What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
176 Comments
- jameson5, on 04/24/2009, -14/+89"Who are these scientists, can we debate them?"
Sure you could, but you have a lot of work ahead of you. Here is the list of scientific ogranizations that agree that human activity is responsible for climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
And here is the list of scientific organizations that disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
Let the record show, there are ZERO scientific organizations remaining that disagree. - DankBuddz, on 04/24/2009, -9/+55More and more money being spent to fuel the denial of climate change. Its too bad. What a waste of money. I'd like to know what other issues there are where there is a mass following of people who agree more with shady corporate interests which have repeatedly ***** people in the past, rather than a mass consensus of scientists comprised mostly of college professors who do their research in their spare time.
I have studied under 2 college professors who's research and observations are at the forefront of climate climate change studies. How much do they get paid? A meager state university salary. Where's this billion dollar conspiracy at? - Trent1492, on 04/24/2009, -6/+46"All lies!!"
You did not read the article and the accompanying documentation did you? - Trent1492, on 04/24/2009, -3/+34"You have any idea how much money environmentalist foundations like the WWF, Ford foundation, Rockefeller foundation and Greenpeace have?"
No but I am willing to bet you have never heard of Tu quoque logical fallacy.
"All of these support climate change "green" propaganda advertisements."
You really should not presume your conclusions. It is rather bad for the endeavor known as logic.
"Oil companies' spending on their message is nothing compared to these."
See above.
"And even when money isn't directly funneled to Climate change propaganda,..."
Oh, I see science is now propaganda. I do like how you think that such institutions as Natural History Museum of New York and the University of Minneapolis as propaganda machines. You poor deluded thing.
"...the media supports it ..."
Fox News, The Telegraph, The Australian, the entire spectrum of AM Radio. Enough said.
"In short, the media is "biased" - an advantage worth billions if not trillions."
It has been said that "Reality has liberal bias."
"Also, Obama's campaign for president, with his message of climate change being real and having to be stopped, received more than $600 million dollars in donation money."
From who? Oh, I see Green Peace had 600 million in spare change to give to Obama. Have you taken your frog pills today?
"Even without paying anything, Obama appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine about 6 times."
Oh, my Zeus! A presidential candidate, president elect, then president, and first African-American president got on the cover of Newsweek! What are we to do? Oh, I know. Get hysterical about it. - inactive, on 04/24/2009, -1/+31Surely, you have sources for your numbers. I'll check back.
- nathanbutnet, on 04/24/2009, -7/+36FTA:
Environmentalists have long maintained that industry knew early on that the scientific evidence supported a human influence on rising temperatures, but that the evidence was ignored for the sake of companies’ fight against curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action. - zephc, on 04/25/2009, -0/+28I just wish politicians would stop pretending to be scientists.
- DankBuddz, on 04/24/2009, -3/+28"Who are these scientists, can we debate them? Do we need any more "green" propaganda? It's everywhere already!"
Yeah, sure you can debate them, but you have to have credible resources, research, and observation in order to do that. You just be some dude with no experience on anything who has a few conspiracy theories and still for some reason ties the legitimacy of Al Gore to the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting climate change claims. Why would anyone consider your argument when you don't even have one?
Al Gore doesn't represent climate change. Get that through your head. I suggest you look into getting an education sometime so you don't come off as such an idiot.
"The truth is, Al Gore and the climate control promoters spend billions on "green" propaganda, while the oil companies spend only a few millions to promote their own, righteous views - so much for "aggressive" campaign - WHO is agressive here?"
Tossing made-up numbers around doesn't give you an argument. There is no such thing as climate control promoters spending billions on go green propoganda. Sustainable energy is LOGICAL and SMART and SAVES MONEY. That's why its being promoted. You know what else? It happens to reduce impact on environmental processes. That's obviously something you know absolutely nothing about.
You guys wonder why people don't consider your point of view, when this is the ***** you bring to the table.
Better luck next time. - Trent1492, on 04/24/2009, -12/+37By my count, so far, the two people who have objected to the article never read the article.
- DankBuddz, on 04/24/2009, -4/+23So how does that effect the actual truth of the issue? Regardless of the social issues surrounding the issue of climate change, the science is the same, and has been ever since 1991 when the IPCC was formed. It has also been the minority opinion up until the last few months when an administration that actually considers scientific research made it into office.
