digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush officials misled public on global warming

cnn.com — The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -51/+37Cuz doubt is all the republicans have.
    Just like religion, except with religion its hope instead of doubt ...
    • fiftyeggs, on 10/12/2007, -40/+98You forgot "Fear." Republicans also use fear just like christianity to get you to be loyal.
    • Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10I think that should read "to mislead the public by injecting religion into the science of global warming".
    • bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -23/+15Religion is faith-based, not hope-based. BIG difference.
    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25he forgot Uncertainty too. its the Trifecta of the Bush strategy
    • knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35the constitution of the united states of america, i believe, is the wisest document ever created by man.

      we as the american society would do well to defend our constitution.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10And yet it wasn't wise enough to withstand the bush administration. I have changed my mind about Bush 180 degrees from what I originally thought about him back in 2000. I thought he was the biggest idiot I'd ever seen run for president. Now I think he's insanely clever.

      One thing didn't change however, I always had a sinking feeling that he was malicious, and he's proved that feeling right time and again.
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12Great. Now we're going to invade Iceland under the premise that they're warmin' things up by hoarding all the ice (while completely ignoring Greenland). Get ready for the propaganda...
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Why do we keep hearing news about how "Bush decieved many" ...cant we all just assume everything that he says is a lie... we have accepted it here in Australia with Howard's "non-core promises"...
    • cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -23/+12"You forgot "Fear." Republicans also use fear just like Christianity to get you to be loyal."

      Correction; just like *catholicism* to get you to be loyal.

      If you're going to slam someone/thing/ideal, at least learn enough about what you're talking about to not make yourself look like an ass.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10In other news, people have opinions and are trying to push them on everyone else.

      Seriously people, I dont make the laws, why do I care about all the global warming nonsense anyways?
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@knomevol-I would have to disagree, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is significantly wiser, it did not require amendments, is more well rounded and is more futurist. Dealing more with the concept of Right as a whole, then specific rules allows the Charter to be as pertanant now as it was it will be in 200 years. All this and I would not say it is the wisest document made by man, nor is the US constitution.
    • simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Surprise!
    • quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6"If you're going to slam someone/thing/ideal, at least learn enough about what you're talking about to not make yourself look like an ass."

      Right back at you.
    • brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11I wouldn't blame GWB, it's Jesus' fault for not whispering into his ears. And given the people he's surrounded by, it's unlikely he'll get any whispered message about global warming or absence of wmds in iraq or humanitarian crisis in darfur or the age of the earth or anything that matters really.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -17/+15cjw314

      ""You forgot "Fear." Republicans also use fear just like Christianity to get you to be loyal."

      Correction; just like *catholicism* to get you to be loyal."

      Right. Because Catholics are the ones screaming about fire and brimstone, and yelling at people to get saved or they'll burn.

      "If you're going to slam someone/thing/ideal, at least learn enough about what you're talking about to not make yourself look like an ass."

      Back at you, genius. Might want to check for that plank in your eye next time.
    • dirka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@kooft,

      swing and a miss! leave comedy to the professionals...where is paulie shore when you need him.
    • dasrore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Implying that people follow their religion based on hope rather than faith and belief is a pretty outwardly offensive as well as ignorant statement don't you think?
    • Arahka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8How did the government cover up on global warming turn into a religious debate? This has nothing to do with religion.
    • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I really hope they're not actually trying to suppress scientific investigations. The last thing we need is for these alarmists to get the slightest inkling that "the big bad government is CENSORING us!!!1" Then it will be adopted into every global warming conversation forever.
    • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16My question at this point is --- What HASN'T Bush and "Bush Officials" misled the American public about?

      This guy has got to be considered one of the worst presidents in US history, right? Revoking citizen rights? Waging war without just cause? Falsifying his own military records?

      2008 can't come quick enough. Anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- has got to be better than him.
    • 6502programmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7(apologies to the Monty Python crew..)

      Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

      Seriously though, is this really a surprise? Politicians lying is something new and outrageous?
    • fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@dasrore
      "Implying that people follow their religion based on hope rather than faith and belief is a pretty outwardly offensive as well as ignorant statement don't you think?"

      I don't think so. People hope that there is an afterlife. They hope that their good behavior will land them in heaven (or give them some other much-desired dispensation). They hope that there is some all-powerful deity which will watch over their loved ones, prevent suffering, and protect them from evil. Religion is very much based on hope.

      If people had absolute faith in their religious beliefs, they would not need to regularly attend church services designed to reinforce those beliefs. Do you need to attend weekly science lectures in order to keep believing in gravity, conservation of energy, and Doppler shifts?
    • ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2If it is currently snowing in where I live, in Dallas Texas on January 31, which, it is, I fail to see how global warming has affected us.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ChillHomie

      It's called *GLOBAL* warming for a reason. The average *global* temperature rises. This causes changes in local weather patterns. The change is not always positive - i.e. warmer.
    • ophello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I saw this on C-Span last night. It was amazing how widespread the editing is. The atmospheric scientist on the panel spoke about how one of his reports entitled "Temperatures rising in Antarctica" or something, and Big Brother changed it to "Scientists study climate in Antarctica". The significance of the findings were completely downplayed, and of course, the media ignored it.

      It was really disturbing.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1AL Gore has been misleading the public about global warming for years, so this is not really anything new. Natural climate change yes, global warming, I think not.
    • ophello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ 6502programmer

      Politicians lying about a policy or sex scandal is one thing.

      Editing climate reports to the detriment of humankind, staving off what any decent person would recognize as crucial scientific information...is something else entirely.
    • deathdefyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2actually you forgot Poland.
    • biotch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ rasterbator

      Al Gore is merely a messenger. If you think you are being misled, then you need to take it up with the IPCC and the other scientific communities which state there is a scientific consensus the earth's climate is being affected by human activities.

      "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

      "the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.""

      This sentiment is shared by:
      National Academy of Sciences
      The American Meteorological Society,
      The American Geophysical Union
      The American Association for the Advancement of Science

      source:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

      But hey what do they all know? ... The Bush administration (who has oil industry ties) denies it so lets just watch Fox"news" suggest there is a scientific disagreement...... talk about misleading the public.
  • Overmind12812, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22Why is this news? Bush misleads the public all the time. Remember the last election? He misled most of America into thinking that he had some form of intelligence.
    • SqueakyWheel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Democrats will enact a little tougher pollution standard and then in twenty years when nothing has happened they will say SEE WE SAVED THE WORLD FROM GLOBAL WARMING. Now That is misleading.

  • smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -12/+44Anyone else feel completely helpless?

    The country's leadership clearly no longer acts in the country's best interest. If Bush were a CEO, he'd have been fired long ago.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"The country's leadership clearly no longer acts in the country's best interest. If Bush were a CEO, he'd have been fired long ago."

      The people that he is working for are very satisfied. They've just ripped off billions from the US government and people...all of which could only be possible with the current political situation in Washington.
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"If Bush were a CEO, he'd have been fired long ago."
      With a $120 mill retirement check an no questions asked.
    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4At what point do we hold people accountable for the legal implications of conspiring to defraud Congress?

    • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We did our best in November when we handed the House, Senate and majority of governorships to the Democrats.

      Count on congress to block Bush from screwing up things any further.
  • hotbeefman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9And the TRUTH shall set you free! ~ Liar Liar
    • netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I wonder if Bush ever asks Cheney to play 'The Claw' with him...
    • bowdie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm not a religious man but : "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." is a bible quote. : John 8:32
  • qster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Misled? Us? Never...
    • joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1there's nothing to be misled about. Only if you're foolish enough to fall for the global warming scam
  • geek_xyu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3DUH!!!
  • sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25I'm of the younger generation, so someone tell me:

    Does every administration have this many scandals/lies/deceptions, or is something just special about Bush?
    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37each administration has its scandals, but not all originate form the top in the way Bush Co's does. soemtiems there are cabinet members who ***** up. But Bush is so tied to corporations, and so Backward in his fundamentalist thinking that its mind boggling his amount of damage he does to this country .....Bush - Cheney - Rumsfeld. It was a trifecta of denial and corruption.
    • bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6Yes they do. The medium of reporting has been allowed into areas of higher government as never before. Years ago, journalists (and I use that term loosely) reported the news, today they make it by digging out every iota of dirt and calling it news. It's only going to get worse from here. Bush may not be your man, but be assured that when your candidate gets in the House....OUCH.
    • 0olong, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7The media right now is like Digg, they'll find any little bit of news, no matter how relevant or irrelevant it may be, and put it out there for public consumption. Sometimes this news/information is great, sometimes it only serves to enrage or is just plain useless. The Bush Admin is by far the worst group of Americans this country has seen.

      The nation needs an overhaul...
    • bigtallmofo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10There is nothing special about this period of time in regard to nastiness or scandals. Anyone living today that thinks so is biased in that they believe it's special because they're living it.

      Want to see some historical divisions within the country all the way back to its founding? Take a look at the presedential election returns from 1789 to 2000 at http://presidentelect.org/index.html. You'll see that there has always been sharp divisions within the country and that even when Reagan won by a "landslide" against Mondale in 1984, he only won with 58.8% of the vote. Another fun thing is to watch the third-party spoilers through the years that won or lost elections for Republicans and Democrats.

      Every single president had their scandals. Every single president had people that loathed them. It's the span of time that forgives all sins and wipes all memories.
    • obamarama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16"The media right now is like Digg"

      You mean the media is a bunch of clueless, unfocused high-schoolers who overreact at least once every 17 minutes and swarm around some cynical and/or manipulative tale about the eeeeeeevil George W. Bush, global warming, Steve Jobs or the Wii? I sometimes wonder about that myself.
    • zevgreen, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Nuclear weapons on Iran, Um, I think you have no idea what you talking about. The use of Nuclear weapons on Iran is nonsense. If you knew anything about how fallout from a nuclear weapons deployment worked you wouldn't have put up a post that is clearly stupid... Not to say that this administration wouldn't consider your plan fantastic! :)
    • bigtallmofo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jaredseth

      Re-read my comment where I state, "The next year we had no hurricanes hit the U.S." I didn't say no hurricanes as you thought I did.

      @tsk1979

      I'm not interested in what "scientists" have to say about global warming. I'm interested in hearing what climatologists say about global warming. The opinion of someone who studies the sexual patterns of fruit flies means no more to me than the actor Josh Hartnett when it comes to complicated matters of climate change. That being said, most (not all) climatologists are in agreement regarding global warming but I'm sick of hearing the word "scientist" as if that grants some magical omniscience on everything including global warming.
    • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The Bush administration has absolutely been the worst ever. No other President has so fought against our system of checks and balances, chipped away at our civil liberties, disregarded the law or disregarded popular opinion as much as Bush. He's a bigger spender than any "conservative" President has a right to be, he sounds like an idiot every time he opens his mouth, he partially dismantled habeas corpus, he performed warrantless wiretapping and only afterward attempted to change the laws to clear himself, he outed a CIA agent, he lied to the country about the case for war against Iraq, he lied to the country about the danger of global warming, he failed to act on strong warnings preceding the attacks of 9/11. He thinks he can just ignore congress and execute any Iraq plan he wants regardless of any democratic process, but he's in for a rude wakeup call. There was no reason for attacking Iraq, and there is no reason to stay there. They were no threat to us then and they are no threat to us now, only to our poor troops who are stuck there.

      This is what we get when we "elect" an alcoholic, former cocaine abusing frat boy MBA graduate for President. It's pathetic how he plays up this whole "Texan" good old boy image when he was born and raised in New England, captain of the cheerleading squad in his yuppie all-boys private school. What a clown, a liar, a coward, a fool and a hypocrite. What an embarrassing and tragic time for the USA.
  • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Bush is like a small child playing in his sandbox, and the rest of the world is the Parents telling him he has to come back inside and do his homework and be useful to the family. And he just makes up lots of excuses why he can't do that.
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"And he just makes up lots of excuses why he can't do that."

      And then claims they're hiding WMD's, sails an aircraft carrier into their front yard and bombs them.
    • hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1"Bush is like..."

      I love how all the anti-bush morons need to use metaphor to communicate. You know... as opposed to facts and logic.
  • hellotyler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Anyone who doesn't believe what a huge impact global warming is having and will continue to have on our earth is brain-dead. Period.
    • bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Wow! How scientific!!!
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4The question I have isn't whether global warming is real or not, but what exactly are the causes? Are our carbon dioxide emissions having the greater effect, or is it the Sun that is heating up? Or are the two compounding the issue hand in hand?
    • bigtallmofo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Speaking as someone who is constantly looking for ways to conserve energy within my personal life, I think your statement is ridiculous. What makes you so sure that global warming is real to the extent of declaring anyone that disagrees "brain dead"?

