Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Debunking Human Caused Global Warming... Again
citizenlink.org — More than 500 climate scientists, meteorologists, economists and others gathered in New York last week to offer an alternative perspective on human-induced global warming.
ThirstyJon- 308 diggs
- digg it
- rjwusa, on 03/11/2008, -69/+91They are the false prophets of 'Environmental Change'. Environmental Change is the term that replaces Global Warming. That way, whether temperatures go up or down, the environmental messiah, St. Al Gore and his legions of deceived and dimwitted followers can hedge their bet that they will be perceived as being correct in their misreadings of the environment. That said, the simple fact that the 500 climate scientists believe contrary to the gospel of St. Al Gore, makes them heretics and blasphemers worthy to be discredited and stripped of tenure and position within their community. REPENT!
- aliengoods, on 03/11/2008, -7/+30"the simple fact that the 500 climate scientists believe contrary"
I disagree with global warming, but I have to ask. Since when are economists climate scientists? I'm not saying they don't have something to add to the overall discussion in terms of effects of combating it if there is no problem, but in terms of "is it man-made" I'm not sure what a knowledge of economics adds. Wouldn't that be like asking Cheney or Bush to prove that torture was useless (aka, there's quite a bit of bias)?- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -22/+7Economists use statistics as part of their job. They know statistics. Statistics is an area of math that is used in some paleoclimate research. Many of the paleoclimate researchers who were the first alarmists used statistics in their research without learning enough about the subject to properly use them.
In simple terms, economists use the same math that some climate alarmists used, and the climate alarmists didn't go to school to learn that math, so they used it poorly.- satanatnmtedu, on 03/11/2008, -4/+12Yes, but economists are often wrong. Hell, they are often very, very wrong. So, why should anyone listen to their ravings. Set up an ideal problem, then economists do fine. Put them int he real world, and things are too complex.
- cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Meteorologists are often wrong as well.....
- Wonderama, on 03/11/2008, -3/+6@satanatnmtedu: and non-economic scientists can't also be very, very wrong? You must then be discounting all analytic sciences in one fell swoop since their collective methodologies are all part of one scientific method.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+7If an environmentalist advised you on financial matter would you take him seriously? Of course not. Then why would you accept it here?
Because it allows people to do what they want, without regard to future consequences. - Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2>>>"If an environmentalist advised you on financial matter would you take him seriously?"
Who says a thing does not matter as much as what it is they are saying. The fact that you dismiss somebody's opinion, facts, evidence, etc, simply because of who they are shows that you really don't give a damn about "truth" in any way at all, do you? Do that, and you're no scientist, you're just another religious nut.
Science does not have anything to do with reputation or consensus. The truth does not cease to be true just because it's said by some particular person. - Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2
OTTO - the truth is there for you. Care to take a drink out of the great lakes? How about some of the streams next to factories and manufacturering plants? Care to eat anything grown from soil on the banks of those rivers and streams? Why not?
You betray your point. Anyone's opinion can matter, but it varies in regard to their experience on the matter. An economist speaking on behalf of climate change makes as much sense as biologist speaking on 911 towers falling. You would rip that apart, and rightfully so - so it is with a bit of interest that you don't seem to find the same issue here? - Otto, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2@Waiting2awake: If you think I would rip on somebody for being a biologist, then you're a complete idiot.
I would tear apart their argument. I would not care *who* they are. If they're wrong, then their argument will be wrong, it has ZERO to do with their credentials.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+7If an environmentalist advised you on financial matter would you take him seriously? Of course not. Then why would you accept it here?
- loginx, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6If I wanted input based on stats, I would get it from a statistician, not an economist who uses stats.
Mechanics use stats too, and I don't see any on the speakers panel. Your comment is irrelevant.
- satanatnmtedu, on 03/11/2008, -4/+12Yes, but economists are often wrong. Hell, they are often very, very wrong. So, why should anyone listen to their ravings. Set up an ideal problem, then economists do fine. Put them int he real world, and things are too complex.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -22/+7Economists use statistics as part of their job. They know statistics. Statistics is an area of math that is used in some paleoclimate research. Many of the paleoclimate researchers who were the first alarmists used statistics in their research without learning enough about the subject to properly use them.
- swrostmore, on 03/11/2008, -6/+22Its now called "Environmental Change" so idiots will stop saying "its cold outside my house right now, global warming must be fake." Of course this hasn't worked yet.
- tracywood, on 03/11/2008, -6/+2give it time, these guys are GOOD.
- norman619, on 03/11/2008, -11/+11No it's called Climate Change now to mislead people who at least try to think. They are still claiming Guman Caused Global Warming. Climate Change is natural. It's ALWAYS changing.
- Lyph5, on 03/11/2008, -1/+12How about the idiots who, in the middle of summer, are complaining that it's hot and blaming it on Global Warming? Last year we had a freak week in January where the temperature hit 70 for 3 days. Everyone was bitching about global warming. Next week when it was back to 20 and lower, they were quiet. Global Warming is a GLOBAL change, not just an oddly warm week in Winter.
- swrostmore, on 03/11/2008, -0/+7I agree, this is what happens when people who don't understand science decide to base their opinion about it on what politicians tell them to think.
- Lyph5, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The problem isn't so much "what the politicians tell them to think" as much as "I'll assume what this important topic means based on its NAME AND NAME ALONE."
- swrostmore, on 03/11/2008, -0/+7I agree, this is what happens when people who don't understand science decide to base their opinion about it on what politicians tell them to think.
- Chompy, on 03/11/2008, -7/+10Whether or not we're to blame, we better start thinking about ways to either fix it or slow it down.
- sw33tsarin, on 03/11/2008, -10/+12Stop the Earths natural temperature change? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that would be a good thing.
- vertinox, on 03/11/2008, -8/+8Natural phenomenon include Ebola, black plague, hurricanes, and Tsunamis.
The nifty thing about technology and innovation is that it cames sometimes prevent or mitigate natural issues (take the Netherlands north sea barricade or the Tokyo Tsanmi system)
Simply sitting around waiting to die doesn't sound like a good idea to me... Global warming is occurring and it doesn't matter if its natural or not. There are multitudes of things we can do to mitigate the issue.
Paint the Gobi and Sahara desert with reflective white paint (like icecaps).
Drop a nuke into a volcano to put enough dust in the atmosphere to drop the average temperature (might be a bad idea)
Or plant more heat/energy aborbing plankton that eat CO2 and give off oxygen.
Burry CO2.
Or at in the least... PLAN TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE OCEAN
Listen... At this point it doesn't matter whether or not global warming is man made. The fact is that it is real and that something is going to have to done or a lot of people are going to die. I believe this is a problem that can be solved by technology... We've got 150 years before its really unpleasant like they were millions of years ago (de-oxygenated seas and complete desertification)
So if you just want to sit around and die then go right ahead, but some of us would like to see something other than a world without humans in the next millennium.- sw33tsarin, on 03/11/2008, -5/+7Soooo you want to paint the desert? Really? That sounds like a fantastic idea. I'll buy the rollers and a few buckets of paint to get you started and you can get right on that. This seems like a unique stance on your part. If Man is affecting climate change we need to stop it but if climate change is nautral man eeds to step in and counteract it, is that what you're saying? I think you're time would be better spent trying to paint the desert there buddy.
- DWalla, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Go read the book PLAYING GOD IN YELLOWSTONE... you can learn a lot about what happens when man tries to intervene with Mother Nature.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -6/+5Why do you assume it is natural? (Note - because we are natural, therefore whatever we do is also natural is not the right answer)
- sw33tsarin, on 03/11/2008, -4/+8Becuase we're taught from 1st grade on that the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling and I haven't seen much empirical evidence to the contrary.. Why do you assume its man-made?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -9/+2 You are also taught from the first grade that whatever country you live in is the best, most noble one. Your leaders are good humans and your religion is the only true one. A little while ago we were taught that the earth was flat, and was the centre of the system...
In a sentence - because we have been lied to since grade one over just about everything. Why would you assume that this - with it's financial incentives to refuse it - is any different?
However that said - rationally speaking I don't know if we are having a huge impact - but we are having an impact. The earth being finite, and it's ecosystem being able to purify at a certain level - it goes to figure that going above that limit will result in a net increase in pollution - whatever that entails. As humanity has grown from some 1 Billion to 6 billion it becomes silly to suggest that we are not encroaching on that limit - if we haven't already passed it.
Now tell me why you assume that it would be natural - if 6 billion massively polluting people have never existed before - then how in goodness' name can you say what is happening now is natural? - loginx, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2I'm not sure why everyone is focusing entirely on the temperature change, while there are obviously more pressing matters like the quality of the air we are trhing to breathe. Polluted cities are reporting exponential increase in the number of lung/heart diseases, and it's apparently a lot more convenient to argue over the weather.
Oh and by the way, climate change is not equal to climate change, so your comment is misinformed. Simply because the temperature might or might not be changing naturally doesn't mean that we're dealing with human-caused atmospheric changes.
Being environmentally responsible is very easy, cheap, and will:
1) Solve the short term problem (pollution in the air we're trying to breathe)
2) Possibly solve the long-term problem that you argue doesn't exist.
But then again, even if this problem doesn't exist or is a natural occurrence (and the consensus based on evidence doesn't support that theory at all), there is still an extremely compelling argument for improving our quality of life in the short term by not living like a bunch of savages.
The general response I'm reading on digg right now is analogous to saying: "Yes, I agree that setting my house on fire will kill me either by smoke inhalation or by the actual fire, or by the structure collapsing and crusing me. Because there is no consensus that my house will collapse and crush me, I will proceed to set my house on fire." - loginx, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2And by "Climate change is not equal to climate change", i meant "Climate change is not equal to weather/temperature change"
- DWalla, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Wait... are you saying that the history of climate change on the earth for over a millenia is merely a lie propogated by our educational system?
- floorman56, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Because where I live use to be under 3 miles of ice 10,000 years ago?
- vertinox, on 03/11/2008, -8/+8Natural phenomenon include Ebola, black plague, hurricanes, and Tsunamis.
- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+10Preventing change often causes more problems. Look at how human interference with natural forest fires causes more deforestation in the long run.
