What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Entertainment
FMA has come to Blu-ray! See for yourself! view!
fullmetalalchemist.com - Ed and Al - in high definition for the first time. Fullmetal Alchemist movie. Available on Blu-ray!
250 Comments
- lizardking7112, on 12/10/2008, -13/+93“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson,
Notice she can speak the truth now because she is not worried about funding. I love how 'people' think the pursuit of science is so pure and can not be corrupted. But they have to deal with the same politic everyone else does to keep there jobs. Give the employer the results or find a new job. - mustafya, on 12/10/2008, -13/+43Some very interesting points here. I wonder if it will receive much traction with news outlets such as CNN scrapping their science department to focus on "The Planet in Peril."
- Sumyunguy, on 12/10/2008, -12/+40“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
- PuterPrsn, on 12/10/2008, -15/+43Add me to the list of "deniers" as they call us. Wonder how many more scientists will need to "punch in" on this clock before the "man's a problem" crowd listens to reason?
Personally, while I think keeping smog to a minimum and other nicities are good things for us (mankind), the thought that Earth even notices us much at all in regards to climate is ludicrously egotistical. - ScreenRant, on 12/10/2008, -14/+41I wish I could digg this post more than once.
- primaldefense, on 12/10/2008, -8/+33yeah her statment really hit me as one of the most important in the whole listing of quotes. Due to funding issues which continues to be a growing concern in the field of science, many seem to be critized for not jumping on the bandwagon, and so to prevent that problem and the possible lack of reserach funds/grants, they joined in half heartedly.
- korbink, on 12/10/2008, -15/+36 "The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."
Wow, too bad the general public will never hear about this. - pbarney, on 12/10/2008, -12/+32Say, what are the chances this will make it to the front page?
LOL. j/k - Sumyunguy, on 12/10/2008, -14/+33“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
- tman84, on 12/10/2008, -8/+26I'm curious, those who say "in the pocket of big oil". Are those interests worse than the scientists looking for funding from governments and universities? Either way it's looking out for your monetary interest. I'm just curious as to the logic being applied here to determine why one person is not credible when funds are on the line and another person is credible when funds are on the line?
- TheMoniker, on 12/10/2008, -15/+33Well, there are some serious problems with the list though, it's a mix of Inhofe's list and the the Heartland list.
Curious about the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Prominent Scientists" who deny global warming, Kevin Grandia decided to contact some of the folks on the list. He put together a list of 150 email addresses...simply the addresses he found it most easy to acquire. After only 24 hours, he'd received 45 emails from angry scientists saying that they, in no way, denied anthropogenic global warming.
It turns out that the heartland institute had never told the scientists they were going on the list, nor did they check to see if these people actually had any doubts about the causes of climate change. Just a sampling of quotes from emails Kevin received:
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.
Please remove my name. What [they] have done is totally unethical!!
The Heartland Institute eventually distanced itself from that list.
Inhofe's list itself has been shrinking for a while, it started at 400, then we found out 84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries (this doesn't mean that they are wrong, but it should raise an eyebrow); 49 are retired; 44 are television weathermen; 20 are economists; 70 have no apparent expertise in climate science; several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it; one claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it. The list just kept contracting and when it came time for the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, there were only 19 scientists who came forward:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04 ... - Killer57, on 12/10/2008, -0/+15*Sigh* I hate it when Politics pollutes Science with its partisanship. Look, I'm not here to defend either side, I just want to point out that Scientific Opposition to a theory does not automatically make it wrong, as some people here have assumed. Skepticism to theories is one of the bedrocks of science, it is needed in order to have best, most accurate theories as to how the universe works.
So quoting well respected scientist expressing their skepticism about man's role in global climate change does not mean that it is not happening. Einstein expressed skepticism about Quantum Mechanics, which is now one of the most fundamental theories in physics, did that mean it was wrong? No, it just means there are valid concerns that need to be addressed. Global climate change is bound to face opposition, and it most certainly should, but my hope is that this battle will be fought and won in the laboratory, and not through PR campaigns that distort the truth. That goes for both sides of the issue. - mnocket, on 12/10/2008, -7/+22LOL Right from the playbook - any scientist who questions GW must not be a real scientist, or at least just a "cloud physicist" and not a real climate scientist cuz we all know clouds have nothing to do with the climate. What foolishness.
- ScreenRant, on 12/10/2008, -7/+21BTW, a moment to edit the title on this Digg would have helped - a lot.
- SailingAlien, on 12/10/2008, -4/+16I got $10 that says this news doesn't make it to CNN or MSNBC ever.
- mnocket, on 12/10/2008, -7/+19What about the other 649?
- tman84, on 12/10/2008, -5/+17Unless you are Al Gore and invest in "green" companies and then start a whole movement about "global warming" and then your company makes $300 million dollars because of it. Seems very profitable to me.