      I'm a conservationist and believe that it is only logical to use as little of a finite resource as is reasonable to do, but all of this scaremongering by Gore and everyone else jumping on the bandwagon is going to create a horrendous backlash. There is real science that backs up global warming, but the people trying to warn the masses don't use it in their warnings. They instead take weather activities that science says have little to do with global warming trends and use that to scare people. Take Gore's movie that was advertised with a hurricane logo (http://www.climatecrisis.net/) to captialize on hurricane Katrina. What happened? The next year we had no hurricanes hit the U.S. I hear every actor and politician talk about how it "seems to be warmer in the last few years". Sure, they're getting people's attention now but what happens when that mini-trend reverses itself and they lose all credibility because they've been focusing on the inconsequential minor trends?

      Acting so sure of yourself in regard to this topic will bring short term gains to your cause but will eventually cause a backlash. You need to think longer term for a long term problem.
    • maximthegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5SuckMyDigg:

      If the sun were heating up, it would be instantly detectable (and really big news). That's not a cause of global warming.

      Tone & inflection alert: not intended to be condescending in tone.

      Maxim
    • DaveyBob, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Wouldn't it be ironic if the United Nations scientists who are pushing the "mankind is causing the warming" story were tinkering with the data, leaving out any significant data points that bring doubt to that argument.

      Oh wait...they are. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
    • tsk1979, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18A question for all those who question Global warming.
      Why is it that in mainstream media there are many articles by "non scientists" saying global warming is a fraud, while in the scientific circles, almost everybody agrees its real and its high time we did something about it.
      Sure, you can search google and bring up hundreds of news articles about how global warming is a fraud, but can you guys tell me how many of those articles get data from
      1. Scientists and not politicians
      2. Are Peer reviewed by scientists.

      If your doctor tells you that trans fats are bad for heart, and 10 politicians shout its not, who would you believe?
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8You could ask the same questions of the global warming alarmists.

      How come there are legions of half-assed entertainment industry types who couldn't tie their shoes, running around scaring everyone with their "the end is nigh" prognostications as they flit from place to place in their private jets?

      Why is it that there's a concerted attempt to stifle debate on the subject by referring to skeptics as "deniers" so as to tar them with the same brush as holocaust deniers?

      Why is the issue framed as if it were a popularity contest with the mind-numbing repetition of the claim that zillions of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming when it's immaterial what they believe?

      In fact, what's all this reliance on what someone, anyone, believes? Either the global warming proponents have the science to back them up or they don't and the fact that the issue's being played out popular media means they don't.

      The question of whether humans have a measurable impact on the environment is idiotic since we don't have much of an understanding of how the climate works. How could we when basic phenomena are still being discovered, much less characterized and incorporated into global climate models?
    • jaredseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3bigtallmofo,
      What year with no hurricanes are you talking about? An Inconvenient Truth was released last year so this would be the following year, but even presuming that you meant that the movie came out before the 2006 hurricane season, there were still 5 hurricanes last year. While none made landfall in the US, Hurricane Ernesto still managed to cause over half a billion dollars worth of damage here.

      Mind you, I agree with your evaluation. Ill-informed actors do not help the cause of global warming education, nor do comments like those by hellotyler insulting any who dare to disagree.
    • NJank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4let's use this digg summary as the exact example of non-scientific, 'poisoning the water' attempts at political non-argument:
      i.e., Bush did wrong "by injecting doubt into the science of global warming"

      ummm.... as a scientist, I wonder when doubt, criticism, and even 'devils advocate examination' were ever NOT an inherent part of scientific inquiry? I would be more worried if I heard a legit story about the scientists non-scientifically attempting to remove all doubt and criticism from the overall examination of the problem.

      In a scientific investigation, I could care less why and from where doubt and inquiry arise. Folklore, urban legend, psuedoscientific studies, political posturing, etc. Who cares. They are ALL legitimate questions to be directed at the scientific problem at hand, and to be addressed and debunked scientifically. Until they are, they stand as legitimate questions to the current scientific hypothesis's legitimacy.

      In other words, bring it on. The science will defend itself.
    • Cardiakke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0maximthegreat

      You might want to take a look at this story first: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

      and this one too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
    • fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@NJank

      "In a scientific investigation, I could care less why and from where doubt and inquiry arise. Folklore, urban legend, psuedoscientific studies, political posturing, etc. Who cares. They are ALL legitimate questions to be directed at the scientific problem at hand, and to be addressed and debunked scientifically. Until they are, they stand as legitimate questions to the current scientific hypothesis's legitimacy.

      In other words, bring it on. The science will defend itself."
      -------------------------

      "Folklore, urban legend, psuedoscientific studies, political posturing, etc." are never "legitimate." In this case, they are illegitimate tools used to make the public believe that there is no real scientific consensus about global warming. The Republicans rely on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow (AKA Grimer Wormtongue), and other conservative mouthpieces to spread that kind of BS in order to prevent the American public from accepting the scientific reality of global warming and galvanizing to demand action to reduce global warming (because such action would financially harm the industries most beloved by the Republicans: Big oil, American car companies, heavy manufacturing, etc.).

    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@NJank:

      The problem is that the Bush administration doesn't raise legitimate questions, it just pretends that there are some. They suppress and water down news of legitimate scientific findings, while constantly parroting "there's a debate, there's a debate" in the public forum.

      There's nothing scientific about that kind of "doubt." Quite the opposite-- it's just lies and propaganda.
    • fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@NJank

      "In a scientific investigation, I could care less why and from where doubt and inquiry arise. Folklore, urban legend, psuedoscientific studies, political posturing, etc. Who cares. They are ALL legitimate questions to be directed at the scientific problem at hand, and to be addressed and debunked scientifically. Until they are, they stand as legitimate questions to the current scientific hypothesis's legitimacy.

      In other words, bring it on. The science will defend itself."
      -------------------------

      "Folklore, urban legend, psuedoscientific studies, political posturing, etc." are never "legitimate." In this case, they are illegitimate tools used to make the public believe that there is no real scientific consensus about global warming. The Republicans rely on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow (AKA Grimer Wormtongue), and other conservative mouthpieces to spread that kind of BS in order to prevent the American public from accepting the scientific reality of global warming and galvanizing to demand action to reduce global warming (because such action would financially harm the industries most beloved by the Republicans: Big oil, American car companies, heavy manufacturing, etc.).

