What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
200 Comments
- BrandonJM, on 07/01/2009, -7/+34*Shock!*
- spacecoyote, on 07/01/2009, -14/+38"Pro-doubt" isn't necessarily anti-science.
- serif69, on 07/01/2009, -5/+26If anything, skepticism should be at the root of all science.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -8/+26Anytime someone shows you a source claiming that global warming is a hoax, check out who's funding it by using Sourcewatch.org
Or more specifically, the climate change portal http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal: ...
Here is the wikipedia article on sourcewatch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceWatch - beetrixi, on 07/01/2009, -5/+19What else would they be doing?
- askantik, on 07/02/2009, -11/+25Man, the anti-science brigade is in full force today. Newsflash: most people who are deniers/skeptics, are skeptical because they are ignorant on the subject and don't understand what global warming really is. Prime example: people who say, "OMFUGZ, it snowed!! Global warming is a hoax!! LOLOLOL!!!11"
95% of scientists who have any credibility in climatology or related fields agree that global warming is not only real and a big deal, it's primarily accelerated by humans. Period. If you are going to disagree, don't spew ***** or "liberal" rhetoric... not even the "it's just to scare us!!!" mess. Provide studies and/or credible scientists that disagree. Until then, kindly be quiet. - womweasel, on 07/01/2009, -11/+24True, this is old news (a high profile Newsweek article did a good job of bringing it to everyone's attention a year or so ago). However, creating doubt is very effective, so as long as big carbon producers keep up their pro-doubt/anti-science message, journalists should continue to inform the public of the conflict of interest that lies behind the attacks on science.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 - funkeepickle, on 07/02/2009, -2/+15That petition was a failed attempt at another Oregon Petition, by the same "institute". It's filled with names of people with bachelor degrees in fields such as Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine. There have also been many actual scientists who have requested their names be taken off the list because they had no idea how their names got on it.
The reality of the situation is that AGW is overwhelmingly accepting as truth within the scientific community.
See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -3/+14"Man made global warming is a scam."
While this is what a number of industry pressure group misinformation campaigns might want to lead you to believe, if you look over the peer reviewed scientific data (e.g. Journal of Climate, IPCC reports, etc.) you'll see that this is not the case. - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -1/+12"man made greenhouse gas global warming climate change has been DEBUNKED."
When and how?
"Real scientists stated that global temperatures would fall during the next solar minimum and THEY WERE RIGHT."
Essentially the entire scientific community involved knows that short term fluctuations in temperature are related to solar cycles, ENSO events, the PDO and the like. However, global warming deals with timescales on the order of thirty years. RANDOM CAPS. - funkeepickle, on 07/02/2009, -2/+12The Great Global Warming Swindle was full of errors and outright lies, please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
and from the dailytech article:
"While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns."
NASA acknowledges AGW. The article you linked to was an editorial. - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -3/+13"Global Warming is a scam. Most scientist say its a scam"
Nearly every major association of scientists in the world have expressed just the opposite in their position statements. - Yage2006, on 07/02/2009, -7/+16I hate hearing them called climate skeptics cause real skeptics are suppose to use scientific methods to arrive at their opinions.
I prefer to call them climate change deniers because what they say flies in the face of all the evidence "so far"
Not that I'm a climate change alarmist either but some of the things these "skeptics" say is not very skeptical at all.
For example it was cooler this year then last year so global warming must not be true. - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -4/+13No, because climate deals with timescales on the order of at least 30 years, whereas what you're discussing is just a few years' worth of weather.
- TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -3/+12"Considering that most of the scientists who originally spoke of global warming are now saying that the earth has been cooling for the last 7 years, someone has to say it."
Climate deals with timescales on the order of 30 years. On longer timescales, the overall trend is quite clear: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography- ...
"Why isn't it also news when the Global Warming community will not allow opposing science to be presented."
What are you talking about, specifically?
"Why won't the facts be heard?"
They are, all the time, in the peer reviewed scientific literature. - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -3/+12"We exhale CO2 all these carbon taxes/credits are literally a tax to breath."
Incorrect, unless you breathe fossil fuels.
"The net-effects of warming are actually POSITIVE for the planet"
Again, incorrect. While there are some positive outcomes for various regions, the overall effects are negative—and quite profoundly so: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm - publiclurker, on 07/02/2009, -4/+12It's easy to be profitable when you can make everyone else pay the costs of your failures.
- zachstanley, on 07/02/2009, -8/+16Except when pro-doubt means ignoring science altogether. I fully agree all scientists should be skeptical, but a lot of said "pro-doubt" climatology completely throws out the scientific process, seeking to disprove man-made change for political or financial reasons rather than to feel out an alternative view for the advancement of our knowledge.