If you want to improve technology and minimize our impact on the environment, fine. But the idea that we can "fix" natural change is appalling, in the extreme.- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3If it is natural. That is the question, and unfortunately the only way to conclusively prove it is for us not to be here. Since that isn't going to happen we should accept that we will never know for sure - but that still means we should act prudently.
Clearly spewing toxicants into the air and water and soil are not conducive to life. The fact that it will effect some peoples bottom lines, is why we are having the debates, but it is those same bottom line concerns that we are having wars - maybe it is time to realize who are the true enemies of humanity.- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2Bull. It's not about "affecting some people's bottom lines". It's about affecting everybody else's quality of life.
Name one thing you'd like to do away with in terms of pollution. If you fail to replace it with something better, then guess what, you impacted *everybody*. The economy is an interconnected system, you cannot push on part of it without the rest reacting as well. Rational people want to replace things with better things, not eliminate things because one part of them is bad in some way.
So, when you sound like a conspiracy theorist, you just make the rest of the rational people in the world ignore you and think that all your other ideas are just as nuts as you are. In other words, you're not helping your cause here. - Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2OTTO - of course it is. Whether it is effecting a business' quality of life(Their bottom line) or your quality of life(Driving a gaint SUV) we are talking about the same thing. Giving up something today, for the benefit tomorrow.
Lets play a game. Lets put your vehicle in a garage and turn it on. Leave a small crack open to allowing 75% of the exhaust to escape every hour, leaving only 25% accumulation. lets also put you in that garage. After one minute your current explanation makes sense because there hasn't been enough accumulation to affect you. After two hours there is - after three hours it is undeniable and after 5 or so you'll be incapable of doing anything about it. Now, the trouble is we are ALL in that garage and some of us want to shut off the car, some feel it is their right to leave the car on because "Who are they telling me what I can and can't do" - but that is exactly what your ignorance is causing. You are telling everyone else that they have to suffer the air quality troubles.
Simply stated - you are welcome to think and do what you like - until it effects someone else. Any pollution effects EVERYONE else.
Let me know if you want to do that garage thing. - cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Wow- let's look into this. Let's just say you are talking about the United States, You're comparison gives no light to the actual problem. If you can explain to me how a country of roughly 303,610,539 people, 196 million of them drivers, (wikipidia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in ... will just "turn off their cars", I'd buy your comparison.
- cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Oops, sorry, that wasn't a working link....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in ... - Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Cj - It will be hard no doubt. But the alternative is?
It is certainly hard to stop a habit that has been part of our way of life for decades - but ultimately it still comes down to this: You will pay. (Which is ultimately the problem - no one wants to - so we defer the payment to our children)
You can pay today, through the inconvenience of finding different ways of traveling, being more local, etc - Or - we pay later with continued and increasing smog clouds around our cities, continue to poison the air that we breath, poison the soil which our food grows, and the water which we drink, until such a time that it is passed our ability to fix it even if we shut off all our cars, factories, etc.
Doing it then, if it is at all possible will result in across the board cuts just to keep our species alive(No doubt even then there will be people unwilling to give up their creature comforts) - or we can act now and curb, and then eliminate, those pollution causing activities that we are now engaging in. - cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3It's just not rational to me to say "Stop everything you are doing and change your ways". Yes, it would ideally be wonderful if we could all end our dependence on fossil fuels, walk to work, ride a horse or a bike. What do you tell those that have to commute 100 miles to work per day, find a new job? And how do you change an infrastructure in one generations' time? Who's going to pay for it? Will you tell someone they can't heat their home with fire wood, or gas, or coal and instead they have to use solar or wind energy? Who's going to buy those panels or windmills? Sure, awareness and respect for our environment and planet is great, but I am a realist.
- ldapmonkey, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0No one is saying "Stop everything you are doing and change your ways." Just change your ways. I am all for free enterprise, but corporations really are the ones pulling the strings, because, right now, it's the only way they can continue to exist. If we immediately remove the dependence on oil, what will become of Exxon, Shell and Mobil? If THEY changed their ways because it was beneficial for them to, it would be much simpler for all of us to change ours and they could continue to exist. It's as simple as inertia.
Plant the seed as tax breaks and other incentives for oil and coal companies to invest in the hydrogen highway and other alternatives. Not just little ones, big incentives. Make them irresistible. Inertia takes over from there. Vehicle manufacturers would see the shift in fuel consumption and invest in the new technologies to consume those fuel sources. They would do this because their bottom line depends on the consumer being able to use their product. This, in turn, drops the average cost of an alternative fuel source vehicle in line with or below the average cost of a fuel saving gas-only vehicle. Then everyone that could afford a new gas-only car could also afford a new alternative fuel source vehicle, including the people who have a 100 mile commute, like me.
In the same vein, give electric companies similar incentives for investing in solar, wind and geothermal. In this case, not everyone has to install solar panels on their house to reap the benefits. If the grid is powered by solar, wind or geothermal, then EVERYONE on that grid is powered by the same. And with the increase in solar panel and windmill production due to the mass consumption by power companies, the prices drop on those as well, making it more economically beneficial for individuals to purchase them. Keep in mind, we're not talking about investing in the invention of these new fangled technologies. These things have been around and in limited use since the 1950's. I'm talking about investing in the mass production facilities to make them economically usable.
Here's the pretty part... The speed at which these changes occur is DIRECTLY proportionate to the size of the incentives. If you want a fast change, then make huge incentives. If you want to slow it down a little, shrink the incentives. EVERYTHING rolls downhill, not just *****. Gravity isn't picky.
Here I've just demonstrated how physics, the law of supply and demand, and macro-economics can work in our favor to affect a change without making so much as a slight scratch in anyone's wallet. Taking a simple approach to a problem is more sensible than wasting time saying it will never work and fighting against it. And, keeping with the "realist" theme, our economic and environmental situation certainly couldn't get all that much worse simply by making an effort to change.
- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2Bull. It's not about "affecting some people's bottom lines". It's about affecting everybody else's quality of life.
- ldapmonkey, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2The plain and simple point is that it doesn't really matter if global warming is fact or not. We know for a fact that carbon emissions increase greenhouse gases, that flora (trees and other green things, for those of you who are confused) are natural filters, that the natural ground cover (flora) has significantly diminished since our "arrival", that humans are the leading cause of carbon emissions (in recent history), that we have increased in numbers proportionate to the decrease in ground cover, that an increase in greenhouse gases has a direct effect on the climate, and that we have plenty of mature alternative technologies available to completely eliminate the need for energy sources that we KNOW are harmful to the environment if burned or otherwise consumed.
It isn't a matter of "if we can fix it." It's a matter of we can help it fix itself. Every branch of earth science has shown that our planet is very resilient and is capable of self-correcting certain things over time. In this case we have a choice... do we give it a hand in cleaning the pollution by reducing our output significantly by being more responsible and more efficient with our resources or do we continue, BUSINESS as usual and future generations be damned by our own selfishness? THAT is the question that needs to be answered immediately. And if we decide that we do want to help the environment, then we need to get off our collective asses, quit bickering back and forth about global warming being fact or fiction and actually do something about it.- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Well stated.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3If it is natural. That is the question, and unfortunately the only way to conclusively prove it is for us not to be here. Since that isn't going to happen we should accept that we will never know for sure - but that still means we should act prudently.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3Because of the movement of tectonic plates, the Hawaiian Islands we know today will someday be underwater and replaced by new islands. Should we try to stop that, too?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1 Ever want to suck on a tailpipe? Why not? Why do you assume spewing it into the atmosphere is any different other than diluting it? How long does it take before it saturates the atmosphere?
- cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3What does this have to do with Plate tectonics??? Oxbaad gave a valid point, so do you have any relevant input? Many alarmists like to complain that rising sea levels will drown our coast lines. Sea levels rise and fall ALL THE TIME throughout Geologic history. The same argument that we have to change for the sake of the Earth can fit here: If the Earth's sea level wants to rise, why not change your habitat and donate your time share for a public park?
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1CJ - What does sucking on a tailpipe have to do with the environment? Are you really asking that?
- cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I disagree with your application of your arguments. "Sucking on a tailpipe" is quite the extreme, and teeters on the edge of fear mongering. If you had a scientific rebuttal, this discussion would be much more intriguing.
- DooM, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2Many coastal areas would be gone right now if humans hadn't stepped in and created solutions to the erosion - so while your example is extreme and (currently) out of our capability to accomplish, I would say YES - if we can accomplish it, we should try to save the homes and wellbeing of the 1.2 million people who live on those islands.
- cjtriest, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2But coastal erosion is a NATURAL process! the only reasons levies and breaks were built were to keep our "Ocean Cities" in business. Double standards don't sit well with me. If you want humanity to change their ways in one regard, why not the other?
- DooM, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2It's the same freaking thing. Erosion is a natural global effect based on tidal influences, plate tectonics, etc. - if we have the ability to mitigate those natural effects we SHOULD; it's far wiser than just abandoning New York City and rebuilding elsewhere. Even if we agree that global warming is man-made it is STILL a natural global response to environmental conditions (the first response is caused by the moon and the earth's crust the other is caused by people in this example) - either way, we should work to mitigate negative effects on our habitat. That's just SMART - that's why people sandbag in a flood rather than just sitting there looking stupid while their houses float away.
- Waiting2awake, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1 Ever want to suck on a tailpipe? Why not? Why do you assume spewing it into the atmosphere is any different other than diluting it? How long does it take before it saturates the atmosphere?
- Kythas, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Maybe we could move the Earth a bit farther from the sun during the sun's periods of increased solar activity, and move the Earth a bit closer to the sun during its periods of decreased solar activity. Or perhaps we could correct the slight variation in the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun. Or perhaps correct the slight wobble in the Earth's rotational axis. Or perhaps.......
- sw33tsarin, on 03/11/2008, -10/+12Stop the Earths natural temperature change? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that would be a good thing.
- wacki, on 03/11/2008, -5/+19This list of "500 climate scientists, meteorologists, economists" is brought to you by the heartland institute. You may remember them from "second hand smoking does not cause cancer", "CFC's don't harm the ozone layer", "global warming stopped in 1998" and more.
For a real look at the consensus please check this out:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD ...
