What is Digg?Sponsored by Hot Tub Time Machine
Come on a Tub Crawl with Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry view!
ign.com - Follow the guys of HOT TUB TIME MACHINE exclusively at IGN as they travel across the country.
266 Comments
- lhbaker, on 01/18/2008, -9/+56"I think there's a faction of society that is willfully ignorant, that they just don't want to know the facts about this"
That pretty much sums it up right there. - fefu, on 01/18/2008, -14/+56The article doesn't say the speech was canceled because the town residents don't believe in global warming. It's even worse. They think steps to combat global warming might harm the agricultural industry. Is it worse to be ignorant or just selfish and greedy?
- brentinkc, on 01/18/2008, -2/+36The superintendent was the one who canceled the speech, *****.
- Acewrap, on 01/18/2008, -0/+26The picture is actual size.
- allaboutdatiki, on 01/18/2008, -2/+25blame it on those blasted farting cows ...
- SuperMoses, on 01/18/2008, -6/+28"It's amazing how angry the alarmists get" .. is "alarmists" the new word for the scientific community? And last time I checked, the scientific community accepts papers that can prove the consensus wrong. This reminds me of the creationists claiming they don't get fair time to debate their "theory".
- scootercrunch, on 01/18/2008, -3/+24@JimmySpaza and others who take this as a sign of scientists "cutting and running"
You must forgive the scientists who have been researching this subject for several decades for not rushing to post their results and discussion on Digg. I guess that they just don't realize that this community is full of experts on the subject. To their detriment they seek validation and review from their peers in the scientific community, foolishly reasoning that other experts in the subject will be the most qualified to comment and debate the subject. How could they not want to engage in a war of rhetoric and FUD with a group of people who live to spew vitriolic comments on subjects which they have absolutely no background in? No, instead they stupidly return to the libraries and conferences purveying "their global warming agenda" to a relatively small group of qualified experts; constantly refining models and exploring new concepts.
If only the scientific community didn't hold itself to rigorous peer review standards, error and uncertainty reporting, disclosure of funding sources, and other constructs which limit their ability to spew baseless opinions and rhetoric, their ideas might be able to gain more traction! How silly of them!
I can forgive you for not being current with the literature on the subject, in which a very vigorous discussion on the subject has been taking place for quite some time. However, I cannot forgive you for presuming that because scientists do not willingly subject themselves to ridiculous debates with those unqualified to speak to the subject that they "cut and run" in the face of oppostition. Quite the opposite in fact, the scientific community welcomes discussion, debate and opposition as it allows for the refining of concepts. If you were willing to enrich yourself on the actual science, and not cherry pick what you choose to hear and believe, then I and others in the scientific community would be thrilled to have a discussion with you. - brentinkc, on 01/18/2008, -3/+21Gore is not a climatologist.
- allatti2d, on 01/18/2008, -4/+21FTA:
"Some critics are concerned that whatever steps are taken to combat global warming will harm the agriculture industry."
This is interesting... do those "critics" ever watch the news? Have they seen agriculture drying up and shutting down because of climate change? It seems to me that the agriculturalists are the ones who would welcome talks on climate change and how to do something about it so their businesses won't die out. - somespecial, on 01/18/2008, -3/+18lol, i've been to that town. It has a population of 500, and rent there is $300 for a 4-bedroom, and house cost is 30k, but actually nice houses. here's photo of downtown. http://russell.visitmt.com/Pictures/Cities/Choteau ...
- inactive, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16I am just a regular Earth human, so I have no bias in this debate. All I have to say is this:
Climate change has been happening since the Earth first came into being. Why don't we just NOT dump crap into the water, drive gas guzzlers, or waste resources because IT'S A GOOD IDEA, and just adapt to what's happening. We CANNOT stabilize the climate of a planet, so forget about that. Let's stop arguing and concentrate on adapting and conservation. - behn1220, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16Don't you mean "here is a thumbnail of a photo of downtown"? That picture is useless....
- skyshock1, on 01/18/2008, -6/+18*fingers stuck in ears*
"LA LA LA LA LA... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" - gambyt13, on 01/18/2008, -3/+15Name a respected climatologist who says global warming is not occurring.
