What is Digg?369 Comments
- AFelsinger, on 10/30/2008, -6/+83damnit, sorry about the image screw-up
- Br3ach, on 10/30/2008, -2/+55Dugg for it being for thedailygreen and not a picture of Palin's lying face
- greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -15/+61People want leaders to have a brain and rational, fact based policy
- jfdolier, on 10/30/2008, -7/+50Buried for failing your grammar test.
- nikki2300dk, on 10/30/2008, -6/+43"I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times"
-- Judge on the Simpsons - rz8472, on 10/30/2008, -11/+43meh, John McCain didn't mention the words "middle class" in any of his three debates. Just goes to show what their priorities are.
- greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -4/+33http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCateg ... is utter blithering idiocy
"The "proofs" used in this respect are based on selected portions of science which, in many cases, are not based on the objectivity of the scientific method of natural sciences (Sanford, 1992)."
He uses a 14 yr old paper (to discuss "In recent years,") about popular environmentalism to critique climate science???? Is he an idiot? Does he think the reader is?
And don't get me started in Sanford http://books.google.ca/books?id=LsXmMHOT8VsC&pg=PA ...
Let's return to our first idiot. What the hell is he discussing "proofs" for if he is talking about the scientific method? Does he not understand science?
Regardless of how ill informed he is, his unsubstantiated claim counts for exactly zero. Here http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... ... start working your way through the thousands of peer reviewed papers and show which ones did not use proper scientific methodology.
IAs for your 3rd link ... IF you had read my post you would know Koutsoyiannis has already been falsified.
All you have proved is that you do not understand the scientific method, or garbage when you read it.
Go back to the Grist posting and actually read it. Really, actually read it.
Among other things you might learn that climate scientists have always aknowledged the lag that you Deniers think is some kind of super gotcha and is in fact just a way of identifying people who don't read what is right in front of their face. - claudiagc, on 10/30/2008, -22/+50Palin is a TOOL.....You know if these people get elected I will hold you ALL responsible.
In the past you have made a HUGE buzz for a movie and then FAILED to go watch the damned movie int he theater! You guys have a history of doing such things. This time, PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE!
Obama 08 - frogman54, on 10/30/2008, -10/+31Stoopid gotcha media at it again.
- Lavarock, on 10/30/2008, -4/+25Quick admit you're not perfect!
- Ligeia, on 10/30/2008, -1/+19Pobody's nerfect.
- mrhaines, on 10/30/2008, -2/+20Just because it is colder in one spot doesn't mean the climate isn't changing.
- Drax0n, on 10/30/2008, -12/+29Because its true.. and its going to ***** up the entire planet?
- tsmallm, on 10/30/2008, -1/+18I mean who else could we turn to that is so wise to the ways of science other than Penn and Teller?
- CVL4317, on 10/30/2008, -7/+23Palin "Drill baby Drill" talks about energy ?
- johnsna2, on 10/30/2008, -3/+19ask a scientist?
- angryredplanet, on 10/30/2008, -7/+21"Again I maintain my point that AGW cannot be proven or disproved. In fact I just proved that AGW alarmist science is junk science and hence why they won't hold a debate with the skeptics, or how you like to refer to them "Deniers." "
To me, it sounds like you're doing a pretty fast 180 degree turn. First you say you're impartial and then you're saying that anthropogenic climate change is junk science which is why climatologists won't debate it. At this point I'll remind you that recommendations to the IPCC were made by assessing peer reviewed papers. Deniers/skeptics have none. Doesn't that strike you as odd? You can link to as many sites and articles that pretend to have a grasp of the metaphysical and philosophical issues in building a "Global Warming Dogma", while continuing to spread baseless "denier" arguments, but at the end of the day where is the science, the actual content that steers public policy? Nowhere, that's where.
The vast majority of reputable scientific organisations are over 90% certain anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are shaping our climate. These "feelings", as you put it, are based on peer reviewed papers - the hallmark of modern science.
"I on the other hand like to call them professionals for actually really caring about the earth and mankind by wanting to find the real reason for climate change."