FYI: There are more then a few TV meteorologists that never went to college (please check hot weather chick Jackie Guerrido) and some of the most famous ones (Al Roken) merely got a BA in communications. The bar is not set very high for TV meteorologists. A lot of the other scientists are recycled from the tobacco and environmental misinformation wars. As for the economists, well I've never understood why there are so many economists think they know physics and chemistry. Then again there are 6 billion people on the planet and this is merely a tiny fraction of a percent.- nobelief, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5uhh... they're not meteorologist. they're nothing more than weatherpersons
- wacki, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I'm talking about anyone that has the "American Meteorological Society (AMS) Seal of Approval" that is flaunted by so many TV stations. The AMS is changing but even Ph.D.'s in meteorology don't have to take a course in some rather basic undergraduate classes that are critical for understanding climate (long term) as opposed to weather (short term). See Curry et. al which was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -4/+4Your point is lost, because second hand smoking actually does not cause cancer. Look up the latest research and actual medicine on the topic. Sure, it's not good for you, but unless you live with a smoker in the same room as you for 40+ years, you ain't going to suffer any damage from it.
- variant5, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5Some headlines/quotations from recent research on second-hand smoke:
- Colorectal cancer occurs earlier in those exposed to tobacco smoke: implications for screening
- All individuals exposed to SHS have a higher risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that subjects first exposed before age 25 have a higher lung cancer risk compared to those for whom first exposure occurred after age 25 years.
- In addition to HPV infection and active cigarette smoking, exposure to SHS is a major risk factor for cervical intraepithelial neoplasm among Taiwanese women.
Feel free to check it out for yourself. Scientific journals can be searched at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. I searched for second-hand smoke AND cancer.
Direct causation can only be established through very, very unethical trials. However, the increased risk of cancer among those exposed to second-hand smoke seems to be pretty clear in the literature.- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2variant: Summarizing all of these research papers is worthless unless you define your terms. In particular, define "exposed" please.
After you've done that, and after you've proven my own point, you're quite welcome to backpedal. - variant5, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2otto:
These aren't my terms; they are those of the researchers. You are free to dig into the actual papers at your leisure and expense.
In any case, it is your claim that recent research shows that SHS does not cause cancer. Recent articles on the subject have not found evidence that SHS does not cause cancer, as you claimed they did, so the burden of proof actually rests in your hands to provide papers showing that it definitively does not.
After you've wasted your time looking for a published article showing that SHS exposure does not cause cancer, you can revisit the importance of choosing your words carefully.
Thanks.
- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2variant: Summarizing all of these research papers is worthless unless you define your terms. In particular, define "exposed" please.
- variant5, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5Some headlines/quotations from recent research on second-hand smoke:
- nobelief, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5uhh... they're not meteorologist. they're nothing more than weatherpersons
- roosterjm2k2, on 03/11/2008, -7/+4Well, logic tears apart Gore's arguments for the most part, which really helps the "religious" twist on your comment...
Anyone understand what a feedback loop is?
Polar ice melts = CO2 released and Less polar ice = less white surface = less sunlight reflected away = more heat captured = more ice melts = more CO2 released ... etc
The more the polar ice caps melt, the faster they will melt...- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Good thing that the polar ice caps are actually growing then.
Seriously, look up the actual facts and statistics before parroting what you hear/read from the extremist groups.- Wahngrok, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Could you state a source to your statement please. From all I heard and read icecaps are reclining.
- variant5, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The Arctic icecap is receding, while the Antarctic ice cover is expanding. Global warming models can't predict what may happen in every part of the globe, but, back in 2005, there was a suggestion that increased participation resulting from warmer air temperatures could lead to increased sea ice in the Antarctic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/05063 ...
- Otto, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Good thing that the polar ice caps are actually growing then.
- roodammy44, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5An alternative view to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists worldwide is still just an alternative view.
There have been lots of examples of human civilisations changing their own environment in a way where it destroys them.
Lets all hope someone invents a technical solution, because it doesn't look like a mass effort will occur at this rate - djbanging, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD ...
- aliengoods, on 03/11/2008, -7/+30"the simple fact that the 500 climate scientists believe contrary"
- vault, on 03/11/2008, -55/+70The funny thing is if you ask one of these warm-mongering eco-socialists how much of THEIR own money they donate to environmental causes, they suddenly get silent. Imagine that.
The whole alarmist mentality over global warming is more to do with the fact that they saw An Incovenient Lie and now want to stick it to capitalism rather than how much they genuinely care or even know about the environment.- rjwusa, on 03/11/2008, -14/+24Good stuff! Offer of friendship extended./thumb up
- vault, on 03/11/2008, -13/+20Mutual ;)
- IHaveIssues, on 03/11/2008, -2/+9^^ Digg sex
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -3/+4I can't tell, is it ***** or hetero?
- Gurubanks, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6well, according the site that this piece of ***** news came from, if it is homosexual, it goes against everything God created in his image.
C'mon people. This is Focus on the Family. How can you read anything on this site and take it seriously? Even if you do believe that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, then you could at least rally behind a better source than the people that think this is a good basis for talking about Culture and Worldview:
"The Christian worldview can be summed up in a single phrase: "Jesus is Lord" -- which is the first creed of Christianity. Understanding Christ's lordship over all of life is no easy task. Yet, once we begin to understand that all of life--not just "church" life--is of intense interest to God, we are able to bring a renewed sense of purpose to our lives and faith. The Lordship of Christ does not allow us to ignore art, politics, or literature, any more than it allows us to ignore the lost, hungry, sick, or the poor. Only by seeing the world through God's eyes, or what we call "thinking Christianly," will we understand our mandate to redeem the fullness of our culture and reach out to a dying world. Bottom line: our interests can be no smaller than God's."
- IHaveIssues, on 03/11/2008, -2/+9^^ Digg sex
- vault, on 03/11/2008, -13/+20Mutual ;)
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -6/+16I don't see what environmental causes have to do with global warming. Shouldn't we all be working to clean up our damn environment anyway? I've never understood why the whole global warming business was so controversial. Somebody's right, somebody's wrong, at the end of the day, does it really matter?
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -14/+7Yes, we should keep it clean. Global warming is controversial because we now have politicians who want to pass laws that restrict your freedoms under the guise of "saving the planet" from global warming. Many of these laws restrict overall production of economies. It's socialism/communism all over again.
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+9I still don't understand. I mean, what you seem to be arguing is that it's the principle of the thing. As such, I still don't see what the factualness of global warming has to do with it. Would not the laws you object to be just as unjust if global warming were real and man-made?
See, this is what I want - some straight answers. But people are so busy arguing over who's right, that nobody discusses the actual issues and implications at stake here. This is why I object to the entire global warming debate - both sides seem more concerned with battling over who's right than they are with rationally discussing the practical consequences. - Otto, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5macweirdo42: Yes, those laws are unjust either way. But it's a lot easier for them to push those unjust laws when they have a cause they can rally behind. People are not rational, and they will support a "cause" even without knowing what it is that they support. All they need to hear is that it's for the good of the cause.
Look at terrorism. Do you support fighting terrorism? Yes, of course. So you must support the war in Iraq then,okay, here we go.. wait a minute.. Same thing.- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3So... You're fighting irrationality with irrationality? What? *goes cross-eyed*
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3Sorry, let me clarify - it's like, let's say you oppose wiretapping because it's a violation of our Constitutional rights (as I assume you do). So, do you run around screaming that there are no terrorists? Because that's basically what seems to be going on here.
- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2a good example of people needing a cause (any cause) are all the new obobblehead fans. Pathetic
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+9I still don't understand. I mean, what you seem to be arguing is that it's the principle of the thing. As such, I still don't see what the factualness of global warming has to do with it. Would not the laws you object to be just as unjust if global warming were real and man-made?
- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4it matters when you try to impose taxes on people for their "global warming" behaviors
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1No, it doesn't. Pollution is pollution, and it needs to be dealt with, global warming or not. On the other hand, if a tax is unjust, it's unjust, regardless of the circumstances. Are you saying that if global warming is man-made, that a tax is acceptable? Are you saying that if global warming is not man-made, that air pollution is acceptable?
- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Youre not getting it. Global warming, or man-made climate change (as it will begin to be called, since the warming thing isn't happening), is a way to rob Peter to pay Paul. I"m sorry that's it. The socialist can't handle that one person has more money than someone else. Life is not fair, and for all of their lofty elitist dreams, it never will be.
I am absolutely against pollution. But taking $$ from someone and giving it to someone else is all they really are interested in. So yes, it does matter - macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1WHAT DID I JUST ***** SAY!? IF IT'S ABOUT AN UNJUST TAX, THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING! THE TAX IS UNJUST, WHETHER GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN-MADE NOT! ARGUE ON THAT POINT, DON'T ARGUE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING! JUST ***** ARGUE YOUR POINT! GLOBAL WARMING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER POLLUTION IS WRONG, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A TAX ON POLLUTION IS WRONG.
But no, you'd rather be swept up on sensationalism just like everybody else.
- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Youre not getting it. Global warming, or man-made climate change (as it will begin to be called, since the warming thing isn't happening), is a way to rob Peter to pay Paul. I"m sorry that's it. The socialist can't handle that one person has more money than someone else. Life is not fair, and for all of their lofty elitist dreams, it never will be.
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1No, it doesn't. Pollution is pollution, and it needs to be dealt with, global warming or not. On the other hand, if a tax is unjust, it's unjust, regardless of the circumstances. Are you saying that if global warming is man-made, that a tax is acceptable? Are you saying that if global warming is not man-made, that air pollution is acceptable?
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -14/+7Yes, we should keep it clean. Global warming is controversial because we now have politicians who want to pass laws that restrict your freedoms under the guise of "saving the planet" from global warming. Many of these laws restrict overall production of economies. It's socialism/communism all over again.
- Petrarch1603, on 03/11/2008, -6/+8George W. Bush's house in texas is more environmentally friendly than Al Gore's house. Its true, its on snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
- swicken, on 03/11/2008, -5/+3I agree, there is no place for an alarmist mentality. Although sticking it to capitalism is delicious. I really don't believe that global warming should be the thing to push us to social and economic changes. Even if our impact on the earth is not as drastic as believed, there is nothing wrong with trying to live more harmoniously and less destructively then we currently do. Plus it's absurd to rely on a non-renewable resource in the age we live in.