- Math, on 07/02/2009, -0/+8Not only that, the real Skeptics Society actually supports the scientific conclusions of Global Warming science.
- TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -3/+11"Considering that your "global warming" cycle ended about 8 years ago, I'd say that anyone with a brain is 'skeptical'."
Considering that global warming is referencing a climate phenomenon, and hence dealing with timescales on the order of 30 years, minimum, I'd say that anyone who was referencing an 8 year period was either disingenuous or uninformed.
There are too many errors in your link to get into each one here. Some of them are very obvious points, such as where the fellow goes on about how climate science can't progress because it lacks a 'control', ignoring that this same line of reasoning would cause us to throw out astronomy, geophysics, geology, oceanography, atmospheric physics among many other fields—for we don't have a "control universe" or "control Earth" to work with. Other, more subtle errors include showing a graph of solar irradiance by Soon that is not supported by any of Soon's sources, etc. - kingnova, on 07/02/2009, -5/+12please tell me you don't vote or procreate.
- TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -3/+10"lobal carbon tax? You mean the elite bankers which we will all have to pay directly?"
No, it should be carried out in a revenue-neutral manner, similar to the one presently in use in BC, Canada: http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/backgrounders/b ... - Barackalypse, on 07/02/2009, -20/+27"Global temperatures continued to slide in May 2008. Meteorologist Anthony Watts details the cooling temperatures in a report titled “Global Temperature Dives in May.” The new global temperature data reveals a whopping three quarters of a degree Celsius drop in temperatures since January 2007"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...
That would seem to disagree with the "reality" of global warming, would it not? - Math, on 07/02/2009, -1/+8This would be the petition that had Michael J. Fox, Ginger Spice, and John Grisham as scientists that signed it?
You probably don't need much funding to make up names for a list. - SpinningHead, on 07/02/2009, -4/+11In many of our cities, we can pay extra to buy only wind or solar power.
- Math, on 07/02/2009, -1/+8The author of the letter for that petition, Frederick Seitz also funded research that claimed that cigarette smoke is harmless, and was paid by the tobacco industry. His famous quote:
"As long as its green, I'm not quite sure about this moralistic issue."
Also, anyone can sign that petition without any verification and many of the signatories are fictitious characters or actors such as Michael J. Fox, Ginger Spice and Hawkeye Pierce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I - Trent1492, on 07/02/2009, -3/+10"global warming is still a myth"
This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile. - SpinningHead, on 07/02/2009, -2/+9We can do it in Colorado and its not that expensive.
Denver also recycles for us and generates enough money from it to pay for our free garbage pick-up. - Math, on 07/02/2009, -8/+15I had a Global Warming denier make the argument to me yesterday that doubting evolution wasn't anti-science either.
If you have ALL the major scientific organisations in the world (NASA, CSIRO, Royal Society, EPA, etc..) in agreement on a scientific topic, then in media, advertising or education it is not responsible to give equal time to dissenting views. It is a similar problem with anti-evolution education/media in the US.
If a scientist has a differing opinion with new evidence, then they should should publish a scientific paper that can be peer reviewed.
But I haven't seen any scientific papers (or computer models) written by climatologists with an argument that global warming doesn't exist, and there have been hundreds of papers confirming the mainstream scientific view. - Math, on 07/02/2009, -2/+8This is the film that presents hundreds of outright lies as facts?
Gems such as "volcanoes produce hundreds of times more co2 than we ever could", which could be fact checked by a five second Google search or by asking any Scientist. It also includes graphs with intentionally misleading scales, data removed, and false sources.
This film was created to be purposefully deceitful, and has resulted in hundreds of outright lies, parroted by scientifically illiterate skeptics posting "facts" on Digg. "Facts" that can be proven false with a 5 second Google search. - kingnova, on 07/02/2009, -1/+7"What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"
- zachstanley, on 07/02/2009, -2/+7I would like to hear discussion from those who dugg Math (below) and me down, just out of curiosity. Do you object to peer verification of science? Do you have your own qualms with climate change which you'd like to support with evidence? Please speak up!
- Hrodrik, on 07/02/2009, -2/+7Skeptical is one thing. Stubborn is another.
- NiftyG, on 07/02/2009, -1/+6Electricity mostly comes from coal these days. Coal is pretty dirty, but even generating it with coal and using it to charge a car emits less CO2/pollution than burning gasoline in a car.