Deniers appeal to the mass public because they can recite one-liners that people with less scientific background can easily remember. In debating, they're called "sticking points". To have a scientist stand up a give a spiel on the reflective radiative effect of atmospheric greenhouse gasses would be pretty dry to most trying to keep up with the theory. Add to that the fear of yet another tax and you've got yourself an instant army of opposition. To those who are less scientifically inclined (with all due respect), these people would appear as professionals, pioneers and even heroes.
Unfortunately, public solutions aren't free and excessive atmospheric CO2 concentrations (and other greenhouse gases) are a problem that require a solution. This conclusion is inescapable no matter which side of the fence you fall. The solutions provided are not the best, but they are a start and will perhaps buy us time.
If Deniers were altruistic in their planetary concern they would see that reducing greenhouse gas to normal levels (normal = prior to 1920's industrial revolution) can only be beneficial. Why then do they plot to seed doubt and stall action when there is so much certainty? - MakanGuru, on 10/30/2008, -13/+27how can she mention something she believes is made up?
- danger127, on 10/30/2008, -14/+27she didn't mention y2k either!
- bjornski, on 10/30/2008, -0/+13The more oil that passes through Alaska, the higher their oil welfare checks.
With pretty much zero effect on the prices for the other 49 states. - ceredron, on 10/30/2008, -5/+17this is way too ***** long.
tl;dr The Greenhouse effect is a real effect, and the retreating glacial formations that have been around since the ice age and mountains losing their snow are perfect examples of this. Damn. Science, you stupid ignoramus. Science. - jboskoff, on 10/30/2008, -13/+25Energy expert my ass. One of the biggest jokes of the entire campaign is the fact that McCain gets away with calling her an "energy expert". Why does the media not bother to question this? My elementary school science teacher knows far more about energy than she ever will.
- mrseptic, on 10/30/2008, -1/+13Claiming to be an energy expert is like the 12th or 13th thing wrong with her. Being a complete retard would be #1.
- 0260, on 10/30/2008, -1/+12If only we built more nuclear power plants... damn you, people
- fluxion, on 10/30/2008, -0/+113000 word speech on how awesome oil and drilling is. with a couple "solar", "wind", "NEW-KY-LER"'s thrown in to make it sound like she gives a flying ***** about alternative energy.
- mktwo, on 10/30/2008, -1/+12Probably, he's not a US citizen?
- hendrixiloveyou, on 10/30/2008, -0/+11penn and teller also said second hand smoking wasnt as dangerous as people were led to believe....but then retracted that conclusion
- greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -1/+12"That is whole argument for AGW "
Except it's not. Why do pretend you are able to refute science that you apparently do not even comprehend?
I sent you back to Grist so that you have a chance to stop humiliating yourself with absurd claims based on obviously fragmentary comprehension of what you allegedly read. Apparently humiliating yourself suits you.
Ahh the Wegman Card. You know, hardly anyone ever plays that one?
Of course in any highly specialised field there is a relatively small number people who are truely competent, whether it is scientists, althletes, musicians, chefs, etc. How many world class chellists are there? and needless to say they all know one another.
What McLean is saying that if people ever worked together it is a given that cronyism took place "This is scientific cronyism at an alarming level" even though he does not cite a single case of it ever actually happening.
1) Thats is utter *****, having worked together is not proof of cronyism;
2) It also applies to the Denier darlings Spencer, Christy, Singer, Ball, etc ... they have all worked together.
3) Naturally it would mean that the entire US Administration is corrupt because they have worked together far more;
4) Since no "cronyism" was ever demonstrated, going to all that trouble to explan it seems a rather idiotic thing to do. What can we expect next from SPPI 'Why faeires dance on mushroom caps'?
In other words, demonstrate that there was cronyism, and if it did, then you can worry about how and why it happened.
McLean article is a lame crock of *****. No wonder it caused not a ripple of interest in anyone.
1. The Denier has discredited himself;
2. Very hard to come to any other conclusion when the Denier seems incapable of reading a very sort, simple, written for the lay person article without being completely unable to accurately report what the article said. - rustintable, on 10/30/2008, -5/+16I guess this needs to be said when ever global warming pops up as an issue.
