What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
472 Comments
- eco57, on 03/11/2009, -20/+147Seems to me the primary reason we have these disconnects between the public perception, and the consensus of experts, is that the mainstream media is no longer in the business of accurately and objectively informing. The money-ties between for-profit media and industry have become very unhealthy. You see it here, you see it in health care, you see it in war mongering, and on and on.
- spaceaudi0, on 03/12/2009, -10/+85Warming or not, I'd rather make efforts to make our environment cleaner. I'd rather breath clean air and not have to see that layer of smog every morning.
- Insightful, on 03/11/2009, -15/+88MSM's job is to increase readership by manufacturing controversy where none exists such as the extremely tight race last year between Obama and McCain or Obama's tie to "rerepentant terrorists" etc while ignoring unlawful lawbreaking.
Imagine if today's media covered Watergate?
<shiver> - Kangaroo12001, on 03/11/2009, -80/+131People are waking up. Most scientists are now saying that any climate change is not man made. First it was "Global Warming" then when it was proven that we have been cooling for the past ten years, it becomes "Climate Change".
Hey Hippies, Al Gore is wrong. We are not burning up. You are wrong and people are finally starting to look at facts instead of hysteria.
To celebrate I am going to go fire up my SUV. - inactive, on 03/11/2009, -43/+79Great News! The people are finally looking for the truth from outside the MSM. Perhaps now an honest discussion about Climate Change can BEGIN! If the Al Gore's and Greenfyre's of the world would stop calling the unbelievers idiots and telling them to shutup, then maybe a civilized debate could begin and society could seek out rational solutions to whatever real problem is discovered.
- ai52487963, on 03/12/2009, -33/+58The stance of the average American regarding climate change is on par with their stance on evolution.
- mithrasinvictus, on 03/12/2009, -5/+29First we should debate whether global warming exists at all for as long as possible.
Then we should be arguing whether it was caused by man or not.
Then we should be debating if there is anything we could do about it.
Then we should argue about who should have to pay the bill.
Finally we should determine if its not too late already.
Simply bypassing all that arguing and skipping directly to cleaning up our environment would not do justice to all that money the oil lobby poured into this debate. - inactive, on 03/11/2009, -19/+42greenfyre, are you starting a war with cut and paste?
- MrSwap, on 03/12/2009, -18/+39Global warming has an even stronger footing in science than evolution and it drives me nuts when people say they don't believe in either of them. How can you not believe in science? If you question it then educate yourself, don't just say you don't believe it's true and stick you fingers in you ears. There's a predictable increase in average global temperature with average global carbon content in the atmosphere. There are equations that govern this.
- mariathepirate, on 03/12/2009, -4/+22I'm studying environmental chemistry, and it just angers me more and more how people with no scientific background (ie: media) are allowed to spout off ignorant ***** and claim it as fact. It's almost on par with the "EVOLUTION IS A THEORY LULZ ADAM AND EVE R TRUEFAX!!!111!"
The truth of the matter is that the majority of scientists agree that global warming is, indeed, a problem:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 ... - calypsoschnitzl, on 03/12/2009, -7/+23Someone tell me why it would be in anyone's interest to fabricate the theory of global warming?
Who would be behind such a scientific conspiracy? The wind farmers mafia? Public transportation extremists?
Oh no.. that's right... its Al Gore!
And what do global warming deniers and republicans have in common?
They hate Al Gore. - Virtualwombat, on 03/12/2009, -19/+34The media continues to treat this issue as a controversy they can leverage to sell more advertising space. They have no grasp of the science and appear not to care about the damage they are inflicting on process of assembling a consensus for action.
You want fear?
How about a week of 45°C temperatures? That's 113°F baby. Every day.
The trains can't run because the rails are buckled in the heat.
The power supplies fail because as buildings get hotter, the a/c has to run harder and harder, until they fail too.
A decade of drought, with water storage levels dropping every year and now nudging 30%.
Forest fires totally out of control, tearing through communities like hurricanes, with hundreds killed.
This is southeastern Australia. Now.
This is California. Soon. - Troy64, on 03/12/2009, -11/+26I love my 1994 Ford Bronco with the big 5.4 liter engine. 10 mpg and I drive it everyday.
Funny thing is I am still greener than Al Gore. - dvsbastard, on 03/12/2009, -20/+33I don't necessary dispute global warming, but I remain skeptical as a result as the hysteria driven responses from certain groups...
