What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
217 Comments
- beatle42, on 10/10/2007, -13/+54We might want to take this article with a healthy dose of salt. After all this is an organization funded in part by Exxon, and one that has a history of out right lieing and making things up. For example: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trashing_organic_foods where they quote CDC employees and data that are outright lies.
So before we get too excited about a press release apparently trying to sell a book perhaps we should take a deeper look at the actual 500 scientists' articles. After all it's entirely possible to say that there are both natural cycles and man made effects happening at once. Just saying that there are natural cycles doesn't in any way mean you're denying that there is also a man made component. - Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28Not to mention the byline: PRNewswire? It's a PR firm. A dissemination service for hire. This story was paid for.
- ASukker, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31The Hudson Institute, based in Indiana, received large grants [in the NCRP 1997 study that covered grants over a three year period] from two prominent foundations: from the Olin Foundation, $125,000 in 1993 and $300,000 in 1994; from the Bradley Foundation, $600,000 in 1994. The Institute is a hard-right activist think tank that advocates the abolition of government-backed Social Security and an end to corporate income taxes.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=160 - vfx2k4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25When is being good to the environment a bad idea?
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -11/+31These are not scientists saying this. The only person making these claims is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a right wing think tank. He didn't do any research on his own. He wrote a book claiming that existing research proves the sun is to blame for global warming. I could write the same book tomorrow, would you use my book as evidence that global warming is a scam?
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -7/+27The Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank.
Most of their financial supporters will benefit if environmental laws are relaxed. - allanpat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23from Wikipedia:
"The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from companies and individuals. Corporate contributors include Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.[1]"
Surprise surprise - a think tank funded by major corporations claims global warming isn't caused by humans. I guess we can all go back to consuming and driving SUVs again! Oh and don't forget to buy the Hudson Institute's book that the PR 'article' is selling you too! - mnederlanden, on 10/10/2007, -8/+27bury
press release = someone was paid to make this.
anyone know who did the paying? My money's on big oil - JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29Better headline: "Scientists funded by Exxon-Mobile Oil Co. challenge consensus on Global Warming"
- ragsmaloy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I don't think anyone's actually claiming global warming will destroy the planet, it will just ***** us humans up instead.
- glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
- mickman17, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Ladies and Gentelman - please do me a favor and look at the roots of the Hudson Institute - it defines itself as a think tank however it tends to fall heavy on the conservative movement side... Avery is also against organic growing for agriculture... ConAgra, CocaCola, etc etc...
Check out Wiki.... - SilverBlade2k, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26I wonder how much Big Oil spent to 'sponsor' these 'scientific findings'.
- mnederlanden, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17list of 2002 funders of this "research" include, among others, exxon mobil
- VanillaIcee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+25wow, all the anti-environmentalists are digging this one.. only issue is that THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. Its a PR piece.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Dugg for "Big Corn".
- Hypnos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO.
- lettruthout, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Funny that the press release don't quote a single one. All the ones I read seem bogus.
- fishbert, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Hmm...
Author: Hudson Institute - brese1200, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Buried as inaccurate. (big shocker).
if you intend on presenting formal arguments on Global Warming you might consider utilizing sources that were not paid for by the likes of Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble... - Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13"The Hudson Institute is a right-leaning U.S. think tank, founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by the futurist Herman Kahn and other colleagues from the RAND Corporation. The Institute promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated values of a "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security." It is the organization about which the phrase "think tank" was originally coined." - Wikipedia
- britoca, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13This is taking place extremely rapidly, the most predominant warming taking place in the last 2 decades alone. And even if the natural cycle is there, if you really think all the CO2 we spew into the atmosphere has no effect at all you're all VERY naive.
low ice levels beating records:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070910_timeseries.png
CO2 concentration spiking starting with industrial revolution:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/co2hm.gif
Ice melting faster than anticipated:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html - eexlebots, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11"Big Science" ahahahahaha. What is wrong with you?
- Sublime059, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18YEAH! Believing studies that Big Oil Companies pay for! WE WIN THE GAME!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I don't buy this research. One thing they said is that the warming of the earth will cause less deaths because more people die in cold weather.
Besides the fact that is so simplistic that it could have been lifted from a Sunday School newsletter, it ignores the fact that the warmer temperatures carry a whole other host of problems for humans.
So this happens every 1500 years? Well 1500 years ago the Bible was still being edited, Muhammad still had not been invented yet, and The Mayans were still throwing virgins into big pits to please the Gods. - strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15As much as this is interesting...
300 scientists? Considering the thousands that were behind global warming before Al Gore opened his mouth and ruined science into a political mess.... - datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -46/+56Oh but these can't be "real" scientists! They must be getting paid by big oil so their scientific conclusions are invalid! Now everyone go back to drinking the pot flavored kool-aid.
- igbw, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15buried as back by oil money driven Hudson Institute.
- lahar, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17Scientists are the least paid for the most education. Go ***** yourself.