No matter the level of it, our current existence defies nature. Changes do need to happen, but scaring the wits out of people with shock science isn't the way. It's too much of a right sided approach to a left sided ideal.- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1buried for socialist/communist idealogy. You will always lose with that crap.
- swicken, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0Whatever floats your boat. I don't mind being the minority or 'losing' as you say, I'll believe what I want to believe and what I feel is right, and I'll continue to argue my point even if I'm the last one who believes in it.
I'm not closed minded, but I've never heard a debate which held a strong enough argument to sway me in the other direction. I still believe we need to change our roles in the world or we will eventually destroy it.- LeadOffMan, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1you are the last one to believe that
- swicken, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0Whatever floats your boat. I don't mind being the minority or 'losing' as you say, I'll believe what I want to believe and what I feel is right, and I'll continue to argue my point even if I'm the last one who believes in it.
- Kythas, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Even though I disagree with what you say, I've dugg you up because I believe in your right to say it. Most importantly, your right to say it in an intelligent, non-insulting-to-those-with-whom-you-disagree way.
- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1buried for socialist/communist idealogy. You will always lose with that crap.
- rjwusa, on 03/11/2008, -14/+24Good stuff! Offer of friendship extended./thumb up
- Iconoclast25, on 03/11/2008, -52/+58“The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency."
The arrogance of the left is truly astounding.- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -20/+20Wh...What? You m...mean they're not right? Environmental hysteria is ... is NOT true science???
{gasp...pant . . . having trouble breathing . . . panic attack coming}
Quick, tell me what to think. Tell me what to believe. I'm so confused . . .- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -14/+9Hold on a sec... if environmental hysteria is not true science... and the 'scientists' have been telling us for years that it's absolutely true... and the politicians have been pushing it as an agenda... and making BILLIONS out of it in extra taxes, climate change levy's and airline flight surcharges... then is it... you know... remotely possible... just a teensy bit possible... that maybe when it comes to something like, oh, I don't know... off the top of my head... Big Bang and Evolutionary Science... they might also be... well... lying...
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -11/+8{pfffttt, pfftttt, crackle, sparkkKKK}
Too much to process. Overload. Overload. Short cir...c-c-c...circuit. Does not compute. Fatal error. FATAL ERROR. k-a-p-u-t ! ! - LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -15/+7absolutely. When you stop beleiving in God, you'll believe in anything
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -6/+3[citation needed]
- roodammy44, on 03/11/2008, -4/+4I believe that you're a moron - there's one belief to prove you wrong!
I also have faith that it's true, and you can't argue against faith.
- lickmylovepump, on 03/11/2008, -9/+3ouch. that will blow some fuses if this makes it to the front page.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -5/+7Woah woah woah, slow down with the sensationalism. Climate science *is* science. Environmental hysteria is just a bunch of douchebags that heard some doomsday BS from some guy who knows some guy and want to "CHANGE THE WORLD!" (tm).
Also, while climate science is very much empirical, evolutionary science is more so an exercise in logic. Either way, all three: climate science, evolution, and the "big bang", are well within the realm of science.- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3I'm being dugg down for that? Sweet.....
/loses a little faith in humanity
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3I'm being dugg down for that? Sweet.....
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -11/+8{pfffttt, pfftttt, crackle, sparkkKKK}
- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -14/+9Hold on a sec... if environmental hysteria is not true science... and the 'scientists' have been telling us for years that it's absolutely true... and the politicians have been pushing it as an agenda... and making BILLIONS out of it in extra taxes, climate change levy's and airline flight surcharges... then is it... you know... remotely possible... just a teensy bit possible... that maybe when it comes to something like, oh, I don't know... off the top of my head... Big Bang and Evolutionary Science... they might also be... well... lying...
- satanatnmtedu, on 03/11/2008, -9/+22And, the arrogance of the right that they are always right is sad. If the global warming is not correct, then show it isn't. Write papers that pass peer review. Bring in REAL scientists in the field that argue against the theory. Don't take money from oil companies to fund your research. Don't take money from utilities to fund your research. Avoid all conflicts of interest. Until this happens (while you are still in the minority), then your analysis is not credible.
- cranium, on 03/11/2008, -6/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28lo ...
- zeusthemoose, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1LOL what an idiot you are. Burden of proof?? There have been no papers that have held up to peer review that support the global warming deniers. How is it setting the bar too high to actually ask for evidence that global warming does not exist. Clearly, the evidence exists and holds up to peer review to support the case for global warming. But the deniers have to resort to pseudo science to try to make their argument. Before you start posting links to logical fallacies read what it means because clearly you lack any understanding of what burden of proof is.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -0/+17The very notion that science is either "left" or "right" absolutely disturbs me.
- rficwizard, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4I'm with you on that. I know enough science to understand data, but I am having a heck of a time finding unbiased data, because every article that mentions global warming is written with a political slant. They all present conclusions, and then pretend that the NUMBER of papers or scientists that support that conclusion is meaningful. Anyone who knows the history of science knows that most scientists have been wrong about most things for most of history. The beauty of science, the defining characteristic, is that it is based on physical reality. Data always triumph eventually.
- cranium, on 03/11/2008, -6/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28lo ...
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -3/+7Hold on there, Icon. I consider myself left of center, but I also consider myself a rationalist. I refuse to buy into any single doctrine of climate change until some reasonable consensus is developed.
Whether or not climate change is man-made, the important studies are the ones that determine how we will *survive* it. Determining it's origin is just a way for politicians to justify ignoring it, but its effects will remain regardless.
The *scientific* debate going on is to figure out how we can stop it. If it's not human-made, then the likelihood that we can stop it is much lower. As reassuring as it might be that we are not the cause of this, it is, in fact, the far worse scenario.- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1*its :(
- Kythas, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The fact that the Earth's climate has had major shifts over the last several hundred thousand years should give it away that climate change isn't man made. Thousands of years ago glaciers were present in the midwestern states of the US, completely covering Canada. Sometime in the past thousand years, Greenland was temperate enough to support Viking agricultural communities. Obviously, both of those conditions changed.
Climate change is a natural cycle. Humans have little to nothing to do with it - notice I said "little to nothing" as I'm prepared to concede there may be a small impact caused by human behavior, though I believe that impact to be somewhat negligible. Our effort and resources would be better spend devising ways to deal with the changes in climate rather than control the climate itself.
For the record - I'm all for eliminating pollution and developing renewable energy sources or sources not reliant on fossil fuels. I do want a clean planet because I do enjoy the outdoors (I no longer play WoW). I'd love to give my kids a beautiful planet for them to enjoy. If my tax dollars could be spend on developing that, I'd have no complaints. Taxing me because my SUV emits CO2 is BS. Taxing me to develop an SUV for me to drive that runs on solar power or a small nuclear reactor or water, that would be money well spent and a tax I'd support.
- pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+11yeah, those scientists on the left are always trying to pull the wool over your eyes. we should listen to a bunch of economists and corporate shills instead. exxon is a beacon of truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/ ...
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -20/+20Wh...What? You m...mean they're not right? Environmental hysteria is ... is NOT true science???
- ThomasPalmer, on 03/11/2008, -35/+28There doesn't even need to be "an alternative perspective." Just read An Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck.
- rjwusa, on 03/11/2008, -13/+15The title alone makes it appear to be worth a read. :-D
- timbellomo, on 03/11/2008, -4/+11Glenn Beck is an idiot...
- pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -5/+7glenn beck? this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY
he also supports the iraq war. he's not exactly a bastion of facts or truth. - UberNick, on 03/11/2008, -5/+7Beck has continually shown himself to be one of the most ignorant, sensationalist, and intellectually dishonest talking heads on television. I can't imagine anything written by him on an academic matter bringing even the slightest insight into an issue. Besides the title, what could make his book "worth a read"?
- bmcelrath, on 03/11/2008, -44/+45Buncha heretics. How dare they disagree with St. Algore
- Lyph5, on 03/11/2008, -7/+5Burn The Heretic, Kill The Mutant, Purge The Unclean. In the God-Emperor Gore's name we fight!
- Lyph5, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Dugg down? Bah. You kids need to learn yourselves some Warhammer.
- Lyph5, on 03/11/2008, -7/+5Burn The Heretic, Kill The Mutant, Purge The Unclean. In the God-Emperor Gore's name we fight!
- Wolfpack46, on 03/11/2008, -33/+22rj/rj/ you are wrong, the fellow is not a saint, he is a Lord, Lord Gore-acle, master of the farce and other universal forces. He is a master Sendai Hight/LOL
by the way no clue what a Sendai is/hope not a bad word/LOLOLO- rjwusa, on 03/11/2008, -14/+13His other alias should be, Sir Algore The Dunderhead.
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -10/+4As a dunderhead, I resent that insult ;-)
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -14/+8How does Lord Gore-acle stack up against the obamassiah? Can God-less demonrats have multiple gods at once?
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -4/+6Stop attaching Al Gore to climate change. That's like attaching George Bush to democracy. The science of climate change relies not on Al Gore or his Emissaries... it relies on the legions of scientists that research it.
- MidnightRealism, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Asking any of these people to think rationally is an exercise in futility. "Godless liberals" isn't a phrase I've heard anyone use in the last ten years but digg's userbase surprises me again. Besides, if the best they can do is focus on a strawman then maybe some good will come of their incompetence.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4"Asking any of these people to think rationally is an exercise in futility."
As a general guideline, I prefer never to assume this until having at least 30 minutes of solid conversation with someone. :)- MidnightRealism, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1I've had dozens of hours of conversation with their type already. They all fit very nicely into the same hole and treating them as different is ridiculous since it's pretty obvious they all think the same.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4"Asking any of these people to think rationally is an exercise in futility."
- texpundit, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5True, but nobody in the public and very few politicians paid attention to Climate Change until Gore sensationalized it.
Also, did you know that before Gore started *really* ramping up his rhetoric, a bunch of his CEO buddies started alternative energy companies? Did you also know that Gore sits on the CEO of a carbon credits trading company that he helped found about the same time? Did you know that upcoming laws and regulations will soon FORCE us to use their products? Sounds like a moneymaking scheme for Gore and his uber rich buddies, doesn't it?