For some reason I always get buried for pointing out that Al Gore profiteered from this, I never understand why, so to the 20 or so people, could I have a reason why I get buried for speaking about how Al Gore profiteered from spreading Global Warming Propaganda? Lets pretend I am not calling it propaganda, lets assume its the truth. Are you still ok with him making a killing by investing in those companies? Does that seem unethical to you in any way? - btschul, on 12/10/2008, -7/+19"how many more scientists will need to "punch in" on this clock before the "man's a problem" crowd listens to reason?" It doesn't matter how many scientists weigh in on the matter. Liberals like Gore will never let it go. Global warming is to perfect a lie for them to just let go of it. It kills two birds with one stone. It lets them say that America is evil because we are all a bunch of polluters and we're killing the planet omg isnt america so evel!!111 and simultaneously say basically "we need more government regulation and control or were all gonna die."
- cardgame, on 12/10/2008, -6/+17“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
BINGO!!! So while "employed" and receiving a financial stipends for their service, it is necessary to tow the line. Imagine that! who would every thought that scientist might act like normal people is a similar situation. Wow what a revelation.... - ftx437, on 12/10/2008, -4/+15hey green...then why is it that even members of then ipcc are even calling for a review of the un's ipcc???
http://digg.com/environment/SUPPORT_FOR_CALL_FOR_R ... - rukbat, on 12/10/2008, -12/+22Hmmmmm........I wonder were Greenfyre is......the boys slipping! ;-)
- Karyyk, on 12/10/2008, -5/+15The usual global warming story would already be up there...
- StopTheLie, on 12/11/2008, -6/+15If the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is approximately “97 parts naturally occurring” and “3 parts man-made,” we could all drop dead tomorrow and the impact on total carbon dioxide would be negligible.
More importantly, the “naturally occurring” carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is currently MUCH LOWER than what it has been during most of earth’s history. Long before mankind set foot on this planet, naturally occurring carbon dioxide reached levels more than TEN TIMES higher than they are today.
To put that in perspective: If naturally occurring carbon dioxide were to again rise by only 10% (hardly a drastic fluctuation) the resulting increase would be equal to humans TRIPLING their current “carbon footprint.”
(Total current carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere is only about 380 parts per million (PPM.) Of that total, roughly 368 PPM is “naturally occurring” and only 12 PPM is “man-made.” An increase of just 10% in naturally occurring carbon dioxide would result in an increase of 36 PPM...three times the current "man-made" contribution.)
I’m “all for” getting off fossil fuels – I’m all for cleaning up the environment. What I’m tired of is liars seizing power and wealth for themselves under the guise of manufactured / hyped threats. - MHunt, on 12/10/2008, -6/+15As opposed to Al Gore, who has a degree in Government? I'll take a cloud physicist over Al any day.
- mnocket, on 12/10/2008, -3/+12LOL As expected, here comes greenfyre with his tired old debunker sites.
- ScreenRant, on 12/10/2008, -6/+15Um, really?
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin - maxtangent, on 12/10/2008, -4/+13You mean all those scientists who claimed the debate is over? They were wrong about that very simple fact, so what else are they wrong about?
- tyho, on 12/10/2008, -7/+15The biggest joke are people that claim consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity, as many seem to imply.
The tide is shifting on you greenfryre, the skeptics are getting their message through. So many people will soon feel foolish to have been led like sheep to the fleecing.
I think Margaret Thatcher said it best, "To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." - StopTheLie, on 12/10/2008, -3/+11GreenFyre, I have a serious question (not being combative here.) Do you have a source that puts the "man made" contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere above 3 -4%? (Or, in other words, is it accurate to say that 96% - 97% of the CO2 in our atmosphere has nothing to do with human activity?)
- StopTheLie, on 12/11/2008, -3/+11Wunksta and Greenfyre, you're both missing the point. What I'm saying is WE COULD CUT OUR EMISSIONS TO ZERO (ZERO) and it would mean absolutely nothing with even a minuscule fluctuation in naturally occurring C02 production.
Do you not see the absurdity of funding some behemoth / intrusive global entity (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars) so that its most optimistic aims could be rendered meaningless (except for those who profit from it) with a 3% increase in naturally occurring C02?
Or, as I asked originally in the other thread, what happens if the earth increases its natural production by something more realistic?
I'm not talking about a return to 1,500 PPM (which would be an increase of 1,132 PPM) I'm talking about a SMALL 10% increase of just 36 PPM (404 PPM total)
That alone would be equal to humans TRIPLING their "carbon footprint." Do you honestly believe the world will end? More importantly, what will the supra-national "carbon police" be able to do about it?
I repeat: "I’m all for getting off fossil fuels – I’m all for cleaning up the environment. What I’m tired of is liars seizing power and wealth for themselves under the guise of manufactured / hyped threats." - tman84, on 12/10/2008, -5/+13oh and I am asking a question, not making a statement, so all of you who are digging down, could you explain why you are digging down and not answering the question?