- NinjaYaddaYadda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12"1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age"
Uh, since when was this part of the scientific consensus on global warming? I've never heard a scientist say differently.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,"
Sorry, but it's a basic fact of physics that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat and make the atmosphere warmer, ceteris paribus. Considering humanity has thrown lots of greenhouse gases, then it follows that humans have some hand in warming the planet, regardless of how little it is compared to other effects.
"5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat"
Erm, but if temperature shifts one way or another, what evidence is there that it will be anything but a wash from one type of deaths to another? Anyway, considering the 2100 forecast is hotter than it has been in millions of years, there's a hell of a lot to worry about. Most importantly, climate change brings about changes; changes from the environment we have grown to adapt to into one we haven't.
"4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings"
Is this concerning a long-term trend, or a year or two span of time compared with last periods? Scientists fear stronger storms because increased heat brings increased energy for the naturally-occurring engines that are hurricanes. This is a rather clear from our understanding of hurricanes. - enki25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Wow, some dude at a think tank wrote that? It must be true!
- lahar, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19That was the biggest load of ***** I've ever read. What exactly are "previous global warmings"? It is laughable that anyone would take this tripe seriously.
- fabreeze, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13"Scientists form "Consensus" that Global Warming is natural....go figure!"
This is idiotic, 500 out of hundreds of thousands is not a consensus.
Thats 0.005%.
Statistically speaking, it would be even seem suspicious if there weren't at least this amount of disagreement.
epublicus fails, go back to arts. - lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19Wikipedia sez: "The Hudson Institute is a right-leaning U.S. think tank..."
'Nuff said. - Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Better reading on this topic for the Freepers in the audience:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007 - Renton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You got your politics in my science
- eexlebots, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Yes, they are shills! Look those two up on media watch lists and you'll see they are not the hard-hitting respected scientists they claim to be.Avery also wrote a book about how scary and dangerous organic food is for you, FYI.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Because meteors have never caused any sort of massive extinction of, let's be crazy here, some sort of giant lizards or something equally crazy... right?
- enki25, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Yes but this book is not peer reviewed. You can write a book claiming that 100% of all peer reviewed studies prove that cars are made out of bubble gum, that doesn't mean you've proven it. It means that no matter what brand of non-science you are into, you can always find a few losers out there that will buy your book.
- ashmael, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10There's nothing to dispute, because they're trying to sell a book.
- LadyAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -31/+39Article:"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
"Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
"Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
ENDQUOTE
Read it all...
Al, calling Al Gore, where are you??>? (silence) - Doofy, on 10/10/2007, -27/+35But... but... this can't be true. Think of all the grant money! This could result in thousands of unemployed scientists. Oh the humanity!
- WasabiBomb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The irony of your statement, coupled with the fact that you posted this on the internet, using a computer, is simply mind-boggling.
- mnederlanden, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9exxon mobil is one of their clients.
scientists report scientific findings in scientific journals. - wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -17/+25buried for global warming troofer nonsense
- BrewBeau, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah, the earth's going to be just fine. It's just going to expel us in the meantime.
- Angostura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It's worth going through the first few paragraphs and asking a few questions:
" A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares."
OK. 500 scientists have refuted "at least one element"... but were those minor elements? Did they support all the rest? Nice use of the unbiased word "scare" there.
More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance."
Hmmmm... "Similar to" There's not a single climate scientist I know that suggests that natural climate variations occur. But "similar how"? Similar in terms of the speed of climatic change? I think not. I like the and/or there. How many actually think that this is due to variation in irradiance? Anyone? Bueller?
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Well, lets assume that 300 scientists had reported evidence of previous naturally occurring warming events. Does that actually make a mockery of the suspicion that this period of warming is being exacerbated by human activity? Err, no.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly;
So ... they are rising? Just not "importantly. Uhh... OK
4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings;
Who is the "we" that is being decribed here? The Australians, the Greek? Europe? ... anyone got any data on whether these researchers were, you know... peer reviewed?
5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat;
Quick everyone, turn off your air conditioning. Hey, why not climb into an over while you are at it. Come on, how stupid is that statement.
"6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate."
... apart from the ones that aren't such as the polar bears and the corals in the great barrier reef.
"Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.""
No. I bet actually, many of them think that human-mediated climate change is a real problem. However these guys have cherry-picked all the "howevers" that any sensible researcher will include. - ambion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Hundreds of scientists? Give me a break.
It's convenient how the article forgets about the rest of the scientific community in favor of a paltry 500 scientists. I'm sure every year over 500 scientists *graduate* who are more than qualified to assess global warming. Maybe the 500 scientists referenced here all live in Texas? - BrewBeau, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9exactly. Privately funded research "institutes" need careful scrutiny.
- inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9True, but when numerous organizations with highly politicized ties and apparent public intentions (i.e. we're corporations! Our only allegiance is to the stockholder! We must make them money! Rabble rabble!) are found together supporting a common goal, you have to be slightly suspect of the results they come up with.
"That study funded by Corn Growers of America suggests that Corn based ethanol is the best form of ethanol, must be true!" -
Show 51 - 100 of 218 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