      And to whom will science defend itself? Other scientists who never believed the administration's (Tony) Snow job in the first place? The average American doesn't read peer-reviewed scientific journals. They watch the TV and listen to the radio. And there are a lot more Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Snows, Coulters, etc. than scientists on the airwaves. As the tobacco industry has demonstrated, FUD can delay for decades the public acceptance of scientifically valid studies and conclusions.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@arpad

      "the global warming proponents have the science to back them up or they don't"

      No matter how often the science and referenced factual data is posted here, you refuse to look at it and comprehend it.


      "the fact that the issue's being played out popular media means they don't."

      No. It means you're being spun like a top by the popular media and related interests.

      Science is not religion. It does not stop working merely due to your willful ignorance and gullibility - i.e. you don't "believe in it".
    • Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@arpad
      "How come there are legions of half-assed entertainment industry types who couldn't tie their shoes, running around scaring everyone with their "the end is nigh" prognostications as they flit from place to place in their private jets?"

      "In fact, what's all this reliance on what someone, anyone, believes? Either the global warming proponents have the science to back them up or they don't and the fact that the issue's being played out popular media means they don't."

      Not logical. If you find a given celebrity annoying (or appealing) - that has no bearing on whether or not the celebrity is understanding or misunderstanding the science and has no bearing on whether or not the science is valid.

      So ignore the media and the celebrities and go straight to RealClimate.org, or NCAR's website, or NASA GISS' website, or the (UK) Hadley Centre's website. You can go find the 2001 IPCC Assessment Report or (starting Friday) the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report.

      But its more fun to hate annoying celebrities instead of actually educating yourself.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Obviously global warming is a real, that's a scientific fact. What isn't a scientific fact, is that the world is suddenly going to explode any minute now if we don't drasticly start funding whatever program some "scientist" happens to be pushing at the time. Global warming is a natrually occuring trend that has been going on for thousands of years, and while the world certainly needs to work on renewable energy sources, using apacalyptic doomsday scare tactics to accomplish it makes the idea sound as credible as the idea that Jesus is comming back and minute now, so we'd all better join the right denomination and donate a lifetime's worth of tithing right away or we'll all burn in hell.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@vikingcoder

      > No matter how often the science and referenced factual data is posted here, you refuse
      > to look at it and comprehend it.

      The first time the science and referenced factual data is posted you can bet your sweet ass I'll look at it, comprehend it and without breaking a sweat locate the weasel words and the implications. All that "many scientists believe" and "this data indicates a clear trend" and "the best climate models predict as much as" and all the rest of the breathless, made-for-alarmist-consumption boilerplate.

      > No. It means you're being spun like a top by the popular media and related interests.

      Oh right. Like the popular media that, by turns, published screaming headlines about "the population explosion", imminent global famine, the Y2K disaster, swine flu, resource exhaustion and any other half-baked scare-mongering that'll sell books and send a delicious shiver down the spine of people who are looking for a thrill.

      > Science is not religion. It does not stop working merely due to your willful ignorance
      > and gullibility - i.e. you don't "believe in it".

      I imagine you're taking that on faith since since the global warming cheering squad is the one that's seized on the "global warming denier" meme so avidly. No better way to shut down discussion then to start shouting "Nazi!", hey?

      @Arrhenius

      > Not logical. If you find a given celebrity annoying (or appealing) - that has no bearing
      > on whether or not the celebrity is understanding or misunderstanding the science and has
      > no bearing on whether or not the science is valid.

      I notice that it's my annoyance with too-rich kewpie dolls who want me to be as environmentally noble as they would be if only they didn't have important engagements on other continents. I also notice that you've chosen to carefully ignore, as do all your tedious brethren, my observations about the quality of the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. That tells me what I need to know.

      > But its more fun to hate annoying celebrities instead of actually educating yourself.

      I don't hate them but I am annoyed by them.

      By the way Mr. Educate Yourself, why don't you look past the Executive Summary of every IPCC report. You'll find every conclusion suffixed by "but more research is needed". It's the same with all your sites except the real greenie-weenie sites who can't be bothered to explain the shortcomings in their case, preferring instead to carefully ignore the questions to which they have no answer. Like the ones I asked.
  • xbxrx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Bye Florida :[
    • wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now where will all of the people from New Jersey & New York go to retire???? I guess we can kiss Louisiana good bye... again.
  • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8With the end of Bush's presidency, hopefully things will get much better. the Economist has a good cover story on the "greening" of America. It states that while Bush is doing nothing, a Democratic Congress, state and local governments, and even big businesses are clamoring for new laws to fight global warming. It ends:

    "Despite all this grassroots environmentalism, America remains the biggest contributor to global warming, accounting for roughly a fifth of all the world's emissions. The federal government's recalcitrance on the subject remains the biggest obstacle to an effective global scheme to tackle the problem. But whereas in Europe or Asia new ideas often flow from the centre to the regions, in America the states are the incubators of big shifts in policy. This means that change is coming—fast." http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8586069
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7So the United States has the worlds largest economy, the highest GDP and is only the 5th largest contribution to green house gasses? Sounds to me like there are 5 other countries doing worse than the USA, why do we not hear about them?
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Did you ever think that an overreaction to this "global warming" or "climate change" could be worse than continuing on our current path?

      Also, I find it odd that people seem to think that the earth's climate should NOT change. I mean, geologically speaking... we're just coming out of an ice age.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Oh, and you do realize you referenced an OPINION article?
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@repins
      "So the United States has the worlds largest economy, the highest GDP and is only the 5th largest contribution to green house gasses?"

      Um, no. reading comprehension. The US is not the 5th largest--the US accounts for 1/5th of all global contributions to green house gases. That's 20%--the single largest contribution by any one country.

      @thcobbs

      It's from the Economist--one of the most respected--and traditionally quiet conservative--publications in the world. It's not exactly like it's coming from treehugger.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@washingtonydc oops my bad, guess i need another cop of coffee :)
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey at least I admit my mistakes....the US is ranked 5th in emissions per capita, not fifth in total emissions.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@repins

      Yup, I dugg your comment up.