If I believe the claims are exaggerated, then I will continue to question the accuracy and reliability of the information presented. - WhiteHatTrick, on 03/12/2009, -11/+24... again?
- clickmyface, on 03/12/2009, -12/+25interesting. where are these facts? where are your conclusions based?
- Muspar, on 03/12/2009, -3/+16Firstly, you can believe in science without believing in particular scientific theories. You can accept physics and chemistry but question the theory of evolution. You can accept evolution but not climate change. You can accept climate change but not psychology. You can accept existential psychology but think behaviorism is a crock. Questioning a scientific theory is different from questioning the concept of science itself.
And before any ignorant asshats go after me for referring to evolution as a theory, google the word "theory" and find out what scientists mean when they say it. - bentrinh, on 03/12/2009, -13/+26@Kangaroo12001
Climate change or not, it's still not cool to pollute the air or waste natural resources, which only cause war.... - Havoc67, on 03/11/2009, -48/+60You also see it in the global warming nuts like AlGore who are making millions flying around in his jets spouting thus nonsense.
- Dralha, on 03/12/2009, -4/+16All the millions of dollars big oil's been pouring into their global warming denialism religious propaganda campaign appears to be paying off. Just look at all the dumbasses on digg, who routinely spout off denialist ***** like "it's kold, tharfur thar hain't no globul warmin'" or "it's all jus a big hoox! Da sientists jus tryin' ta steel mah beer money!"
Global warming denialism is religious fantasy for stupid people. - Deaus, on 03/12/2009, -7/+18Yep, keep assigning blame. Once we know who's "fault" (lol!) it is that the planet is warming up things will magically reverse themselves.
Cutting mankinds carbon emissions, even to 0, would not stop global climate change. Yet we still are trying to bail out a rowboat with a hole in the hull. There are 2 primary, possible causes of global warming. CO2, and we would need to ACTIVELY remove (or inject, when the next ice age hits) CO2 from the air to do this such as the recent ideas to dump iron dust into the ocean to explode the algea count and eat up more CO2. Or, the much harder option of cutting the amount of sunlight that hits earth.
Digg me down though, since I'm neither a "denier" or "alarmist" I piss of 90% of digg with that opinion. - ftx437, on 03/12/2009, -50/+61Good people are starting to wake up
- tech42er, on 03/12/2009, -6/+17"Global warming has an even stronger footing in science than evolution."
No. Just no. I'm not saying global warming isn't a real phenomenon, but your assertion is patently false. The modern synthesis theory of evolution has MUCH more evidence and has been upheld by many more experiments than the theory of global warming, let alone anthropogenic global warming. - lydecker, on 03/12/2009, -1/+12"since I certainly do NOT 'force my faith on others' by any reasonable interpretation of the phrase"...
If you're not forcing your beliefs on others like some are (by voting against gay marriage or against abortion rights), then that's not the issue she has with you. Not all "evil" Christians follow all of those evils. You just follow some attacks on atheists:
Glynth: "To be frank: Atheism, in the classical definition ("the doctrine or belief that there is no God"), is just stupid. I can respect the agnostic's "I don't know about there being a greater power" but to say "I *KNOW* there is no God or gods" just smacks of smug arrogance typically fueled by anti-religious bigotry.
It's ridiculous to think that atheists only exist because they are either stupid or because they hate religion.
There's been millions of departures from mainstream Christianity throughout history, and none of us today are anything like what mainstream Christianity was a few centuries ago.
So I'm glad I could clear that up. Because she clearly doesn't have issues with all Christians who practice their faith and talk about it.
And I'm incredibly curious why you would call me a bigot, because I haven't done anything in this thread to show intolerance. At all.
I claim to be Christian because I believe in and follow Christ. I don't care nor have a desire often to claim I'm a Christian, I just do when it comes up.
Don't confuse faith and truth. I have plenty more faith in Christianity than other religion, but I have the common sense to know that faith isn't the same as truth. For Darwinists, I don't know who they are since evolution has come a long way since Darwin, they can have faith in Darwin's initial theory but they should realize scientific truth and facts of evolution. Faith isn't necessary for evolution to be true. I would register for a political party based on faith and beliefs, those aren't facts, we can't study and find which beliefs are true and false. You would be a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or any religion if you believed in the religion most, but that doesn't mean you think it's scientific fact.