Now, I'll agree that Climate Change is happening, but I've still yet to be convinced that it's human-caused. I tend to live as green as possible just out of principle: it's the right thing to do. What I DON'T agree with is politicians and opportunists using fear-driven marketing and political hysteria to line their pockets with energy subsidy money (my tax dollars), tax breaks and the income from laws that *force* companies and countries to bend to the will of greedy fearmongers.- bmcelrath, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2It's not only a scheme. It's a scam.
- MidnightRealism, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Asking any of these people to think rationally is an exercise in futility. "Godless liberals" isn't a phrase I've heard anyone use in the last ten years but digg's userbase surprises me again. Besides, if the best they can do is focus on a strawman then maybe some good will come of their incompetence.
- rjwusa, on 03/11/2008, -14/+13His other alias should be, Sir Algore The Dunderhead.
- Slugo, on 03/11/2008, -30/+40professors and scientists from "Elite" institutions and the mainstream media won't give them the time of day ..... people , wakeup ...it's a money grab
- rhoffer21, on 03/11/2008, -5/+12These people are saying there isnt a concensus, i.e. they dont know either way. So we have 2 options. 1 is to not do anything, and then if we are wrong and we are causing global warming then we are *****. The second option would be to spend some money to combat global warming and then if we are wrong what are we left with besides a cleaner environment? Oh noes we cant have that now can we. The Iraq war is a money grab, this is something we need to invest in.
- caerwyn, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6"Wake up"? Did you look at the source for this? Focus on the Family?
Look, if you don't agree with global warming, fine- but at least disagree based on a credible source. This is just as bad as someone saying that global warming must be true because they saw it on dailykos.
- RepubOperative, on 03/11/2008, -30/+36Nice to see John Stossel(sp), maybe 20/20 will run a report. I think given how important this is the article should have been four to five times as large....video as well.
- pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -4/+5when did john stossel become a climatologist?
- rficwizard, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3Since when does one need to be a scientist to understand science? Data is data. Anyone who understands high school science can understand the science involved in the climate change debate. The idea that only those with certain "qualifications" can judge scientific validity goes against the very basis of science.
- rficwizard, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Oops, I meant "data are data."
- pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3if you are going to refute the findings of thousands of scientists, you should at least have the same level of understanding on the subject as they do.
- rficwizard, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3"Qualifications" do not give one understanding. Experts are often wrong. Science is about reality. Anyone with a reasonable education can understand the science of climate change. The problem is not that it is hard to understand, the problem is that people don't want to. People decide which answer they want before they start looking at the data. Also, data are rarely presented to the public. We are expected to take the word of "experts." Both sides can get experts to say what they want them to say. The side with the most experts is not necessarily right. If we are going to have a discussion about science, we should do it scientifically. That means we must ask whether the data match the theories. Anything else brought into the discussion is NOT science. That includes "qualifications."
- DooM, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4@rfic: ""Qualifications" do not give one understanding. Experts are often wrong."
I'm still going to a qualified surgeon if I need quadruple bypass surgery. Sure, some self-taught guy who spent the night in a Holliday Inn Express COULD be better than the diploma/experience guy - but the odds are heavily against it.
- rficwizard, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3Since when does one need to be a scientist to understand science? Data is data. Anyone who understands high school science can understand the science involved in the climate change debate. The idea that only those with certain "qualifications" can judge scientific validity goes against the very basis of science.
- pintomp3, on 03/11/2008, -4/+5when did john stossel become a climatologist?
- Aidenag, on 03/11/2008, -33/+103Actually only 19 of them were scientists. And this "gathering' was organized and funded by the heartland institute.. The same think tank that gets payed by Phillip Morris to dispute the harm of smoking.......
They had so much trouble finding anyone willing to attend this sham of an event, that they made it a payed vacation for anyone willing. Journalists,Scientists,Economists, u name it.. They PAYED to have them show up.....
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla ...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...
- Iconoclast25, on 03/11/2008, -31/+21I'm sure to take someone who uses the word "payed" - THRICE - seriously. Come back when you finish grade school.
- Aidenag, on 03/11/2008, -25/+16Nice a global warming denier, and a grammer nazi... Im guessing you also smoke 2 packs a day thinking it is good for your health just because the heartland institute says it is..
- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -12/+15Can I get a pass from you, Aidenag... I've not seen the article, so I've not heard the report, but I'd already announced from my own scientific knowledge, the rather obvious and telling lies, and the dissent of more than 19 (more than 12,000 actually) real scientists that the global warming mythology was, well, mythology...
Oh... and I'm a grammar nazi too. That's GrammAr not Kelsey GrammEr...
And yes, smoking two packs a day is perfectly good for your health, but only if you smoke them in your ass.- Iconoclast25, on 03/11/2008, -8/+10He would have to be careful not to burn an eye . . . .
- lickmylovepump, on 03/11/2008, -8/+6talk about a 'warming' effect
- Iconoclast25, on 03/11/2008, -9/+7You would be guessing just as incorrectly as you are on "global warming," but thanks for playing. I'll see you when you come in from recess. HANDDA
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -4/+4Hey Icon:
http://www.answers.com/payed&r=67
Eat it. - Delphium226, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1@romistrub
pwned ;)
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -4/+4Hey Icon:
- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -12/+15Can I get a pass from you, Aidenag... I've not seen the article, so I've not heard the report, but I'd already announced from my own scientific knowledge, the rather obvious and telling lies, and the dissent of more than 19 (more than 12,000 actually) real scientists that the global warming mythology was, well, mythology...
- Delphium226, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2Posting some ad hominem drivel as response does not mean you've debunked his point. We await your reasoned retort.
- Aidenag, on 03/11/2008, -25/+16Nice a global warming denier, and a grammer nazi... Im guessing you also smoke 2 packs a day thinking it is good for your health just because the heartland institute says it is..
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -17/+4Check out http://www.takingliberty.us
It should enlighten you about environment change nazis' real agenda. If you want to rail against polluters, and want to rail to protect the environment, then rail against the mass of mostly plastic pollutants bobbing just under the surface of the north Pacific Ocean all the way from Japan to 500 miles west of California. Somebody or many somebodies contributed to that mass which is twice as big as the USA. Is that environment worthwhile to you?- variant5, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1Godwin's Law!
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -19/+6Here is another link to a 5-minute video trailer for an 81-minute DVD that uses scientific facts to refute St. algore's "manmade global warming" hoax. Remember: Provable Facts = Truth -vs- algore-isms = Provable LIES
http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com/glb_w ...- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -10/+6What, are people still trying to debunk Al Gore's pet project?
Why?
A judge in the UK ruled that a school could not use the film as an educational tool against parents wishes because the science was in all cases either disproven, in doubt, or questionable and open to debate, and as such the film represented political propaganda, not valuable scientific content.
All attempts to challenge Al Gore and his cronies to be accountable for that judicial ruling have been ignored, and they really don't like to talk about it, and instead spin more lies about how true it all is and how we can see how true it is because of all the non-existent drowning Polar Bears that we see in unmanipulated, objective video footage filmed by devotedly hysterical environmentalists who have absolutely no agenda whatsoever...
- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -10/+6What, are people still trying to debunk Al Gore's pet project?
- buildbyflying, on 03/11/2008, -9/+13I'm afraid the grammar nazi is wrong -- payed is correct usage in some parts of the world.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -15/+10Hey, Aidenag, Al gore was invited and offered $200,000 to speak at that conference. He declined.
James Hansen of NASA, who maintains the GISS, who was "censored" by the Bush administration on climate issues, he was invited and he works down the street from the conference. He declined.
If this conference was so biased by the heartland institute, why were those people invited?- EarlR, on 03/11/2008, -3/+6If the KKK had invited Martin Luther King to speak at their convention, I doubt he would have gone either.
- nihlton, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1yeah, i think the lack of participation is more of an indictment of the event, not those who declined.
- DisposableRob, on 03/11/2008, -3/+7Roy Thomas, the one climatologist mentioned is also an Intelligent Design proponent.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5Aw, people trying to reconcile religion with science. It's so cute!
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -2/+5A) Icon: Ignoring someone's points because they are spelled incorrectly is an ad hominem fallacy. Dispute the points, or else you lose the debate.
B) Aidenag: Calling someone a "global warming denier" is not going to get you anywhere. It will only reinforce Icon's concept of the "cult of global warming".
Carry on :) - kmichal, on 03/11/2008, -4/+5You may, or may not have a point, but why is it that no one has noticed or mentioned that one of the sponsors
of Al Gore's Live Earth concerts was Phillips - maker of fluorescent light bulbs that are going to save the world according to Gore.
And how come none of the Global Warming fanatics mention the fact that these light bulbs will cause the mercury levels in our drinking water
and the oceans to spike even more...
- Iconoclast25, on 03/11/2008, -31/+21I'm sure to take someone who uses the word "payed" - THRICE - seriously. Come back when you finish grade school.
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -26/+21"Environmental change" is a bigger umbrella than "global warming". It definitely hedges bets of the militantly fascist enviro/climate nazis.
Gotta give them credit for staying abreast of real science and re-defining the St. algore position to adapt. The sun just ended its spell of sunspot activity. Meanwhile, scientists have known, and the info is finally matriculating into the general populace, that Earth revolves around the center of gravity for the solar system. From Earth's position in galactic space, that's not always exactly where the sun is. If Jupiter and Saturn are on the Earth's side of the Sun, we orbit a little further from the Sun. We can orbit closer to the Sun if enough planets are the opposite side of the Sun. The solar system center of gravity shifts, even very slightly, depending on where planets are aligned. Slight changes in distance are enough to impact temperatures; especially in concert with sunspots and solar flares subsiding.
St. algore's enviro nazis achieved enough critical mass among brain-dead sheeple that they have a firm (but not absolute) grip on their goal to rule Earth's populace under the guise of saving the environment ~ saving Gaia Mother Earth from We The Planetary Cancer. They're prolifically creating "laws" to make it so.