- inactive, on 01/18/2008, -4/+16Climate change is a better term, because if you use "global warming" you get morons like yourself saying it can't be happening "because it's freezing here!"
- DreKor, on 01/18/2008, -2/+14Look, reading is hard. Cut him some slack.
- JigoroKano, on 01/18/2008, -4/+16Strawman, false dichotomy.
- Rheic, on 01/18/2008, -1/+12I understand why the corporations refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence for global warming, they have an agenda, but what's your excuse? Are you just some religious nut who has a vendetta against 'science' or what?
- darienphoenix, on 01/18/2008, -2/+13We wonder that too.
Are you pro-pollution, or something? - ventralnet, on 01/18/2008, -1/+12yes they do
- StarlessKnight, on 01/18/2008, -2/+12Good thing certain conservative elements, in the past, didn't do anything like threaten major violence or try to shut down schools when Black Americans started attending "white" schools. Or were you trying to pin that sort of behavior only on those dirty hippies?
It's a Human problem. Be happy. - usrlocalbin, on 01/18/2008, -3/+13We don't take too kindly to your kind around here!
- jonmlm, on 01/18/2008, -6/+15hahaha... america
- allatti2d, on 01/18/2008, -3/+12It also causes lack of water, which is vital to most crops, and causes more bugs that like to eat the crops.
Why are people spending time arguing about this instead of preparing better and coming up with new technologies to deal with it? Climate change is obviously happening; I think the argument is whether or not it's exacerbated by man's activities. To me that's a dumb argument; who is going to suffer if our air and water are cleaner? Clean up the pollution, recycle our trash, all that is nothing but good. And if it has a positive impact on climate change, all the better. - clubby, on 01/18/2008, -0/+9Sadly, they have every right to make their kids even dumber than they are. It's not a particularly sound long-term plan for survival in the information age, but it's their perogative.
- JoeVet, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8Its amazing how the deniers refuse to debate the issue in peer reviewed journals where scientific findings are generally debated. They seem to have no scientific evidence to refute the volumes presented by scientists who follow the scientific process. So far there are only idiots who publish in newspaper opinion columns like denier hero Dr. Richard Lindzen who think clouds are going to save us. Of course there are also the denier fans like Railer who form the bulk of the "willfully ignorant."
- Zoshchenko, on 01/18/2008, -4/+12Next they'll start canceling speeches out of fear that they might be "anti-stupidity" and we sure as heck don't want to stop being stupid!
- awasson, on 01/18/2008, -3/+11No they are willfully ignorant because they won't even listen to his message about what is going on in the outside world.
- brufleth, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8I agree with that. I might disagree with their decision (especially based on their reasons) but it is their decision to make.
- glasnostic, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8"Liberals" debate that ***** all the time.. you are a typical example of someone on the right. you say things that just aren't true simply because you believe them to be true and they support your argument.
now lets be fair and turn every Sunday morning sermon into a debate with an atheist... - scootercrunch, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8I would refer you to the work of Dr. Michael Mann for a thorough treatment of why most climate scientists agree that our most recent warming is the result of anthropogenic actions. There are indeed natural variations in earth's climate. Variations including dramatic warming and dramatic cooling are easily seen in the climate record (which is >250,000 years, not ~200 years as you suggested earlier, but what are a few orders of magnitude if you don't really know what you're talking about?). Advances in science and technology since the 1970's have not only provided us with this record of global temperature, but have also allowed us to separate the warming/cooling signals and interpret their likely causes. Again, if you want to read up on it (journal articles and books, not Dugg "news" stories hand plucked from sympathetic blogs) then perhaps we could have a more reasonable debate.
As for your specific comment on "Global Cooling", that idea never gained much support in the scientific community. Instead, it gained popular traction because it was latched onto by the media and spread in much the same way that stories both championing and criticizing climate change are now. This comment speaks to my original thought more strongly than anything that I could have said, and I appreciate you bringing it up as it serves as a crystalline reminder of how scientific theories and their popular perception are often horribly skewed due to unattributed news reports.