      What I find most fascinating about the stats in the link you provided is that the US is the number one emitter while China is number two. yet the US is the fifth highest per capita (the first four are all incredibly small oil-rich arab states) while China is the 80th highest per capita. Obviously this is due to China's immense population, but I still didn't expect them to be that low.
  • Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"to mislead the public by injecting doubt..."
    Yeah . . that's the only thing Bush can do . .so . .no suprise here ..
  • AlexWills, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10-George Bush
    -Global warming
    -Barrack Obama
    -Nintendo Wii
    -Anti-Religion

    If we filtered these results down, Digg would be much more enjoyable.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@ alexwills

      Yes, you nutbags would like that wouldnt you?
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@Foxifiednutjob

      Actually, digg would get back to it's roots and move away from the thinkprogress.org mirror that it's become.
    • fmaxwell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@AlexWills
      "-George Bush
      -Global warming
      -Barrack Obama
      -Nintendo Wii
      -Anti-Religion

      If we filtered these results down, Digg would be much more enjoyable."

      Some of us feel that being informed is more important than being entertained.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Digg. Where you can have you own worldview unimpeded by reality.

      Don't like the news? Filter it out!
  • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I read something about 60,000 people a year die from infections they picked up at hospitals. We spent billions of dollars and got 3,000 people killed over 9-11, but let the population of a small city die every year from an entirely preventable cause.

    In other news Bush announced that the local hospital must hand over the multiple resistant staph bacteria or face the consequences.
  • schneideren, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It is so obvious that Mr.Bush is funded by a lot of larger industrial companies.... So sad actually! Cause as we all know America is the NR.1 pollutionist in the world!...

    Why can't they see that the clima is changing radically?... Just take this example - last month grapes were gr owning in Florida - and suddenly the winter came - the state of Florida lost over 1 billion dollars just in exports!..
  • bb112266, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1In the discipline of science, there has been no evidence to show that "global warming" is the cause for certain aspects that is going around the globe. One time National Geographic Magazine was going to write several articles on the subject of "global warming." I wrote the editor and asked to show that true scientific evidence in the discipline of science and the articles that was promised was not written. The history of the weather on Earth and other aspects that causes things to change weather wise does not go back that far. It is possible that all that is going on around the entire planet is a normal and natural thing in life. In less then a month ago, the news reported that we have had the warmest winter in record history. Now we have bad snowy weather throughout the USA. We simply fear on what we do not understand. In that we might just need more faith in a higher power like the Lord Jesus Christ then we think we do. Think about it. Do you want to go around fearing on this and that? It is your life. Live it to the fullest. :-D
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5But that's just willful ignorance.

      Evidence of man-made climate change is mounting every day. The climate on earth is also a lot more complex than how "warm" winter is, etc.

      I think it's important not to get hysterical about climate change, but this attitude of "who cares?" isn't going to help change things.
    • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Entire political careers will be made on the myth that humans are causing the warming. Laws will be enacted, trillions of dollars will be wasted.

      200 years from now when we prove it's just the natural cycle of Earth, people will wonder why we argued so much and didn't move the populations to higher ground when we had the chance.
      All the "evidence" you read about talks about the last million years or less. This is cherry-picking the evidence to re-enforce an agenda.
      If you step back and look at the last 100 million years of fossil record, you see that at one time there were NO ICECAPS at the poles.

      Everything on Earth happens in cycles - The climate of the Jurassic period will return and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

      The Right is denying it's happening and the Left is fooling you into thinking anything can be done to stop it. (And buying your vote with fear)
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"200 years from now when we prove it's just the natural cycle of Earth"

      Did you look into your crystal ball for that one?
    • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Nope.... I've seen fossils of ferns found near the arctic circle.

      The TRUTH is probably in a museum near you.
    • Sornos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Continental Drift. Landmasses that were in one time in warmer climes, change there positions, and now find themselves in the Arctic. Thats why you find fossils of ferns in the Arctic, not the Arctic Circle was warm, but because the landmasses in the current Arctic Circle weren't always there.
    • Tsuyoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"In that we might just need more faith in a higher power like the Lord Jesus Christ then we think we do. Think about it. Do you want to go around fearing on this and that? It is your life. Live it to the fullest. :-D"

      You seem to be implying that if we put our trust in faith of a higher power (in this case Christ) then the troubles and realities of the world won't matter? That if we don't "fear" something it won't come to pass? That we can't live our lives to the fullest and choose to take on the hard challenges that the world presents to us? It seems that you are asking us to use faith as a crutch to avoid the challenges of the world and bury our heads in the sand.

      You mis-judge a lot of us. We don't fear things like global warming. We accept the challenge and do what we can in our personal lives and politics to change things for the better. People of all faiths, or none, are involved in this struggle. Please don't assume that faith and stewardship of the earth are opposing factions.
  • cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The truth is more important than the facts.
    - Frank Lloyd Wright
    • Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"For a indoctrinated mind, the truth is a radical idea"
      - Somebody
    • Krypto01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Wise men make proverbs, but fools repeat them.
      -- Samuel Palmer
    • mdmadph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I made you a cookie but I eated it."
      - A. Kat
    • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic"
      - John F. Kennedy
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4add it to the "***** up things Bush lied about" list.
  • IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Where are all the front page "scientists use junk science" article at.

    Rolls eyes....
  • zacharyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, we already know people are going to lie about it. How 'bout we do something?
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Penn and Teller misled the public too. That fat ***** and his gimp.
    • joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no they told the truth. Is it that hard to admit that you've been duped by the special interest and enviromentalist groups? Where do you think they get their money? if they don't sell you that there is a disaster, nobody donates to them, they can't win ridiculous law suits, etc. They keep you in fear to keep themselves in the money. Educate your self and quit repeating what you heard from Leo DiCapprio and Josh Harnett. Who, BTW both waste more energy every year heating and cooling their 10,000 sq ft houses than a hundred soccer moms.
  • dgriessmann, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Give me a damn break! Why is it that it's one extreme or the other. (Depending on what elected liar you listen to)

    There's studies to say it's real, it's fake, whatever. In 100 years when it goes up that one degree, turn your air conditioner down a degree. Problem solved!