People place their faith in things because they seem to be true, though they cannot prove them to be reality. Everyone should be intellectually honest and realize the separation between accepting facts and having faith in a belief.
I have no idea what you're referring to about having a foundation or pride of no foundation, perhaps you could be more specific. - eir574, on 03/12/2009, -1/+12"No offense intended, it's just that I know for a fact that I don't attack people simply for not being a part of my religion, "
Like I said, you probably don't see it as an attack. Just some good, old fashioned truth telling. - tech42er, on 03/12/2009, -3/+13LA?
- lydecker, on 03/12/2009, -3/+13Not hate towards Christianity, or people for being Christian, just individuals for their behavior whether religious or not. She's never spread one ounce of hate towards my Christian beliefs.
- Troy64, on 03/12/2009, -5/+15There would be no difference because Nixon was a Republican.
- eir574, on 03/13/2009, -1/+11Glynth, you're the one who is confirming that it's perfectly reasonable to call people names and tell them that they care nothing at all for anything or anyone, including their parents, siblings, spouses and children based on no other information than that they're atheists. No matter how you feel about this particular thread, most people have no trouble recognizing how absurd that is, not to mention how hateful and prejudiced it is.
Do you have trouble understanding how I could care at all about anything anyone says given that you've already said you believe that I don't care about anything at all? Doesn't that strike you as being contradictory?
And, for future reference, people mean different things when they say they're atheists. Most generally, it means lack of belief in a deity, not a presumption that no deity exists. But, the fact that I can't know for sure whether there's no invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer doesn't mean that I've going to spend a lot of time thinking about what that pachyderm wants me to do or what his potential existence means for me after I die.
You want the thread? Here it is: http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Bible_not_li ... . You spent the whole thread trying to tell me that I'm wrong about what I believe, and you know better than I do. That, and telling me about how I don't care about anyone or anything. You kept insisting that I'm a nihilist because that's what you believe to be logical, and I'd tell you that I'm not. You insisted that I must prove you wrong. My proof is that I'M NOT A NIHILIST.
Life must be easy when you get to put everyone who disagrees with you into neat little boxes. You don't have to consider the possibility that you might not understand how everyone else thinks. You're always right about reading other people's minds, and it's up to us to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, you won't just accept that you're just not omniscient. It's like asking me to pick a number between 1 and 1000, telling me I picked 52, and insisting that I prove that I didn't without actually relying on the fact that I did not, in fact, pick number 52. You want me to prove what's in my mind without referring to what's in my mind. - porkins21, on 03/12/2009, -6/+15Ha! Someone gets buried for saying 'prove that' and someone is dugg for saying 'very true'.
In other words, someone who is interested in facts is buried and someone who shares like-minded OPINION is dugg.
Ironic considering the subject, isn't it? - TJ11240, on 03/12/2009, -2/+11Sometimes it takes a heart attack to get people to exercise. I hope its not past the tipping point yet.
- Dauntless1, on 03/12/2009, -2/+11So, more simply, we need to do more research.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/12/2009, -4/+13I think you just won the longest comment ever award.
- eir574, on 03/13/2009, -1/+10I attacked you with a vengeance? I was responding to your attacks on me, albeit a few months late. I happened upon your post where you whined when you were the victim of the same crap you dish out yourself. I never said the statement you were responding to was a good thing to say. In fact, I compared it to your own brand of hatefulness.
See how you call atheists stupid for believing with certainty that there is no god, when clearly you don't think you're stupid for believing with certainty that there is one? That's in addition to your previous statements that atheists are selfish, immoral people who have absolutely no concern for anyone else at all, including their own family members. - novenator, on 03/12/2009, -6/+15The reason more people are believing that it is inflated is because the Talibangicals are convincing more people not to trust anything they hear, especially from scientists.
We must educate our fellow citizens better. - Misinformant, on 03/12/2009, -32/+41This comes as no shock. The majority of people are idiots.
- porkins21, on 03/12/2009, -11/+20Youtube search "great global warming swindle". Science is not to be 'believed in' it is to be observed and measured. Look at the science presented in that film.
Sounds like we have 2 conflicting theories.... I guess science is only science when it's a means to someone's end... - lydecker, on 03/12/2009, -2/+11@Glynth: "So is this 'evil' brand of Christianity, as he/she (she, I guess it is?) might put it, the one that, you know, the vast majority of Christians actually practice, instead of the 'progressive' one you, perhaps, practice?"