As for your original logic, wouldn't it be politically incorrect to say the earth is flat? Your argument is solely built from a statement declaring that it takes more courage to oppose a consensus view on something. That's a great quote, but in reality, no scientific findings are ever proven as fact. They only thing that makes such theories as newtons law, thermodynamics, etc, accepted as truths is the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting these theories. That is how scientific findings in this world become accepted by the rest of society.
The issue of anthropogenic climate change has an overwhelming scientific consensus which rivals that of newtons law.
So, why is the issue still up for debate?
Its not, at least not in the scientific community. Think about who is affected by the mitigation of climate change. Corporations who emit greenhouse gases. That's about it. Who is financially leading the crusade against climate change policy? Corporations who emit greenhouse gases, and politicians who are direct recipients of those lobbyists.
So your entire stance on this issue is in defense of corporate interests in which you offer no argument except for a quote by George Orwell which has absolutely no relation with the nature of the scientific community. You are putting your entire trust and belief in people who have no expertise or background in this subject.
Remember now, next time you have a problem with your plumbing, make sure you hire a plumber, not an electrician... no matter how much that electrician tells you he knows how to plumb. - DankBuddz, on 04/24/2009, -1/+19Yeah?
What's your point?
That money is to be spent on educating people on the issue so they don't become brainwashed like yourself, it isn't going into the pockets of scientists, quite obviously.
Do you have an argument, or are you going to keep posting links about Al Gore?
I fine it extremely unfortunate that you base your opinion on such a serious issue solely on the fact that you don't like Al Gore. Guess what? Neither do I. I think he's a hypocrite, and I think his exclusion of the effects of methane as a greenhouse gas was ignorant.
You do realize that climate change has been an issue long before Al Gore's movie came out, right? - WasabiBomb, on 04/25/2009, -2/+17@Trent, that was an epic verbal smackdown. Well done.
It probably hasn't made a dent in @amishdigger's invincible ignorance, but well done, nonetheless. - Trent1492, on 04/24/2009, -4/+18"the whole atmosphere created by Al Gore's and IPCC's climate hype is making it "politcally incorrect" to not go along with the conclusions."
Perhaps some day you will learn that this issue has been around for over a century. - Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -6/+19Did you just get out sixth grade or something?
- GoodOldNeon, on 04/24/2009, -2/+14citing Orwell does not prove your point. until you have evidence, you're nothing but a propaganda whore. so stfu
- darknecross, on 04/25/2009, -1/+13Hint to the "Global Warming is a liberal lie" naysayers.
-Scientists from around the world support the theory --- people who don't care about red states or blue states agree - nellre, on 04/25/2009, -7/+19These idiots who think they can do better climate science than those who have dedicated decades to the science make fools of themselves.
Will they notice when the cost of food and water go through the roof due to persistent droughts in our breadbaskets (such as California)? I already know they will be deaf to the suffering in Africa and Bangladesh. Climate change will have to bite them in the butt before they wake up. - armakaryk, on 04/25/2009, -3/+15I have a few questions for the people who deny man made climate change (or whatever you want to call it).
why do you deny? what makes your arm chair analysis more relevant then the myriad of scientists and researchers across multiple disciplines who confirm and study it? what data sets do you have that concisely illustrate that it is a "myth"? - seltaeb4, on 04/25/2009, -5/+16Petroleum corporations are basically no different than the cigarette corporations.
- digitalhoodie, on 04/25/2009, -8/+19I'm livid. We've known this to be the case for so damn long but they ran enough interference to not only stop progress on the problem, but make it worse while wasting precious time.
- ZenMojo, on 04/25/2009, -1/+12They've all been brainwashed!
/s - seltaeb4, on 04/25/2009, -1/+11In other words, they've done everything that the cigarette corporations have done for all of these past decades.
- Trent1492, on 04/24/2009, -1/+11"All that is just ad hominem attacks on either group."
Did you read the article and the accompanying documentation? I ask because you give no indication of having done so. Considering the topic of the article which is the industry funded disinformation campaign which has been wage for more than two decades your objection of Nathanbutnet's analysis serves only to demonstrate a reflex on your part to any information that contradicts your ideology.
"Arguing that companies stand to gain from having no limits on CO2 is no contradiction to them being right."
Yes, but irrelevant to the topic of the article. Did you read the part where the industry's own experts said, "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995." . Oh, I forgot you never read the article.
"If we don't limit our CO2 but instead produce more, plants will benefit (they use CO2 and it acts as a fertilizer, they grow faster and bigger) "
So by this logic if you simply immerse the plants under six feet of water, then our corn will grow as tall as an elephant's eye. Too paraphrase a 16th century sage, the dose makes the poison.