- iMattK, on 12/10/2008, -6/+14Good to hear about this. Global warming is politically driven, not scientifically verifiable. I love how the "warmers" cite weather changes over a limited period of time too -- most weather records date back to just the middle 1800s or later.
- ScreenRant, on 12/10/2008, -2/+10It's truncated. Doesn't tell you what the scientists are dissenting over. Man-made what?
:-) - GlobalRoamer, on 12/10/2008, -5/+12@Sumy,
Do you know that the past three year cooling cycle is due to global warming?
The eight major hurricanes predicated for the gulf this year didn't happen, because of global warming, even though global warming was supposed to cause more.
Canada had the coldest winter on record in the past 30 years due to global warming.
(for the liberals reading this it is called sarcasm)
If the facts do not conform to the theory they must be disposed of. - TreeTops8, on 12/11/2008, -1/+8Yes, greenfyre, we can do as Al Gore says and buy lots of compact fluorescent bulbs from the other side of the world, where the mercury emissions are blown right back into the air for everyone's enjoyment. That is class advice, that and the advice to give up national sovereingty to a world governement via carbon taxation, which will be spent on beaurocracy, global police, surveillance and global military. You think that won't be an environmental disaster? Sometimes we don't appreciate how bad a problem is until our misguided cures make things much much worse.
- wunksta, on 12/10/2008, -1/+7i dont get evidence and data from al gore
- Hetman, on 12/10/2008, -4/+10I would like to see a list of all 650 scientists and their field of expertise.
- uncleosbert, on 12/10/2008, -3/+9did any of you bother to see the context of the quote?
"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rai ... - tman84, on 12/10/2008, -4/+10haha right below you, so funny how everyone knows the same 4 people show up in these threads and bring up the same 4 links showing how big their scientists penises are, and why their scientists big penises are better than the other scientists penises.
- drlha, on 12/10/2008, -2/+8Comparing the number of people who signed on to this statement to the number of authors on a report is a ***** comparison though. Not saying either side is right or wrong, but just because only 52 people authored that report, doesn't mean only 52 people support it.
- ezekiel105, on 12/10/2008, -4/+10What's your educational background Greenfyre?
- tman84, on 12/10/2008, -5/+11What about the data from the past 4 billion years? If your scientists are so bent on fact, why do they only use a sample size of .00000000025% to form their theories?
oh and monoa, are you an ageist? does her being 83 make her less credible than some 24 year old grad student looking for a fat grant check and wanting to impress his new boss? - rukbat, on 12/10/2008, -2/+8Try overlaying it for the last 4.5 billion years instead of the 10000 yr data set they use and you see that the CO2 is insignificant in our atmosphere right now and that the temp has been much higher and life flourished...
- mnocket, on 12/10/2008, -5/+11DENIER!!!!
- Gandalff, on 12/10/2008, -9/+15greenfyre stop being a denier of the facts presented. This is exactly what you preach right? This list is only a tip of the SCIENTIST that have come forward saying they can not prove man made global warming based on scientific facts. All the cut and pasting and of that scientist has been discredited BS is getting hard to hide the bodies now. STFU. And no before you ask I will not post all the links that I have posted in the past refuting you bogus claims. It gets tiring watching you do what you do and claim to be unbiased and a believer at the same time.
- GlobalRoamer, on 12/10/2008, -2/+7@kidd,
Go back to the Gore movie. Google on the math models he refers to and do the math yourself. You will immediately find out it does not produce the graph he claims.
In order to make the Gore math work properly you first need to throw out the mini-ice-age in the middle ages, decrease the global constant for Albedo (cloud and snow reflection) by 75%, and increase the global constant for solar ground warming per square meter by 30x, and then you can get the famous "hockey stick" graph. - Mooja, on 12/10/2008, -14/+19Where's the GreenFool?
- inactive, on 12/11/2008, -2/+7Ahhh, 650 more people for James Hanson to threaten with prosecution for GlobalWarmingDenial. 650 more people for the true believers to ostracize. 650 more people that Algore fears to openly debate.
- StopTheLie, on 12/10/2008, -3/+8OK, so If naturally occurring carbon dioxide were to again rise by only 10% (hardly a drastic fluctuation) the resulting increase would be equal to humans TRIPLING their current “carbon footprint...”
(Total current carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere is approximately 380 parts per million (PPM.) Of that total, roughly 368 PPM is “naturally occurring” and only 12 PPM is “man-made.” An increase of 10% in naturally occurring carbon dioxide would result in an increase of 36 PPM...three times the current "man-made" contribution.)
What then? - mattalice, on 12/11/2008, -1/+6Liberals find a way to get people to vote more than once. Ask A.C.O.R.N.!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