    In all seriousness, send me $5 and I'll put it in my global warming fund! (It's actually a "keep my cooler full of ice for my beer" fund but it's valid and anything any elected official will say.)
    • MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Please link to some of the scientific studies that you claim disprove global warming.
    • dgriessmann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0somebitches2: You actually now have me up in arms. "Down with Global Warming!"

      BTW, I own an S10 Truck that's getting great gas millage and paid for, not quite that gas guzzling SUV you bitched at me about. Oh, and if I want to pay 40k for the SUV & $3 a gallon for the gas "BITE ME TOOL BAG" I will!

      P.S. So, do you want to send me that $5 for my ice?
  • Kevin108, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2The American government maintains control over it's citizens by establishing a state of fear. Global Warming is the new Cold War, the new Atom Bomb, the new Nazis. With all these things the American government did everything it could to convince us that we were defenseless and helpless without them.

    The fact of the matter is NATURAL events, as in things the earth can and will do to itself without any influence from humans, can and do release more greenhouse gases FROM INSIDE THE EARTH ITSELF than we could ever release from the vehicles and machines we've built.

    Don't get me wrong, this is actually happening. Global warming is real. But the Earth is doing it all by itself. It's a natural phase. The dinosaurs no more caused the last ice age than humans do global warming.

    And the best real numbers that legitimate scientists (none of this "consensus" business that's out there) can come up with is that the Earth has warmed ALMOST 1° C in the past 70 years. Can you feel the difference between 72° and 73°? Will your cake burn if you bake it at 426° instead of 425°?

    That's the reality of global warming. It's nothing to be afraid of and nothing the government can stop.
    • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Mars is warming too - There is evidence that part of the warming is due to increased solar output. (Google it)

      Wait.. that doesn't fit the current political model....

      I know! Emissions from the Mars Rovers is the cause!
    • netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12You'd think that if practically every reputable scientist on earth agreed with the theory of Global Warming, people might actually stop pulling ***** out of their ass and actually listen for once?

      It doesn't matter if it was originally a natural effect or not, you simply CANNOT deny that burning fossil fuels causes the release of CO2 gas, among various other greenhouse gasses. It is scientific fact, proven over and over again. You CANNOT deny that logging down forests decreases nature's ability to process CO2 gas and convert it to oxygen. That is also scientific fact. How can people be so STUPID as to not realize that by logging (for example) 718 615 square kilometers of the Amazon Rainforest AND emiting thousands of metric tonnes of CO2 gas EACH YEAR that would not have been normally released causes quite measurable increases in the greenhouse effect. USE LOGIC BEFORE ACCEPTING SO-CALLED 'RESEARCH' BY OIL COMPANIES AND THE LIKE AS FACT.

      Jesus, the idiocy of some people scares me.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's one degree. Why don't you do a little digging. Find out what happens if we get another three degrees on top of that. I'm not going to do it for you, but go ahead and find out.
    • Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@netdroid9:

      Since I would like to be educated about this, could you please tell me what the exact mechanism for CO2 keeping in all of this heat is? I'm not criticizing you - I'm just a scientist from another field (digital signal processing and integrated circuits) trying to understand how a gas that is less than 1% of the total atmospheric content of gases has such an insidious mechanism, and what the other 99% of atmospheric gases are doing.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2It's really pretty simple, Kniggit. CO2 doesn't have the effect that's claimed so there's no climate-controlling mechanism primarily dependent on CO2 concentration. Simple as that.

      Since you're using actual scientist-type words (mechanism) you might want to consider that basic climatic phenomena are still being discovered and other phenomena are the subject of research designed to characterize them. With that in mind the question becomes, "How the hell can you make predictions when you don't have all the facts and you don't even know how many of the facts you have?"

      That's why the debate is generally framed in political terms: nine out of ten scientists sincerely believe in global warming and global warming skeptics are the moral equivalent of holocaust deniers which is as close as you can come to calling them Nazis without triggering Godwin's law.
    • danmaz74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@kniggit: you can get a basic hold of the thing looking at wikipedia - if you want to know more there are many many references. "The molecules/atoms that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere; oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2) and argon; do not interact with infrared radiation significantly. While the oxygen and nitrogen molecules can vibrate, because of their symmetry these vibrations do not create any transient charge separation that enhances the interaction with radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, these molecules being “floppier” so that their rotation/vibration modes are more easily excited."

      To have some relative numbers from actual experiments:
      Gas removed / percent reduction in GE
      H2O 36%
      CO2 12%
      O3 3%

      That human activity is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is proved and measured. That increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the average temperature on the surface is also certain. What is debatable and seriously debated is "just" how big is this effect, but recent observations point to pretty scary numbers.
    • Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only on digg would asking an intelligent question get somebody dugg down.

      I wonder if these people digging my original question down realize the utter irony of their action.
    • Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Kniggit

      This sort of information can be easily looked up on Wikipedia or whatever, but here is a quick summary.

      One way to look at it is that is merely an intensification of the natural greenhouse effect and without the natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be unpleasantly cold. CO2 blocks outgoing infrared radiation that would otherwise be lost to space. When a object heats up from absorbing visible light, it emits IR (this is why night vision goggles use IR). This wavelength shift is the key to the greenhouse effect - CO2 lets in the visible light, but blocks the IR. Your intuition may say "gosh less than one percent is a small number", but ask any astronomer - many IR bands are totally or partially blocked by the atmosphere. The _opposite_ argument is actually the stronger one - CO2 and other GHG do such a complete job of blocking IR that more CO2 is subject to diminishing returns. For example, 600ppm is worse than 300ppm, but its less than a 2x effect (but feedback from other sources may intensify the net effect).

    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By all means, check out what Wikipedia has to say on the subject of CO2.

      You might want to see if their global warming page includes the effects of geologically-sourced CO2, solar flux, auroras, solar mass ejections, cosmic rays, magnetic field reversals, the Deep, Hot Biosphere, aerosols, methane hydrates, volcanism, megalightning and, gosh, maybe other stuff we don't even know about yet.

      Another neat pastime is look at the record of the global climate computer models which inevitably go off the deep-end if run for any length of time - remember all those factors they can't include because we didn't know about them till recently? - and upon which all the global warming hysteria is based since an increase in atmospheric CO2 most assuredly does *not* lead to global warming any more certainly then it does to global cooling or global not much of anything.