If those are the labels you agree with...
Then yes, she has an issue with this "evil" brand of Christians, those who try to put their religion into law, proselytizing to everyone, say that only Christians can be moral, by berating all other religions they don't understand, and by using a story in the Bible to try and prove science wrong. The ones that you claim are the vast majority of Christians (I don't see it).
And yes, she has no issue with "progressive" brand of Christians, those who believe in something but don't confuse their beliefs with reality, don't attempt to encode their beliefs into law and force everyone to follow their faith, don't ignorantly think their religion is founded on any more truth than any other religion, and don't try to tell people about their faith as a reason why geology and biology are wrong. - Xihix, on 03/12/2009, -23/+31There seems to be conflicting stories on whether or not man made warming exists. I myself am reluctant to believe it does.
- Dauntless1, on 03/12/2009, -5/+13Degrading human life? To what extent?
- WhiteHatTrick, on 03/12/2009, -4/+12The truth eventually comes out, in regards to anything and everything. It doesn't quite work the other way around.
- jsffive, on 03/12/2009, -10/+18Are you high on something?
How many news features do you see, where they're saying that CO2-based global warming is bunk, vs. the other opinion?
It COULD just be that, a growing majority of people in this country are starting to see it for what it is: an attempt to justify another tax on the people. - smurfsahoy, on 03/12/2009, -4/+12"400? That's pathetic. Compare that to the many thousands of scientists world wide involved in climatology."
Really, just how many "thousands" of climatologists are there? Not that many, I'm guessing. And these are 400 who were willing to go on record in a highly public Senate document, not everybody who feels that way.
Even a good 5% would imply plenty behind the scenes and would be way more than there are in many other healthy debates in science. - eir574, on 03/12/2009, -5/+13Not Christian bashing. It's Glynth bashing, or specifically "Glynth's behavior towards atheists" bashing. I'd say there's something horribly wrong with you given the things I've seen you say to atheists without provocation.
Do you seriously believe that I go around doing horrible things because they feel good to me and that I care nothing at all for anyone else? Because that's what you told me applies to every single atheist, and if you're applying it to everyone, then it has nothing to do with how any particular person behaves. - Peekman, on 03/12/2009, -9/+16How can deforestation and pumping more C02 into the air have no effect on the planet at all?....
If we know anything about the cycles of the earth it clearly does have an effect.......
I guess its the extent of the effect which is being exaggerated right?.... because saying humans haven no effect on climate at all is pure ignorance. - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -3/+10Here ya go.
Research by N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West, peer reviewed and published in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH shows that @50% of the observed increase in global temp. from 1900 to the present is due to solar activity alone.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437 ...
Another major problem is 'Modeling'. the AGW proponents rely heavly on modeling as the observed and geophysical data do not agree with their predictions.
FTP:
4] Theoretical climate models are also debated. In
particular, it has been observed that the exact mechanisms
by which solar activity might cause climate changes are not
well understood [Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Pap and Fox,
2004]. A traditional approach [e.g., Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2001, 2007; Hansen et al., 2002; Foukal
et al., 2006; Hegerl et al., 2003, 2006, 2007] makes use of
models where a certain number of climate forcing and
feedback mechanisms are presumed to operate. Evidently,
one difficulty with this approach is that the feedback
mechanisms and alternative solar effects on climate, since
they are only partially known, might be poorly modeled or
not included in the modeling at all [Pap and Fox, 2004].
Two examples from this latter category are: UV energy
changes which are involved in production and loss of ozone
that might in turn amplify stratospheric water vapor changes
[Stuber et al., 2001]; variations in the solar wind that might
affect the heliosphere and modulate cosmic rays, which may
in turn largely affect formation of clouds and influence the
Earth’s albedo [Kristja´nsson et al., 2004; Svensmark, 2007]. - novenator, on 03/12/2009, -4/+11Most scientists believe it, but nice try using Al Gore as a focus of your anger.
Citation: http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-po ...
I understand the astronomical cycles involved from sunspots to Milankovic Cycles. There IS a biogenic component in this. - Dauntless1, on 03/12/2009, -5/+12@Whitehattrick
Ummm. Ok. Thanks for giving me a paranoid rant instead of answering my question.Kthxbye. -
Show 51 - 100 of 484 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is