Let's hope enough sheeple pay close attention to Truth-telling REAL scientists. And, by all means, let us re-visit and set straight the purpose of gov't. No more criminally insane, Draconian godvernment ruled by control-freak, power-crazed, despotic tyrants.- radicaldementia, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4wtf are you talking about? The earth's distance from the sun doesn't have much to do with changes in global climate, especially the distances you're talking about. In fact, during the winter (in the northern hemisphere) the earth is actually closer to the sun than in the summer. This is because seasons are caused by the earth's tilt towards the sun.
What you say about the solar center of gravity is correct, Earth's focus of orbit is not the sun's center of mass. However, the combined mass of every other object in the solar system is only about 1% of the sun's mass, and this 1% is spread over a very large area. So any change to the solar center of gravity relative to the sun would be very very minor, and would occur over a much longer period of time. This change is so minor that it would have no noticeable effects on our climate, especially in practical terms.- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Glad you're an astrophysicist. Exactly how much variance in distance from the Sun does it take to diminish heat that reaches Earth. Does 1,000,000 miles do it? Is Earth in an absolutely perfectly circular orbit? Does its distance never vary from the Sun? Is our distance always constant?
But all answers don't matter. Because, "earth's distance from the sun doesn't have much to do with changes in global climate". Ice core samples provide proof that opposes such a sweeping assertion. How do you explain CarbonDioxide traces in the ice trailing evidence of atmospheric heating?
Are you too emotionally committed to St. algore's "manmade global warming" scam to know Truth when it opposes junk "science"?
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Glad you're an astrophysicist. Exactly how much variance in distance from the Sun does it take to diminish heat that reaches Earth. Does 1,000,000 miles do it? Is Earth in an absolutely perfectly circular orbit? Does its distance never vary from the Sun? Is our distance always constant?
- Delphium226, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1hehe ^ Godwin's Law in action.
- radicaldementia, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4wtf are you talking about? The earth's distance from the sun doesn't have much to do with changes in global climate, especially the distances you're talking about. In fact, during the winter (in the northern hemisphere) the earth is actually closer to the sun than in the summer. This is because seasons are caused by the earth's tilt towards the sun.
- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -22/+16Actually, I like hearing scientists talk about 'environmental change.' It's nice to hear them admit that the climate is not something that you can measure as a constant, and therefore we can discard all comments that they have to make about circumstances and situations arising from 'environmental change' and start to deal in 'long-age' climatology instead of the sham that they have built on the basis of just how short the average human's recollection of weather conditions that they have experienced.
Interestingly enough, today a UK scientific think tank released the conclusion that last years' summer flooding in the UK (and by virtue the beginning of this year's 'unusual' weather) is NOTHING whatsoever to do with 'climate change' and is, surprise surprise, a perfectly normal, previously occurring set of weather circumstances which Britain has experienced before, and will experience again, with no evidence whatsoever that the Summer was unusually wet at all, compared to previous decades.
This whole myth relies upon prompting notions of relativism based on our perceived recollection of the weather for the past few years, which is provably flawed since the climatologists and meterologists use suitably leading 'evocative' phraseology to subliminally imply to us that whatever is happening today, it is more extreme than ever before, the wettest, the driest, the windiest, the warmest, the coldest, the most violent, the most unpredictable, the most....
These people are, and I emphasise the capital 'L' here... Liars.
They aren't even well researched and mistaken. They are Liars and the hapless and mindless, desperate to be counted in 'consensus' and hopeful that consensus compliance will create new fields of research and funding for them, and the possibility of becoming an authority in verbal horse *****, go along with the Liars, while real scientists who are not driven by consensus, and have nothing left to lose now that their reputations have been destroyed, dare to tell the public the truth.
The climatologists and environmentalists seem to forget that the spent years teaching us as children that the earth experiences peaks and cycles of 'ice ages'... and what happens after an ice age, eh? It gets bleeding warmer...
Stupid people.
And shame on the idiots who fall for this bullshizzle.- Lyph5, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4Has any scientist ever said that the climate was a constant? Even lowly news channel weathermen admit that the forecast beyond a day is grossly inaccurate because of all the variables involved.
- ZeniaZenin, on 03/11/2008, -18/+64That whole website is a bunch of religious propaganda. I'm highly skeptical about any article published there.
- IHaveIssues, on 03/11/2008, -8/+12Agreed.
- Lyph5, on 03/11/2008, -4/+4"Me too!" comments really add nothing to the conversation. Digg needs to follow slashdot with a 20 second minimum on composing comments.
- Antarcticn, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Yessss . . . I . . . I . . . b e e e l e e e e e v v . . . m iiii . . . Tee . . . Veee . . . g o d d z . . .
N-e-x-t . . . p-r-o-g-r-a-m . . . . . . n-e-e-d . . . m-o-r-e . . . p-r-o-g-r-a-m-m-i-n-g . . . K-W-I-K . . . h-u-r-r-r-r-e-e . . . b-r-a-i-n . . . izzz . . . e-m-p-t-y - flip2trip, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Can't win for losing with you guys---I didn't hear or see one religious reference in the article or in the video, except for the organization that filed it--you are a religous bigot.
- IHaveIssues, on 03/11/2008, -8/+12Agreed.
- oldhick, on 03/11/2008, -21/+10I'm just afraid that this will be seen as a "victory" for the more right leaning and conservative group that have been global warming skeptics for so long. You've endured some brutal Digg comment bashing from those that bought the story fed to them by the eco-whack jobs.
But while I think its excellent that some of the wind can be taken out of the global warming sales, but I think its also important to re-focus, in an honest and open dialog on some environmental topics and energy independence. We've spent so much time bickering over the myth of global warming that we lost site of some of the things a lot of us can agree on.- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -11/+7Wholly correct. The bickering needs to stop. It will stop when people stop telling other people how to live, how to be a "good person" by being green and avoid being a "bad person" by being more wasteful.
It will stop when we no longer have scientists called shills for saying what they believe.
When it does stop, you're absolutely correct in saying that we badly need to discuss energy in a fair way.- satanatnmtedu, on 03/11/2008, -3/+11It won't stop. You both have spent your comments telling me how to live and act while decrying "others" that tell others how to live and act.
Hypocrites.- oldhick, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I apologize for using the phrase "eco-whack jobs". That certainly was a bit hypocritical and certainly far from constructive. But I do hope we can move forward with substantive changes that will clean up our environment.
- MassMopar, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5I believe what they're saying is who gives a ***** if global warming is anthropogenic or not, the bickering over who's right or wrong overshadows the actual improvements we should be working towards as a global population. I don't know anyone who thinks we should purposefully pollute the environment, so even you can agree with me. All I'm saying is using renewable energy that is sustainable and less detrimental to the environment is a good thing. I drive a V8 and enjoy a good BBQ, and pray to god oil & coal don't disappear entirely, but I 100% support my house, work, municipality, and country making the move to run on renewables as much as possible. THAT is what we should be working towards.
- oldhick, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2@MassMopar, you seem to be the only one getting it. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm simply saying, lets stop the bickering about IF its man made or not. Lets stop calling "doubters" idiots. I'll stop calling people whackjobs.
We need to work on cleaning up our environment, being less wasteful, finding alternative energy sources REGARDLESS of global warming being man-made or not. This entire debate is simply a distraction.
- satanatnmtedu, on 03/11/2008, -3/+11It won't stop. You both have spent your comments telling me how to live and act while decrying "others" that tell others how to live and act.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4oldhick, I think you're being dugg down because many people believe that climate change is a severe threat to humanity. In which case, to say we should put it on the backburner in favour of other endeavours would not go over particularly well.
Also, you're a reasonable person... don't go jumping on any bandwagon here. Yes, there are eco whackjobs, but there are also tonnes of legitimate scientists that want nothing more than to figure out what's causing this climate change, and to dull its severity.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -11/+7Wholly correct. The bickering needs to stop. It will stop when people stop telling other people how to live, how to be a "good person" by being green and avoid being a "bad person" by being more wasteful.
- cababika799, on 03/11/2008, -16/+12It astounds me how easily led are the people who call others dimwitted and easily led.
I am no longer an advocate for the war in Iraq, yet I find that roughly (with exception) the same people that highlight fear-mongering about terrorism are the same people that fall to the same fear-mongering involved in environmental change.- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -4/+6I'm really amazed - you come down on the other side for being so self-righteous, and here you are, being self-righteous yourself. Why not just wait it out and see what happens?
- breezytrees, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1yes. he's waiting it out to see what happens. He's not falling for the "we need to wiretap ur home without a warrant for your safety", or the "sorry you can't drive a car that runs on gas anymore also for your safety"
He's "waiting it out" just as you say. He'd just rather not give up things in his life that are important to him in the process: his privacy, and a cheap and useful mode of transportation.- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3What the hell does any of what you just said have anything to do with the global warming debate?
- breezytrees, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1sorry, I did not mean to attack you. I think me and you share similar viewpoints.
What i mean to say, and perhaps you are in agreement, is: Why should one jump to a conclusion while one awaits a conclusion?
Why should I give up my v8 gas guzzling truck which I actually take advantage of on the grounds that it causes global warming (which leads to the end of the world) when that conclusion cannot be decisively concluded yet.- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I would argue that you should give it up because I don't want to have to choke down your exhaust, but that's completely unrelated to global warming, is my point.
- breezytrees, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1how the ***** isn't it related to global warming?
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Because me not wanting to choke on car fumes has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is man-made. Even if there is no global warming, I still don't want to choke on car fumes.
- breezytrees, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Okay. Ignoring the fact that my gas guzzling truck may or may not cause Global Warming, I also do not like choking on car fumes, but i'd also like to get up my driveway / live my life. I live in a place that absolutely requires a vehicle that has 4x4, a lot of clearance, and my lifestyle/profession benefits from a truck bed (I race mountain bikes). I could buy a new truck that doesn't pollute / also gets amazing gas milage but since my profession isn't exactly the most lucrative I'd prefer to spend the money on a new bike, which happens to currently be worth more than my truck. Oh, I also have a small two seater that gets 35mpg for trips to the grocery store etc in the summer.
I will not give up my truck because that would prevent me from racing mountain bikes and respectfully tell you to ***** off and not tell me how to live my life or other peoples lives.... which is entirely my point.