"...companies will profit with cheaper energy, making more profit and being able to hire more people, we ourselves profit with our own energy bill being cheaper, cheaper prices on products produced by energy consuming factories."
All this concern about profit, and not a word about the effects of what putting unregulated CO2 into the atmosphere will have on the people and environment for centuries too come. Today's key word is: Myopia.
"They pay for the energy they use, so they have every right to consume it."
Your right to consume and use ends where its effects are detrimental on other non consenting parties. The atmosphere and ocean is a common resource and it is not your personal preserve.
"Get rid of the "guilt", carbon bases energy is a win-win for everybody, whether it's logical for you or not, it's just a fact."
This message brought to you by: Exxon Mobile. - lamejoketeller, on 04/25/2009, -0/+9going through the gray comments makes an environmental studies major like me wanna curl up in a ball and cry
- Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -1/+10"Is the New York Times still in business?"
The link to the NEW YORK TIMES article should be a hint.
"Global warming is a fraud."
Bald assertions are not facts.
"Liberals see it as a once in a century opportunity to raise taxes."
So all of the world's geophysicists are engaged in conspiracy to tax you more? Evidence please that the geophysicists in France and Poland are in a conspiracy? - lamejoketeller, on 04/25/2009, -1/+10I dugg you down so I could digg you up twice
- smcavoy, on 04/25/2009, -3/+11Troll much?
- Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -2/+9Like the man said, "Oh, grow up."
- nathanbutnet, on 04/24/2009, -3/+10This article raises a wealth of issues of course, but the biggest one to me is this: our currently corporate owned news media needs some serious reform. No longer is it acceptable to just present two sides of an 'argument' without the core facts following. For instance in this case and in the case of tobacco for far too long confusion has been sowed in the public consciousness with no real facts to support it. Sadly in this case we may not just be talking about thousands of smokers and second hand smokers, but the seeds of doubt sowed in regards to this global climate change topic have the potential to affect and destroy our very civilization.
- TheMoniker, on 04/25/2009, -4/+11Oh, grow up.
- jeffbw, on 04/25/2009, -2/+8Well duh, Al Gore has been having his friend George Soros pay them all off. It's all part of the conspiracy to put turbines that emit mind-controlling radiations in everyone's backyard.
- nathanbutnet, on 04/24/2009, -0/+6Respectfully I think you are misguided in your thinking. I agree with you that using energy one pays for is logical the problem in this case simply is the extremes this is taken to when you consider 6 billion people playing in the game.
To put it very simply: too much of anything is destructive (e.g. a person can drink too much water and die) and our civilization is at risk given that there are currently such low incentives for anyone to consider doing anything to limit their carbon production (among many other pollutants) and very few alternatives available for folks to utilize (that would become available if carbon pollution was priced properly). - TheMoniker, on 04/26/2009, -0/+6"Most solar radiation is absorbed in the first few feet of the atmosphere"
Are you talking about a specific wavelength? For example, 60% of the incident ultraviolet light incident on the atmosphere is absorbed by the thermosphere. To the best of my knowledge, this doesn't happen over a few feet, the thermosphere extends for about 400 kilometers. While longer wavelengths (and most of the sun's output is in longer wavelengths, near the visible spectrum) continue through the exosphere and thermosphere (for hundreds of kilometers, not a few feet) without being absorbed significantly.
"a theory which remains a theory, only"
Yes, much like gravity. I invite you to keep an open mind and step off of a cliff.
"The global warming issue, even if it is tightly coupled to CO2 emissions [...], will take care of itself."
Eventually, yes. The problem is that it could be very uncomfortable (not to mention costly) for us humans in the meantime as we struggle to adapt to ecosystem losses, increased droughts and flooding and other symptoms of the rapid climate change. - armakaryk, on 04/25/2009, -3/+9you don't understand how modeling works, do you? here's a tip.
http://imgur.com/E3Nw.png - Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -3/+9You did not read the article did you?
- Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -5/+11"climatoligists just run models on computers, recently we find out that they are no accurate (in near future or far future)."
It must be so nice to be untethered by facts, logic or other aspects of reality. - Trent1492, on 04/26/2009, -0/+5"Yes, I heard that about solar absorption in the upper atmosphere as well but I can't prove it to myself"
Translation: I am clueless but instead of educating myself to the best of my ability I will allow my political convictions to guide my concepts of science.