If your on the computer you are using the fruits of science(semi-conductors), Mathematics (Algorithms) and Logic (gates). You are using the product of rationalism (science,math,logic). Yet at the same time you are giving the finger to rationalism which has said climate change is being caused by humans in a bad way as most experts agree.
Get off the computer, go back to the dark ages and your carbon footprint will be no problem. - idontlikeyou2, on 10/30/2008, -17/+27Palin is christian fundamentalist and extermist. She believes that god gave man the dominion over earth and nothing we do can damage it.
- rustintable, on 10/30/2008, -1/+11I would never digg the comment of a McCain/Palin supporter but I just did.
- kuantan97, on 10/30/2008, -0/+10Wow. I didn't know you creeps were still around. Talk about the unwanted dinner guest.
Hey, someone call security. Get these clowns out of here so we can talk about real issues. - col381, on 10/30/2008, -4/+14@ThinkOutTheBox
So your entire 'Global Warming isn't real' argument is based on a single er.. "scientific" paper that came out of an organization who receives it's funding from Exxon. Ooooo Kay.
Gee... it just makes sense that we should trust these people instead of listening to 350 of the world's top climate scientists.. you know, those people who won the Nobel prize for their work.
Dicks : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Po ...
Docs : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan ...
- patpl22391, on 10/30/2008, -6/+15I'm a McCain/Palin supporter, while I don't agree with ANYTHING she said, that was extremely rude and mean of you. Even if you were somehow "just kidding"
***** off. - bjornski, on 10/30/2008, -5/+14It was cold for a day! That PROVES that the warming trends are *****!
The economy is doing FINE! Because I can look outside my window and see 2 neighbors with new cars! - rustintable, on 10/30/2008, -4/+13The case has been proven like in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thats all you'll ever get.
To not act would be stupid. - thelif, on 10/30/2008, -7/+16global warming is a buzzword to scare polar bears.
- Pinkertinkle, on 10/30/2008, -6/+14Why would she mention something she doesn't believe is happening?
- financedude2, on 10/30/2008, -6/+14Global warming is an outdated term. Global Climate Change is more accurate
- greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -1/+8Faith? we have actual science http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
What do you have? - bjornski, on 10/30/2008, -1/+8Works for Israel....
- alexanderhorre, on 10/30/2008, -1/+8I seriously hope the sarcasm I felt reading this was true.
- johnsna2, on 10/30/2008, -2/+9credible information source....
- greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -0/+7How is this http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... not enough data? Start trying to get through all of the science this leads to ... get back to us when you have read it all ... shouldn't take more than a few years.
- tbredofsin, on 10/30/2008, -21/+28Who the ***** cares? Energy policy is not about global warming, nor should it be.
- nowhereelse, on 10/30/2008, -1/+8I'd love to hear about your privileged insight into the matter. No doubt you have access to inside information of which the rest of us mugs are ignorant?
Scepticism and cynicism are not the same as wisdom. Do you do have conflicting DATA? - greenfyre, on 10/30/2008, -3/+9Please learn the difference between climate and weather
Climate vs weather http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/climateweath ...
Here are the facts - show us what is wrong with them http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ...
Myth, Temperatures plummeted in 2008 http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/9/8/123716/7 ...
So far 2008 is actually the 10th hottest year in 129 yrs http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
And here are the facts debunking the cooling myth http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/deniers- ... - bjornski, on 10/30/2008, -2/+8jerry, can't you have at least one thread that you don't come off as an intolerant, ignorant ***** in?
- ceredron, on 10/30/2008, -3/+9jerrycurley, your callous ad hominems deserve no place in a real discussion.
let me guess... you must be the pinnacle of human fitness, yourself.
(notice I stooped to his level in order to have to continue... *****) - Dralha, on 10/30/2008, -2/+8Cigarette-caused lung cancer is BS, there's no conclusive proof at all...and I mean AT ALL!
The Holocaust is BS, there's no conclusive proof at all...and I mean AT ALL!
The Moon landing is BS, there's no conclusive proof at all...and I mean AT ALL!
Same *****, different denial. -
Show 51 - 100 of 378 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is