- breezytrees, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1yes. he's waiting it out to see what happens. He's not falling for the "we need to wiretap ur home without a warrant for your safety", or the "sorry you can't drive a car that runs on gas anymore also for your safety"
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -4/+6I'm really amazed - you come down on the other side for being so self-righteous, and here you are, being self-righteous yourself. Why not just wait it out and see what happens?
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -15/+8Okay, why are we still arguing over global warming? Would somebody please explain to me why it's so damn important? People make such a fuss about it. Natural, man-made, temperatures going up, down, or sideways, global disaster vs. minor adjustment... We'll find out when we get there, people. I mean, are "I told you so" rights really that important? Let's be rational here, people. It doesn't matter who's right, and it's not like we won't know soon enough.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -11/+6Global warming is controversial because we now have politicians who want to pass laws that restrict your freedoms under the guise of "saving the planet" from global warming. Many of these laws restrict overall production of economies. It's socialism/communism all over again.
For instance, if you put a "carbon cap" on a country (which is reality as far as Kyoto is concerned), then you have a problem wherein the companies and even citizens in that country all contribute to a single number which must be kept lower than say, "X". Well, that creates an artificial restriction on just how much that country can produce each year. The bitch of it comes when you realize that in Kyoto (which was crafted to fight global warming), the "developing" countries such as, oh, China, have no restrictions on them whatsoever. The only reason that would be done is to penalize the United States for being so successful. China is catching up soo fast to the U.S., that it is likely to pass them in economic production in the next decade or so.
This is an argument because some people want to tell other people how to live based on a notion of "saving the planet" from "man-made global warming." This is how most arguments start and maintain themselves, with someone telling someone else what to do.- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -3/+6Because it's infringing upon my right to breathe clean air. That's why we need these restrictions. Global warming be damned! Perhaps the manner in which the situation's being handled is wrong, but the overall goal, to cut down on emissions, is a very worthwhile one regardless of global warming. Quite frankly, I'm not too fond of the argument that we should keep dumping crap into the air simply because someone else told us not to. Forget Kyoto, man, that's just immature! We have a responsibility to ourselves. That's like not wearing a seatbelt simply because you resent seatbelt laws. Perhaps seatbelt laws are ridiculous and unfair in your eyes, but it doesn't make wearing a seatbelt any less of a good idea.
- EarlR, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4Because there is a faint chance that we might not have 90% of our damn cities underwater if we do something. Personally, I think it's too late and we have completely screwed the weather and we will lose everywhere below 10 meters above current sea level. Thats quite a large chunk of our most productive farmland too.
- LeadOffMan, on 03/11/2008, -8/+2it's all about wealth redistribution, nothing more
- norman619, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2It's about chocolate, nothing more.
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2SO WHY NOT JUST SAY THAT? Why not just say "Look, the cause of global warming is completely irrelevant to the discussion here." Why all this doublespeak, this bickering, etc.? Why the hell won't anybody just get to the damn point?
- caoilte, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4At a certain point climate change (eg melting permafrost, greenland's glacier) have dramatic and irreversible consequences for sea levels and climate; they enter a self enforcing feed back cycle. Periods of climate change are also geologically associated with massive reductions in biodiversity, which will be a shame.
- macweirdo42, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2So what? We'll freakin' find out when we get there, won't we? If you're arguing that climate change is man-made, so-freakin'-what? If it's not man-made, so what? What changes in our behavior here? You can't say we should reduce pollution - we should already be doing that, as well as developing alternative energy sources and reducing our oil dependency, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -11/+6Global warming is controversial because we now have politicians who want to pass laws that restrict your freedoms under the guise of "saving the planet" from global warming. Many of these laws restrict overall production of economies. It's socialism/communism all over again.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/11/2008, -19/+32WOWOWOW 500! That's a big number!
Let's say I ignore the fact that there are over 20,000 registered environmental scientists in the US and that they are represented by various professional associations which all support the IPCC, recipient of a Nobel prize.
Does that mean that 500 scientists not agreeing with the REST OF THE WORLD becomes an argument for anything? No!
Popularity isn't an indicator of truth. So this is entirely wrong.- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -17/+21You just invalidated yourself.
You presented a number, 20,000 to somehow squash another number, 500 and declare your number more meaninful.
And then you say "popularity isn't an indicator of truth."
You need to stop posting, you're going to blow up some people's sense of humor from laughing at you.- ElAssoWipo, on 03/11/2008, -11/+10http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/reading-tutors/ ...
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -8/+10http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/argue.html
- LesTesmel, on 03/11/2008, -5/+2thank you!
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/11/2008, -11/+10http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/reading-tutors/ ...
- skipdog172, on 03/11/2008, -5/+4What I don't get is that I just watched a special on PBS with Alan Alda where he spoke with all kinds of various climatologists and other scientists. Not a single one of them could come out and say "Global warming is man-made". They all said something like "it could be man-made" or "we know the climate is changing, but we can't say whether it is man-made or natural". They were all focused on the results of what is happening to our planet RIGHT NOW and all of this arguing about the CAUSE is just stupid. Watching that special and see all of these scientists who clearly had doubts that global warming was man-made made me feel like maybe I'm not insane for doubting the man-made aspect of global warming. YES clean energy is good and we should welcome/embrace it as much as we can. Ridding ourself of our dependance on oil would be WONDERFUL! A carbon tax would just be going way too far imo.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/11/2008, -0/+9You're absolutely correct and wrong at the same time.
Carbon tax is federal and international organism initiative. It has absolutely nothing to do with the work of climatologists. It's what deniers use to try and make people they can't argue with look bad. Most environemental scientists promote population control and alternative fuels, not taxes. Taxes are always promoted by politicians. Neither fossil fuel producers or alternative fuels producers would actually benefit from it, and the environment is not aware of who put the ***** in the ground. It just knows there's ***** in the ground.
But, there is no measure of the human impact on the climate. That means both sides are full of *****. There is absolutely no measure in place to determine how much co2 in the air is caused by humans and how much that co2 contributes to global warming. Only thing we know for sure is that the greenhouse effect makes the earth hotter and that co2 is a greehouse gas. So, saying that humans don't contribute at all is wrong. Saying humans are the cause is wrong. We know we participate, but we don't how significant that is.
But, like you said, man made global warming or not, not polluting is a good thing. So it doesn't really matter. There is no future in fossil fuels, unless we find a way to make the process of creating fossil fuels a little shorter than millions of years.
As for the carbon tax, it's just dumb. Implementing it would require such a huge investment and waste of ressources that it defeats its own purpose.
That's why the consensus doesn't mean anything. They could be 1,000,000 to be sure that global warming is man made: still no measure of the impact.
- ElAssoWipo, on 03/11/2008, -0/+9You're absolutely correct and wrong at the same time.
- romistrub, on 03/11/2008, -2/+9@ Big,
ElAssoWipo is correct. He is stating that the article relies on numbers to prove that it has a legitimate point. However, he offers two rebuttals:
1) The pro "human-caused" faction has greater numbers, and
2) Popularity means nothing with regards to the credibility of an argument.
These two points are entirely independent of the other, and he states clearly that (2) overrides (1).- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -5/+11) Is debatable, even potentially incorrect. At best this is a complete unknown.
2) If popularity means nothing, why put the number 20,000 in his post? The only explanation for that is that he wanted to make popularity an issue, which means he invalidates himself.- ElAssoWipo, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Are you wearing a helmet right now?
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -5/+11) Is debatable, even potentially incorrect. At best this is a complete unknown.
- Delphium226, on 03/11/2008, -1/+7Actually only a handful of them were actually scientists, the rest were theologians, economists and various other people whose qualifications to speak with authority on global warming are tenuous at best.
- flip2trip, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1You contradicted yourself there skippy--time to take your nap.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -17/+21You just invalidated yourself.
- kinseyincanada, on 03/11/2008, -5/+35Ok even if you don't believe in Global Warming, how can you honestly say that searching for clean energy, and reducing our carbon emissions is a bad thing? I really doubt that this is all just some huge conspiracy to get money, because every one knows that knows large Oil companies surely want you to stop giving them your money.
- Herostratus, on 03/11/2008, -10/+6Replace one pollutant (which isnt really a pollutant) with worse ones... and taxing you for it, thats what this is all about. Also gives them an excuse to charge you more for what you were already paying a high price for.
- num3thod, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6"...even if you don't believe in Global Warming, how can you honestly say that searching for clean energy, and reducing our carbon emissions is a bad thing?"
I totally agree. The world's largest industry is energy, which is dominated by oil revenues. So the logic goes:
Largest industry = most revenue
Most revenue = most powerful lobby
Most powerful lobby = you're an apathetic fool if you don't know what comes next. - skyshock1, on 03/11/2008, -4/+5Reduce CO2 emissions? The trees will retaliate and reduce their O2 emissions. Think of the trees!
- norman619, on 03/11/2008, -2/+5Will you people PLEASE get your ***** right? No one is saying the globe didn't warm. What people are arguing over is the actual CAUSE of the rises, and now the drop. Global Warming isn't something to be believed in like a religion, even though people do treat it as such. I have yet to see anyone explain the deistic drop in global temps w/o ANY decrease in any of the supposed factors the alarmists have been pointing to as the causes. If anything these factors have gone up not down. They don't try to explain or acknowledge its implications. Instead they make personal insults or pretend it didn't happen. Fact is this drastic drop in global temps in just 12 months implies CO2 and pollution levels have very little, if anything, to do with the rise and fall of global temps. This would take the wind out of their sails so....
- buildbyflying, on 03/11/2008, -11/+5@EIA: Dugg for making some f-ing sense.
- swrostmore, on 03/11/2008, -8/+21"Debunking" ...haha.... now here's a story that deserves its' inevitable inaccuracy tag.
- crashdvis, on 03/11/2008, -9/+4Diggnut #1 has just reported in. Inaccurate because you disagree. Here you are representing all your diggnut followers to try to bury the stories you disagree with while digging all Karl Rove stories you can find...you don't even have a shred of credibility...you are nothing more than a screaming lefty...