"And science has ample examples of the right observations being grossly misinterpreted."
Yes, and...?
"And though many environmentalists think I'm being paid by Big Oil,..."
I doubt that many if any of the Denial commentators on Digge are being paid. I do think that you and others of your ilk are dupes for the fossil fuel industry.
"All I want to see is those billions of dollars spent wisely rather than wasted foolishly..."
So what would the evidence look like that would convince you? Now note I am not looking for all the reasons you disbelieve but for an honest standard of what would change your mind.
"Also, this latest solar minimum may be contributing to the recent global cooling since our atmosphere is more opaque in the bluer higher energy end of the solar spectrum and is now receiving less solar ultraviolet energy from the sun's solar flares."
You do realize that last year was the eighth warmest year on the instrument record? The Solar Minimum if anything provides further evidence that the warming trend of the past thirty years is not solar induced. There are out pieces of empirical data that falsify the solar hypothesis if only you were willing to think about and read about it.
BTW, when are you going to read the article and the accompanying documentation? - OPR8R, on 04/25/2009, -2/+7I'll be glad when these articles evolve into arguments over what's best to do about the problem. Who cares if some people are skeptical? I'm more interested in solutions. 3 trillion dollars, nuking the sun, and/or super space mirrors is out of the question IMO.
No one wants to be the first to say it, so I will.... We need to start building underground cities. If we start now, they could be really nice well in advance of the time it gets too hot. - Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -1/+6Here you go:
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyMM3tdLyy8&fea ...
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&fea ...
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&fea ...
BTW, why will you not read the article? - Trent1492, on 04/25/2009, -1/+6"You did not read the article did you?"
"It doesn't mean people can not have their own opinion regardless."
So that is a weasel, yes. Thank you.
"Does my dissent make me retarded?"
I prefer the term: willfully ignorant. - WasabiBomb, on 04/25/2009, -3/+8Religion is the dogmatic rejection of evidence to the contrary.
http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-ice-is-grow ...
http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-sea-ice-is- ...
We've got evidence which contradicts your evidence. Why is yours supposedly more factual? - Stewdean, on 04/25/2009, -3/+8Climate change denialists will always point at local events and very selective data to prove their point, either that or roll on some 'expert' who may have worked for Nasa.
Two things to know.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
Do we humans produce more CO2 than would naturally be produced by a factor of more than 1%?
If answer to both of these is yes then you have man made climate change that leads to the Earth getting warmer. If you're thinking so what, sounds great, time to go do some homework. - supferrets, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5Wikipedia is a lot more reliable than people like you try to make it out to be.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm - bogdon6, on 04/25/2009, -4/+9Exactly. Debate does not matter! Finding the truth does that matter. It doesn't matter than the global temperature hasn't increased since 2001.
- TheMoniker, on 04/27/2009, -0/+5Yeah. Well, it's both funny and sad. Probably more of the latter than the former.
- RungeKutta, on 04/27/2009, -0/+5""a theory which remains a theory, only"
Yes, much like gravity. I invite you to keep an open mind and step off of a cliff."
Hahahahaha. That was awesome. Isn't it great when people don't even know what a theory means? Like the moron creationists in Wisconsin that got a sticker slapped on the high-school biology textbooks that said something like "evolutions is only a theory" and thought it was a great win for themselves. - bogdon6, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5Funner fact: Your fact is complete *****.
- galeninjapan, on 04/25/2009, -1/+5Because you would rather prove them wrong than actually have nothing to worry about?
- DankBuddz, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4That's not 100% yet, and when/if it does become a reality, I'll add that to me comment.
Regardless, that doesn't change the reality of the issue of climate change, and the American way of life of consume, consume, consume, and ruin the environment for the exchange of entertainment and maximized profit is finally going to change (thank god).
Its okay for me.
http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-ca ...
You can read about it and realize its not as bad as you think. - inactive, on 04/25/2009, -1/+5Even if you were 100% right that models are completely inaccurate, do you realize what information that gives us? None whatsoever. It doesn't disprove global warming. Christ, do you know anything of scientific rigor? The fact is, even if we had no convincing evidence, we do have a reason to suspect the hypothesis is true. We know for a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know for a fact that we're spewing tons of it into the atmosphere, at a rate far higher than the carbon cycle can account for. You cannot simply dismiss that possibility simply because we don't know for sure.
In conclusion, your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, theskillwithin. -
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 