      The atmosphere's just a little too complicated for computer-based global climate models to run for any length of time before going off the rails since they can't accurately model the atmosphere.
  • bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1A Democratic lawmaker accusing the administration of lying? This is news? All the ankle-biters on capitol hill are trying to get in place for their little positions after the 2008 election, and here's a great example. Inaccurate - a politician accusing another politician of lying par for the course.

  • maximthegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Haven't you heard? Bush is an idiot savant: were just not sure what his talent is yet.

    Maxim
  • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Please, someone tell me when it is time to storm the White House and drag these traitors out into the street?
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4More of the same sleazy, manipulative, and unnecessary distortions from the "Christian" administration.

    Impeachment is the only answer now.

    All this to protect big oil interests? This guy has some "issues" and Congress better get on a stick and act now, before another catastrofe occurs on his watch.
    • bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Go ahead - try to bring impeachment charges. It won't happen. As much as you like to masturbate to to the idea (or, maybe photos of Janet Reno?) of some grand scheme in the White House to deceive, etc., none exists. The same "facts" were known by the prior administration and they did - predictably - nothing. Hell, the prior administration chose to do nothing no matter what the situation. Of course, the prior administration DID act unilaterally twice, but we'll forget about that...
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Knows more than the generals.
    Knows more than the expert scientists.
    Knows more than Congress.
    Knows more than the American public.
    Knows more than the expert educators.
    Knows more than the experts in Constitutional law.
    Knows more than everybody.

    You would think this was someone other than a narcississtic, spoiled, sociopathic, B-grade, alcoholic, frat boy who became delusional along the way.
  • thisdj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4George Bush Jr's middle name should be "misled". He's an idiot, there is no other way to describe him.
  • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is why I think science is the new religion. More people "believe" in science than actually KNOW science.
    People believe anything a scientist says now like people trusted priests 200 years ago.

    The problem is money that motivates science to prove an agenda. I once knew a BUNCH of people doing research on SDI (Star Wars)
    They didn't believe at all that SDI would work, but as one told me "You won't get a grant to prove it WON'T work"

    Scientists who largely live by winning grants will prove ANYTHING the politicians want to prove as long as they keep handing out the money.
    • Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Science doesn't work if people BELIEVE in it. It only works if it is done properly. If the agenda is chosen first and the theories and research and data is arranged around that, you don't have science - you have creationism, intelligent design or Lysenkoism - none of which are science.
      The problem isn't science but the politicians like bush and his cronies (and their peers on the other side) who don't understand science and try to use it in this way by only funding things they like.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Science is not religion. It does not stop working merely due to your willful ignorance and gullibility - i.e. you don't "believe in it".
    • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Science IS religion if you use faith instead of reason.

      I'd argue that MOST people just *believe* what scientists say and would be lost in evaluating two competing theories or sets of data.
      I agree that science is based on reason - but for people who have no scientific background - it's FAITH that the science is correct that guides them.

      Or polls.... if you tell people that 90% of scientists believe in something - it's the poll that wins.

      Arthur C. Clarke said it best - and it still works if you change one word -
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (or religion)

    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@davecor

      The incoherrent babblings of the scientific illiterate & uneducated masses do not disprove the results of the scientific method.
  • rtoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2does anyone else see a pattern here?
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1As if the government is the only source of information of weather and climate....can´t these scientists figure out there are other places publish their findings? Scientific journals, science magazines.
    Can anyone recall ever reading any of the "censored" reports?

    Remember the Bill Clinton govt. was first to vote against the Kyoto treaty and no improvement in gas mileage was required during his administration.

    And, wait, can´t the Senate and House have its own investigations and reports on weather and climate change without going throught the office of the President? So what has taken them so long?
    • betasp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If all developed counties enacted the Kyoto treaty, it would impact global temperatures less than 1% of one degree.
  • Ferretman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The Democratic chairman of a House panel..."

    Because, you know, THERE'S a source without an agenda........

    Ferretman
  • huvanile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Man-bear-pig is HERE in Southpark!
  • WebsterJTC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2because democrats aren't Christians?
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I know I'll probably get buried deeply for this one:

    I'm wondering if all these Bush bashing article submitters realize that they are desensitizing their audience to Bush's actions. I'm also to the point of not even clicking on stories that are in any way related to Bush because I know that it will lead to a bunch of name calling, links to think progress, and the phrases, "War Criminal", "Idiot ", "Stupid", and "Traitor" being used till they no longer have any real meaning.

    Can we please get digg off of the Campaign trail for a while and back on news? I don't think I can take two more years of this agenda being shoved down my throat.

    Now, that being said: If you find evidence of a REAL CRIME, that is definitely news and should be reported as such.
  • athodyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hope there's enough to prosecute.
  • barzantone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nothing about this administration surprises me anymore. They are off-the-scale bad...and I was one of the idiots that voted for him the first time around...
  • bbabics, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3*yawn*

    I'm so tired of reading these anti-Republican threads on Digg. I'm more of a Moderate than anything so I feel laid to weigh in on this- there are way too many sheep that buy into this whole Republicans are piggs who steal and kill our children for oil. It's getting really tiring.
  • hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Headline should read "Bush Administration Points Out Glaring Flaws in the Global Warming Hoax, Angers Politician-Scientists Who Made Careers Out Of Scaring The ***** Out of the Scientific Illiterati" Yeah, I think that's more accurate.

    Global warming is the flying spaghetti monster of our era.
  • cyrilonline, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2While I'm glad this made it to the front page, I kind of feel like it's obvious.
    • bbabics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And I kind of feel like you're stupid for buying into it.
    • cyrilonline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0....why? You incorrectly make the situation sound like a cult. I'm getting a little defensive, so I apologize in advance. Important details addressed in other comments aside, the Bush administration has shirked the important issues around environmental problems. In a large sense, they have misled the public by focusing attention at other problems that are still important, but their spin-methods have indeed misled us. Don't look down on those who recognize that.
  • Eoxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Doubt ... Isn't that same trick they use for War in Irak, that some nations refuse to follow, and where blamed for doing so ... ?
    What do you do when the people that represents you locally and globally (world) cheat, lie and screw you and the rest of the world ? You vote for them again ??

    That is what happens when press, people follow blindly, when there is no long term vision, when benefits of today are more important than your children's future ...

    People are afraid of change (change in economy, energy (and type of energy) consumption to avoid global warming are just examples) .. but guess what : when you try not to change, some changes comes back to you when you're not prepared, and make more harm than expected ...