- swrostmore, on 03/11/2008, -0/+7My opinion isn't the issue here. My credibility isn't up for discussion, I'm not making any scientific claims. Blatantly false and biased article titles are the issue. Point to the part in this conference that "debunks" anything - oh wait you can't, because it never happened. Lies in article titles = buried inaccurate, that shouldn't have anything to do with your beloved partisan politics. Even when the lies confirm your pre-existing bias, they are still lies and should be buried.
- Delphium226, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1"you are nothing more than a screaming lefty"
Is that a bad thing? You're a ***** (not the nice type). Now that's a bad thing ;)
- crashdvis, on 03/11/2008, -9/+4Diggnut #1 has just reported in. Inaccurate because you disagree. Here you are representing all your diggnut followers to try to bury the stories you disagree with while digging all Karl Rove stories you can find...you don't even have a shred of credibility...you are nothing more than a screaming lefty...
- egocogito, on 03/11/2008, -8/+27Wow, I feel like we should be done with this anti-scientific psudo-intellectual rubbish already. For a bunch of self-stiled 'free thinkers,' most of the people I see here are cooperate puppets.
I have read through Environment & Climate News, the publication that the Heartland Institute spams to virtually every elected official in this county, more than once and it is little more than a mouthpiece for tobacco and oil apologists. I remember the 'documentry' that Heartland was pushing just recently; the Great Global Warming Swindle. It actually had me pretty convinced until I bothered to do some rudimentary fact checking and realized that primary data analysis used to 'refute' the mainstream was fabricated and that scientists featured in the film have since accused the filmmaker of seriously misrepresenting their views.
I am ignorant of the theory de jour that is being thrown around by deniers right now, but tell me this; if your conspiracy theory about how the arrogant liberal elitists are misleading the world holds water, where is the peer reviewed work to back it up? This is not exactly a new issue, it should have been accumulating for the past 20 years... right?
This idea of 'environmental change' is a straw man argument. No legitimate scientist believes that the world's climate is static and the major models reflect this. The claim has nothing to do with 'oh noze, teh invirnmentz r changin for the first timez eveh!' It is that current change is too great to be due to non-anthropogenic sources alone.- egocogito, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3And this is my first comment, so I didn't notice that I only had 120 seconds to fix typos. My apologies for my engrish skills.
- jonnyboy1544, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3I don't understand why a different theory on climate change is taken so negatively... and not to oversimplify but we can't even predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy. How in the world do you think we can accurately predict a temperature shift over the next several years?
- caerwyn, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5Actually, that's also a straw man- our inability to predict the micro level is not an indicator of our ability to predict the macro level.
Consider predicting waves: As wind increases, the size of waves increase, and we can predict that pretty well. What we can't predict is the exact wave height at a specific point, because of all the complexities involved. That doesn't invalidate the general validity of the wave-height model, it only exposes micro-level limitations in its applicability.- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Listen to you... 'it's a straw man.' It's not a frigging 'straw man'... Why can't you just admit that if science rules out thousands and thousands of years of evidence of cyclical fluctuation, in order to build a model out of just the last half century, and use it to predict the coming hundred years and beyond, then science is blind to the context of the situation it is trying to predict and preempt in much the same way as a blind man with the memory of a goldfish will conclude, by stepping up on a kerb, that the next step must also be a step up and the last step must have been a step up, and the next step after that, and the next step after that, and so on... Put another way, what science is doing right now is the equivalent of a child who has never seen snow stepping out of the house, and feeling the first snowflake fall on his nose, assumes that he must have caused the snow to start falling by coming out of the house, and seeing more flakes coming down, believes that the snow will now never stop falling and that it's all his fault. There isn't a single rational reason why anyone claiming defence under the 'straw man' argument has ANY authority to do so at all, except in the desire to sound like they actually know what they're talking about, and aren't busy justifying nonsense in order to maintain the appearance of authority and continuity.
Just admit... 'we don't know... we've been doing the research badly and we could have been drawing the wrong conclusions for the wrong reasons, and a lot of us have believed an awful lot of what could be complete ***** having not actually been the ones doing the research ourselves, but believing everything we hear in 'science' circles and 'peer led' reviews of research, assuming blindly that we couldn't be possibly being lied to, and are incapable of falling for the lies anyway...
'Wave height model?' Reminder: British Meterologists couldn't predict a hurricane when it was literally a few hours away from striking. 'Models' are all well and good, but they constantly assume constancy. Yes, wave height models will be fairly easy to predict, if the atmospheric pressure doesn't change, if the direction of the air current doesn't change, if it's speed doesn't increase or decrease and if the solar and or lunar effects on tides doesn't suddenly change. Conclusion... there are 101 situations in which what we claim is 'easy to predict' is frustrated entirely. And arrogance in the accuracy with which certain observable and predictable events can be predicted is no excuse for the complete ignorance of thousands of years of evidence in order to make a very selective, very specific case out of just 50 years.
- SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Listen to you... 'it's a straw man.' It's not a frigging 'straw man'... Why can't you just admit that if science rules out thousands and thousands of years of evidence of cyclical fluctuation, in order to build a model out of just the last half century, and use it to predict the coming hundred years and beyond, then science is blind to the context of the situation it is trying to predict and preempt in much the same way as a blind man with the memory of a goldfish will conclude, by stepping up on a kerb, that the next step must also be a step up and the last step must have been a step up, and the next step after that, and the next step after that, and so on... Put another way, what science is doing right now is the equivalent of a child who has never seen snow stepping out of the house, and feeling the first snowflake fall on his nose, assumes that he must have caused the snow to start falling by coming out of the house, and seeing more flakes coming down, believes that the snow will now never stop falling and that it's all his fault. There isn't a single rational reason why anyone claiming defence under the 'straw man' argument has ANY authority to do so at all, except in the desire to sound like they actually know what they're talking about, and aren't busy justifying nonsense in order to maintain the appearance of authority and continuity.
- WasabiBomb, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3For the same reason that we can say that the weather will be a good bit warmer in 3 months than it is right now- because weather isn't the same thing as climate.
- jonnyboy1544, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1And global warming isn't the same as the solstice you *****.
- caerwyn, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5Actually, that's also a straw man- our inability to predict the micro level is not an indicator of our ability to predict the macro level.
- Logicexe, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Oh common now, we were having so much fun being irrational and running around screaming "oh noez the liberalz are coming to get me! Al Gore is the next Hitler!" and you had to come in with your rational comment.
Forget everything you've "learned" forget your "thinking" (whatever that is) and just buy into the anti-global warming hype! It's so much more fun! - SampleX, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3"where is the peer reviewed work to back it up?"
You don't understand the principle behind 'agenda' or 'consensus' do you? You don't fully understand what it means to be given instruction on things from people who a GOVERNMENT says are the 'only authority', and then, when you protest it, with your degree and doctorate which is just as good as theirs, to be told that it won't be published because the 'peers' (read as 'government chosen scientists who are being paid large sums for this research') don't think there's any merit in it. You don't fully appreciate what the nature of a politically motivated propaganda machine actually is? Somehow you think that even if this WERE a conspiracy of colossal scale, 'science' would be able to present a democratic view on the situation. Get real. Start reading some of the stories of what has happened to PROMINENT scientists, and household names, because they are 'deniers.' When you see what has been done to them, you'll realise how deep this conspiracy goes, how total it is, and just how insidious the hierarchy behind it actually is.
I would point you to the case of David Bellamy.
David Bellamy is a naturalist, and was a staple on British television when I was a child, teaching children conservationism, good science, earth management and the like. He is an 'environmentalist' without the 'agendism and hysteria.' He was constantly consulted on all kinds of 'popular science' issues especially those pertaining to 'acid rain' (remember that hysteria?), 'global cooling', the extinction of species, and ecology and climate. And having met him, he is an absolutely sterling, lovely bloke, and as such, he supported a lot of charities and was on the board of charities, as a figurehead, as a spokesperson. When he came out against 'global warming mythology' as being 'poppycock', which is one of David's famous 'television' words for 'complete load of bollocks' (I understand he believes that the earth's climate is cyclical and not remotely affected by human activity) he suddenly noticed that the media froze him out... his contracts were dropped and not renewed, his opinion was no longer sought, he was out in the cold, shunned, and then they started to bad-mouth him, and run him down, and denigrate his qualifications, and laugh at him... why? because he didn't believe in global warming, their new religion. Then he noticed that the charities he fronted, most of which were nothing to do with anything even remotely connected to 'global warming' or climate science, were pushing him out. Some terminated their association with him citing that his position on global warming science was 'incompatible' with their own... Can you imagine how hurtful and harmful that was for him? Now... imagine that kind of power, that kind of threat, levied against every potential dissenter... you'd find typically that the more prominent scientists, those with much to lose, would buy into the scheme, while those who are on the fringe with nothing to lose might buck the trend... and that's exactly what you DO find, and they use the 'prominence' of the supporters as an endorsement of their position, and the obscurity of the opponents as the justification for why they should be ignored. You have no idea how inbred, competitive, complicit and corrupt the scientific community actually is, if you think that these things are not possible.
Last I heard David Bellamy had been able to join a scientific foundation of other scientists who hold the same views and have the same kind of experiences of exclusion and isolation from their 'peers'.
I've also noticed that denying 'global warming' mythology is often tackled by the insinuation of a comparison. Two comparisons, in fact... I've heard supposedly properly qualified scientists say 'denying the human cause of global warming is like denying the holocaust.' And the first sign of propaganda in social manipulation on something like a 'scientific' issue is to take something which is not even remotely related, something totally unequal, but totally undeniable, and claim that the two things are the same thing, the trickery behind such a tactic being that the public, unable and unwilling and indeed AFRAID to deny the Holocaust will immediately have triggered in their psychology an instant acceptance of the weaker of the comparitives which is carried along on the coattails of the recognition of the former. The other comparison that is made is that 'denying the human cause of global warming is like denying the Big Bang.' Similar tactic, but this time using the appearance of an undeniable scientific truth which has itself been hard-code indoctrinated into the children in schools for so long that it is a part of every living persons' concept of 'science', in spite of the fact that it is a weak and flimsy (and scientifically impossible) postulation of unwitnessed, unevidenced, and utterly ridiculous events which have themselves been hammered into collective psyche as a hallmark of absolute truth, the insinuati