Cheers! - drshorty, on 01/18/2008, -10/+17There's been plenty of debate right here in digg comments. I don't know what debate your missing, or wanting to see.
- darienphoenix, on 01/18/2008, -2/+8Debating a scientific consensus is pointless unless the opponent has produced evidence in a peer-reviewed arena.
Challenging conventional thinking is all well and good, but it relies on you knowing what the ***** you're talking about. You, for instance, do not. - vikingcoder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Science is not decided by popular opinion. Provide evidence to support your assertions. Endlessly repeating canards & myths like "It's the Sun, stupid", "Mars is warming", "they predicted an ice age in the 70s", "water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas","Greenland was green","humanity's CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to natural emissions" or even better "volcanoes put out more CO2 than humanity ever could", or "1934 was the warmest year" do not disprove anything.
Wanking such as "they won't debate" & "they just want to destroy capitalism" only shows your willful ignorance. - wendelgee2, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6The UN report unequivocally linked global warming to human activity. What the hell are you talking about?
- inactive, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7Forgive me, I forgot, it's all a conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore, The U. N. and climate scientists just to tax us in to submission.
- uberchaoslord, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7The debate isn't over whether its occuring or not, the debate is whether human production of CO2 is responsible, or some other factor (the most popular being solar radiation).
- pintomp3, on 01/18/2008, -5/+11global warming is about as controversial as cigarettes causing cancer.
- awasson, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7You can't just spew a bunch of buzz words like capitalism vs environmentalism and make up rhetoric... It makes no sense.
Nobody hates capitalism here... Consumerism doesn't describe a society and isn't the same thing. It's a result of marketing consumable goods. Free trade is an agreement between countries to reduce tariffs and duties on import & exports. None of this has anything to do with the environmental message.
The message is that we are quickly outgrowing our world and we all need to give this some serious thought because the little good we are doing isn't enough to save the planet and the life on it. - Rheic, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7Ok which is more likely:
A huge socialist conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and others all colluding to find new ways to tax you. This would of course be the biggest conspiracy the world has ever known and yet they would have somehow found a way to keep it a secret.
OR scientists are just doing their job and reporting their findings. That the changes we've made to the planet have an effect on the planet's climate. A pretty modest claim.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. - barbobot, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5This is a UNIX system, I know this!
- sodade, on 01/18/2008, -3/+8"The debate isn't over whether its occurring or not, the debate is whether human production of CO2 is responsible, or some other factor (the most popular being solar radiation)."
I just don't ***** get this. It doesn't really matter what the cause is - we should still be trying to minimize the damage and prepare ourselves for likely outcomes. - plumfan, on 01/18/2008, -4/+9Poverty is a Real and pressing problem. Global warming is not.
- MacEnvy, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5Of course not. Everyone knows about Jesus Horses.
- StarlessKnight, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6You're arguing because we can't travel back in time to the beginning of the planet Earth, that we have no credible evidence to extrapolate anything to do with modern Earth and its environment.. is that about right? Damn, thank you for making the entire Environmental Science branch unnecessary. We'll save millions of dollars from not exploring those issues, seeing how we're all just randomly guessing or something.
- vikingcoder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5And none of the rest were climatologists.
It's like going to an orthopedic surgeon for a second opinion on a quadruple bypass heart surgery. - Scottamus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5I agree with Railer. In fact every time someone describes horrors of the rape and murder of a small child there should be an opposing viewpoint. Whenever a pastor sermonizes about their god there should be someone to tout the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whenever the police come to talk about the dangers of drug use a Columbian druglord should be there with an opposing viewpoint. Whenever you go to your NRA rally an equal time should be spent on why guns should be banned altogether. Every time we hear about 9/11 we should hear an opposing view from the terrorists.
/Don't really agree. Somethings just don't need to be debated do they? - 5urr3al5am, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4yeah because real people actually care what the hell they see on digg
- Double0Doug, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5Not only that, but a theorized conclusion of global warming is a cycle of ice ages.
- samk, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4So every single scientist on the IPCC is considered a "Nobel winner" along with the IPCC itself (which shared the prize with Gore)?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 266 discussions