  • drewlander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1MANBEARPIG!!!
    Mankind is 7th in the list of items that spew carbon dioxide in the air.
    Earth's climate has been warming and cooling for BIILLIONS of years. Global warming, sure it is happening, but are we the cause? We cannot even make it rain, but we have the power to dramatically alter the earth's climate.
    I Wish digg came back to its techie roots.
  • D1STORT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"President Bush has acknowledged concerns about global warming, but he strongly opposes mandatory caps of greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that approach would be too costly."

    Seems to me that the steaks are high enough to justify additional cost. After all these are the people who are CAUSING global warming.
  • Samsong, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Down with Jesus, down with Bush!
    (Now this comment will get dugg)
  • falafeljack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1One thing to note, you will never hear a republican say "Global Warming" but you will hear them say "Global Climate Change". Specifically anyone on the Whitehouse Staff. It's funny because sometimes they will say "Global Warm----Climate Change".
  • applehill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Penn and Teller video on the truth about "Global Warming"- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=pen+and+teller&hl=en
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Because a pair of stage magicians know more than scientists who spend their lives studying these processes.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but a couple of stage magicians don't have to build a case for their grants out of any, handy hysteria either. Gives them a certain objectivity that scientists have to risk their careers to imitate.
  • p51d007, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Global warming is a hoax, thrown onto the American public who, thanks to 30+ years of liberalism in government schools has turned
    too many people into spineless politically correct idiots. Yes, the earth temperature, over the past 20 or so years has "increased",
    but, according to the "science" community, it is man that has caused it. Well, these so called scientist, when pushed about
    could the increase in the output from the sun cause global warming, are usually the first to start complaining that you are trying to
    change the subject bla bla bla.
    Volcanos, output from the sun, earthquakes....no we can't even CONSIDER anything like that, it has to be the evil capitalist who
    are destroying the earth with "greenhouse gases". Go back and review your history books. The British over 600 years ago were
    talking about growing grapes in England, then a couple hundred years later they couldn't because it was too cold. Hello??? where
    was the industrial revolution? A couple hundred years AFTER they had this warming period. Ok, explain that one?
    The only thing this global warming crap is doing is punishing achievement, capitalisim etc. The socialist/communist types that
    have infested our educational system are to blame. These are the ones that are usually in their 50's, wearing clothes from the
    60's, have grey hair, beard and pony tails. They "long" for the days of the 60's counter culture.
    Too F'in bad. Socialism does NOT work. Oh, I know, it will work, it just hasn't been tried by the "right" people yet.
    Another thing.....You ever hear all these "celebs" bitch and moan about global warming, and how we need to increase mileage for
    cars, get rid of SUV'S etc, while being driven around in a limo, taking charter jets here and there, and living in 20 room mansions
    by themselves and having 20 sports cars. Heck, look at the Breck Girl, John Edwards...he talks about two Americas, global
    warming, while building a multimillion dollar house with 20,000 square feet of space, connected racketball court and swimming
    pool. Typical liberal elitist crap. Don't do as I do...do as I say.
    • danmaz74, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This is really funny. Communists? What would communists have to do with environmental issues? The USSR was much less concerned with those problems that our western world, and if you go to Russia now you will still see what I mean. Not to talk about China... (if they can be called communist by any standard). Please stop calling "communist" everyone who knows more than you.
    • foobermensch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Can you predict exactly what will happen with the stock market between now and 2010? No? Why not? We have enough data, don't we? As a matter of fact, we have a lot more data (and a lot more control) over the stock market than we do the climate. The global markets for equities are several orders of magnitude less complex than the climate system. So, if "scientists" are all in agreement that they can accurately ascertain the causes of changes in the global climate, then perhaps they can also tackle predictions when it comes to a complex system for which we have a lot more data and over which we have a lot more control, yes?
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@foobermensch

      The world climate system is governed by physics. The world stock markets flow with human whims. There is a slight difference.
    • Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@p51d007
      That is the kind of fact-free nonsense that earns you the title "denier".

      "Well, these so called scientist, when pushed about could the increase in the output from the sun cause global warming are usually the first to start complaining that you are trying to change the subject bla bla bla. '"

      The Sun output's hasn't changed much in 50 years. Thus other explanations are needed. That's just a fact. Rather than educating yourself about basic facts, you'd rather rant and rave about "punishing achievement, capitalisim", "socialist/communist types", "grey hair, beard and pony tails."

      As danmaz74 said, the former Soviet bloc and present-day China have horrible environmental records. Does the name "Chernobyl" ring a bell? No environmentalist would regard these societies as good role models.

      @foobermensch
      "Can you predict exactly what will happen with the stock market between now and 2010? No? Why not? We have enough data, don't we? As a matter of fact, we have a lot more data (and a lot more control) over the stock market than we do the climate. The global markets for equities are several orders of magnitude less complex than the climate system."

      Given the stock market is influenced by the underlying economy and the underlying economy is a complex social system that has 6 billion individual players, I disagree with your assertion about relative complexity. I'd rather try to simulate the behavior of Carbon Dioxide instead of the behavior of human beings. And you can't just deduce past patterns of stock market performance, you have to stay a step ahead of other stock market analysts also using automated techniques. The climate system is not simple, of course, but you can start with basic physics, which can be relied on not to change.
    • hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vikingcoder who said "...The world climate system is governed by physics..."

      Okay, lets talk about physics. Explain to me how a 0.000008% change in atmospheric composition is supposed to result in a a 10% increase in atmospheric temperature? When have you as a clearly educated physicist ever heard of a solute whose colligative properties were such that at 0.000008% it effected delta-T of ten degrees?

      The "physics" are flawed. Criminally flawed. It's so bad that today, the IPCC releaed their conclusion in a press release, and promised to spend the next two months making sure the final report of Working Group I of the IPCC would conform to the conclusion, instead of the other way around.
  • Denithor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The whole global warming thing is a scam that environmentalists came up with to pad their pockets anyway so who cares. I hate politics and politicians, but who cares about an issue that someone made up anyway? Pretty much anything any politician says is a lie, so why believe one over the other without doing some research for yourself? Aren't we supposed to be free-thinkers? My philosophy is "Question Everything", you are more than welcome to disagree, it's a free country.
  • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I despise being potentially mislead by the Bushies. But the scientific community hasn't been truthful about global warming either.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.