There's also the option of other forms of energy. The US installed more wind power than any other country last year. In the next few years, we should also be leading in utility scale solar. You can also install your own solar and charge your car that way.
..oh, and the batteries in electric cars are fully recyclable (they don't use lead, btw.) - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -4/+9That depends on your location. Moreover, at the very least, buying an electric car doesn't bind you to fossil fuel consumption in the same way that buying a car that runs on fossil fuels does. As we continue to shift to alternative energy sources, the electricity that powers the car no longer needs to come from fossil fuels.
- Math, on 07/02/2009, -4/+9If a temperature sequence goes:
20, 21, 21, 22, 21, 22, 23, 23, 22, 24, 23. Then just because the last reading was slightly lower than the previous one, you can't really say it is cooling.
2007 was the second hottest year on record. 2008 was a little bit cooler that 2007, but was still a significantly warmer than the norm with a much earlier spring, and up to 4 Degrees Celsius warmer in Europe:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id= ...
- funkeepickle, on 07/02/2009, -5/+10".038 percent. That's the total percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... That's about TWO-FIFTHS... of a TENTH... of a PERCENT. And apparently, it's destroying the planet."
Holy crap what a discovery! "Carbon dioxide cannot have a large impact on the earth's climate because it only makes up a relatively small amount of the earth's atmosphere." You should publish a scientific paper on this, you'll be famous! I can't believe that no one's ever thought of this before!
*sigh*
Ignorant and proud of it, unfortunately that's not very uncommon amongst your crowd. - Ultomato, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5"Plus you can add tons of lead to the environment every time there is a wreck or an electric car goes to the junk yard. Exellent reasons all."
"Do you know where electricity comes from? *shakes head* unbelievable, the ignorance of the brain washed."
please educate yourself your the one brainwashed. there is no lead in electric cars. also u may have heard of these things called renewable energies to make electricity such as solar power and wind power. im surprised u can operate a computer. or you just work for an oil company and you dont want to lose your job. - vikingcoder, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6Skeptics ask questions seeking knowledge, and acknowledge when their questions have been answered. Deniers ask questions to protect their beliefs & desires and continue asking the same questions endlessly regardless of being continually pointed to independently validated scientific research that answers their questions.
Ideological gullibility does not trump the accumulated scientific knowledge. - m4vtch, on 07/02/2009, -4/+8Yeah whether they're honest or not does not affect us at all as long as we can get gas for a reasonable price. It's not like our own backyards are being ravaged.
- Bucyruss, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6Actually, yeah.
Major:
78.08% Nitrogen
20.95% Oxygen
Minor:
0.934% Argon
0.038% Carbon Dioxide
Rest are below 0.01% each
Source:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ear ...
Should check facts before opening mouth and inserting foot. - Ozzsanity, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4If people don't buy gas from those dealers then those dealers will not be paying Exxon for the use of the name.
- Trent1492, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5to lie
- TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -4/+8"Temperatures have been dropping for 10 years. How many years of cooling do we need before we call this BS off?"
No, that argument expired last year. They've been warming if you choose a ten year period, cooling if you choose an 11 year period, warming if you choose any year in the past few centuries before 1998 as your starting point....
"So when when the data comes in your favor it's: OMG THE ONLY TROOF!"
No, this isn't the case. A thirty year timescale is chosen to deal with ENSO events, solar cycles, etc. otherwise we'd be talking about "global warming" followed by "global cooling" every decade or so, all the while missing the overall warming trend.
"Oh, I see"
What you might not see is that your link references US temperature, whereas global warming is with reference to global temperature. - realeskimopimp, on 07/02/2009, -7/+11Yes they do not hide that but they provide citations for their information it can all be fact checked.
- Ultomato, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3you werent good at connect the dots when you were little were you
- Hrodrik, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4You sir, are misinformed.
- Trent1492, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4Since you like to get your information from videos:
The Big Swindle Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&fea ...
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon"
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uplo ...
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw&fea ... - Trent1492, on 07/02/2009, -2/+5We at Exxon-Mobile want to thank you for your mindless support of our product regardless of its cost to the environment and the people who inhabit it.
Thank You - zachstanley, on 07/02/2009, -2/+55urr3al5am:
One: Just because someone believes man is contributing to global warming doesn't mean he or she is a subscriber to Al Gore "science" (which has debatably done more harm than good because critics cherry-picked the stuff he was fuzzy or wrong about and now a huge chunk of the general public has taken that to mean that all global warming is a myth).
Two: Is it going to take the literal destruction of the world before you're convinced harm is being done? -
Show 51 - 100 of 203 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 