up the foundation for a straw-man argument.
And for the record, being right-wing doesn't mean being anti-environment. Despite what many hard-line liberals like to spew forth, there are some conservatives who want to take a longer view of things and wait for more information before enacting a bill that could cause catastrophic economic damage. - inactive, on 06/26/2009, -19/+29Breaking: Cap & Trade is the last thing this economy needs (and is completely unnecessary anyway, since climate change is normal).
- inactive, on 06/26/2009, -0/+9The founder of Greenpeace quit because: "I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement", and: "the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(enviro ... - ventg4fun, on 06/26/2009, -0/+9I realize this bill is watered down, but it seems that the environmental groups are NEver satisfied. We could shut down every power plant in the world all at once, and they would still bitch. Groups like Greenpeace will never be satisfied no matter what we do. Plus, the fact that they use terrorist tactics to lobby for their cause is just reprehensible to me. I could NEVER support or donate to an organization like that
- RonPauls, on 06/26/2009, -0/+8Incorrect. The key to the environment is private property, which is at the foundation of capitalism.
- DrDragun, on 06/26/2009, -3/+11The earth has never had cellular phones for 5 billion years, why should we believe they exist now?
- aladrin, on 06/26/2009, -2/+9That's because rational people don't disagree with someone -all- the time... They actually have -some- things they agree on.
- MercedRocks, on 06/26/2009, -3/+10Too bad China emits more CO2 than the US and builds an average of 1 new coal-fired plant every week.
Wouldn't our energy be better used in reducing consumption and waste, encouraging locally grown/manufactured foods/products, and oh yeah quit shipping bottles of water from goddamn FIJI for lazy knuckleheads to sip on? - pathouston22, on 06/26/2009, -4/+11It's not a tax, Obama said he wouldn't tax us!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w
Ooops, wrong guy. Wait, Obama is just like Bush!!!! - drmangrum, on 06/26/2009, -2/+8@kingnova
Another straw-man argument? Dude, you just don't learn.
No. I don't support Greenpeace's stance, I support their blocking of this bill. There are better solutions out there than creating a revenue stream for government at the expense of the American people. - kingnova, on 06/26/2009, -4/+10LOL. dugg down for pointing out the facts from the article, and asking if you support it.
There is more of that "non-emotional, fact based debate" I hear so much about. - llzackll, on 06/26/2009, -1/+7This bill is over 1000 pages. Why? and how many that are voting yes have actually read it?
- wright3279, on 06/26/2009, -0/+6None. Well maybe one. They do what Pelosi tells them to do.
- LouisCipher777, on 06/26/2009, -10/+15this has nothing to do with reducing "global warming", it has to do with making more money for the government while doing their best to put us all in the poor house.
the climate has been changing for billions of years, what makes you think that humans even have an effect? We have had over a dozen ice ages that we know of.... usually preceded by hot periods....
you cant change it. you cant stop it. the theory goes that all the land on earth was once all together. the earth keeps changing whether you like it or not, and has for billions of years before man ever took his first step. - vbullinger, on 06/26/2009, -0/+5No, it will just destroy production and toss it into other, "developing" countries. It will destroy our economy even moreso than it already is.
- Ferretman, on 06/26/2009, -0/+5Good for Greenpeace!
I don't often agree with them beyond generalities, but here they've nailed it--this abomination of a bill is about control and taxation, not about looking towards the future.
Kill this bill. - itstodd, on 06/26/2009, -13/+18did you mom say it was ok for you to play on the computer today?
- MalachiConstant, on 06/26/2009, -6/+11Or PETA or any other Activist Group that uses terrorist tactics to make their points.
- cubicledrone, on 06/26/2009, -1/+6Where does the Federal Government get the Constitutional authority to pass climate legislation?
- methdwman3, on 06/26/2009, -4/+8This better to do something then nothing mentality HAS TO STOP! When things cost money, its better to think it out then to just "do something"
- Ferretman, on 06/26/2009, -0/+3Consider yourself corrected.
- inactive, on 06/26/2009, -1/+4Oh come on, 'breaking'? Does nobody learn?
- TheMoniker, on 06/26/2009, -3/+6The same body of scientific knowledge that has informed you of those changes in the past allows us to discern the anthropogenic contribution to climate change (e.g. global warming) at present. This same body of knowledge is how we know that we can avoid the worst of global warming's effects if we cut emissions.
- kinerry, on 06/26/2009, -2/+5Greenpeace, the same people who didn't know that genetically modified food was thoroughly tested by the FDA before it went to market.
These guys are clueless, theres a reason all of their founders are all now anti-greenpeace - inactive, on 06/26/2009, -3/+61. Yes it is. Otherwise the world would be really cold right now.
2. Global warming has flatlined since 2000. - Ferretman, on 06/26/2009, -1/+4It says a lot of Diggites that this wasn't the VERY FIRST POST, frankly--it's really the only thing to debate here.
- RedSaber, on 06/27/2009, -0/+3Since when has Greenpeace given a ***** about humans anyways?
- gmarie624, on 06/27/2009, -0/+3Who writes these things? It's bone of "contention". Sheesh.
- Duncan3, on 06/26/2009, -3/+6Just because the trading profits will be made by the Rothschilds, and all the money comes out of the little guys pocket doesn't mean it's a scam... oh wait.
- mwilhelm, on 06/26/2009, -12/+15We're talking about the difference between natural climate change over thousands of years and our influence on it in the last hundred...
- inactive, on 06/26/2009, -2/+4I did not go to climate school, nor did most climate "scientists" who seek grants and job security by perpetuating alarmist notions of imminent global disaster.
- Obermeister, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2graeh - that was an amazing post. Wish I could digg it twice.
- drmangrum, on 06/26/2009, -1/+3You mean other than ramming whaling ships?
- inactive, on 06/26/2009, -1/+31. I was pointing out that if global warming was not normal, as you said, then the Earth would only ever get cooler, and never warmer. So even at a very slow rate of constant cooling, the Earth would find itself really cold.
2. You can not make broad generalizations based on small sample sets. Especially with something as complex as the climate. Because when you do (as they did in the late 90s), you make an ass of yourself because you end up being wrong. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is