What is Digg?110 Comments
- DavidYeah, on 12/11/2007, -1/+21Its one sided because science isn't a polical issue. If you think there is "progressive science" and "conservative science," then you need to go back to 3rd grade.
- TheHydrogens, on 12/11/2007, -2/+15I do love seeing people that are absolutely convinced that the talking points coming from Washington are unbiased and correct, but a vast majority of scientists are lying for political reasons.
- dopi1, on 12/11/2007, -3/+13And the US is STILL the only country that hasn't signed the Kyoto treaty.
I guess they don't see global warming as a problem that needs to be addressed. I'm just glad that Bush is going out the door in Jan 20, 2009. May the next president deal with the issue of global warming the right way. - MonsterChaOS, on 12/11/2007, -2/+12The part I love is that all the right wingers said Global Warming wasn't real over and over until a study came out that says its not man made. (arguable certainly) Now, apparently, to them, it IS real, but Gore was wrong.
- CheeseburgerBro, on 12/11/2007, -4/+12Dear slashbot,
Your comment makes sense if you strike "eco-crowd" and replace it with "scientifically literate people."
Love,
Cheeseburger Brown - Picer, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7Suprise, Suprise can't they just encourage eco-friendly-ness? give subsidies to companies that are doing a favour to the people rather than those that donated to your 08 campaigns?
- geddon, on 12/11/2007, -2/+9Bush doesn't rule the world. The economic forces that keep Bush in power will persist after the election.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -4/+10Once again nothing, as long as Bush is in office, he'll interfere with whatever the ***** he wants and there's not a damn thing we can do about it until next november
- TheHydrogens, on 12/11/2007, -1/+6So... how about this:
What is the worst that will happen if we invest in cleaner, renewable energy sources? In the short run, we have to spend money, and plenty of it. Fine. In the long run, we will have energy that is not dependent on fossil fuels or foreign sources.
If we do all of this as global warming turns out to be a scam, what have we really lost? Not freakin much. We have a cleaner environment, and we are energy independent.
If we do nothing, and global warming turns out to be real, what do we lose? Potentially (stressing potentially) billions of dollars worth of property, and millions of lives.
Which is the right thing to do here? Sit here with our fingers in our ears saying "la la la la la, we can't hear you because we like our fossil fuels and wasteful habits", OR we could improve our country and potentially lessen the effects of human actions on the environment
/rant over - Brian48216, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7Just think-
the people who still believe that climate change isn't caused by human activity, are either as dumb, or dumber then the adminisration. - DasCrackbaby, on 12/11/2007, -3/+8[sarcasm] OH! that it explains it all [/sarcasm] Tags: 911 God guns jesus rebel flag roman torture device hate gays AIDS yellow ribbons Glenn Beck support the troops
- TheHydrogens, on 12/11/2007, -3/+7There is not overwhelming evidence that stem cell research is caused by humans? ..... ***** stem cell researching unicorns! Stay away from our fetus babies!!!
- peaceordeath, on 12/11/2007, -4/+8once again...
- digitalghost1, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5WTF is 'Climate Science' whatever happened to just Scientific Research and Reports on Climate Change or Global Warming? This whole debate is out of control. Enough already with the political fighting on the subject. Man made or not it just makes sense to stop pollution on local levels and therefore globally. Stop with the stupid jackass political attacks. Who gives a ***** already what one side thinks of another. O yeah, Ron Paul in '08!
- 10lbhammer, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5I fail to understand this argument... oh, that's why, because it's *not* an argument! it's a political attack on an issue that isn't necessarily political. might I also add, strawman.
oh, and I fail to see how (disbelieving lots and lots of research which I'm sure you've read all of) = (common sense) - CheeseburgerBro, on 12/11/2007, -3/+7Dear slashbot,
You're absolutely correct.
However, you should realize that "common sense" is a very poor indicator of scientific rigour, as many aspects of the physical world are counter-intuitive to the human mind.
Anyone who measures truth according to their gut feelings is going to be about as successful as someone who measures the wavelength of ultraviolet light by squinting.
Love,
Cheeseburger Brown - brentinkc, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5They were just adjusting the report to reflect a maximum level of truthiness
- atlanticworld, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5Use your vote.
Use your vote.
Use your vote. - kirstpo, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5It's scientifically proven for the most part that global warming is primarily caused by man made pollution. It's proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just look at the carbon dioxide levels throughout earth's history, then after the industrial revolution. Gore might not be the best example of the best way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that doesn't make his message any less valid than it is. He is spreading awareness however, which does stir some people around the world into action.
Nobody is turning a blind eye to Gore's "scams", because there really isn't one unlike the many scams Bush has pulled off. Misinformed people disregard Gore and global warming because of the propaganda spread by those with political and economic agendas. - DavidYeah, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4Unless you're rich and you're trying to keep down science, in which case it would be:
Use your lobbyists.
Use your lobbyists.
Use your lobbyists. - Arrhenius, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Care to tell us why you repeat nonsense that have been debunked over and over again?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-g ... - chrisfry, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5It should come as no surprise that an administration obsessed with oil and oil wealth would take steps to suppress scientific fact. There are no scientists claiming that global warming isn't happening. There are only a scant few that are still on the fence as to whether it is being caused by carbon emissions. The question is now, what are we, as a world community, going to do about it. The fact that Cheney is one of the delegates going to Bali to represent the US is a bit scary.
- LokitheComplex, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5That report was co authored by Fred Singer. He's appears to be a scientist for hire as he also claims second hand smoke is not dangerous. I'm not against questioning the arguments and it should rely on the science. But as a layman there is no way I can judge all the science so I defer to the scientific consensus especially when the critics look dubious.
- bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2i like it... but howabout a prize for those who can prove that global warming is causing human activity?
- lensman00, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3The head of the White House's internal environmental committee, James Connaughton, has responded with a vigorous denial of any manipulation of science or science reporting.
"This administration has an unparalleled record of supporting funding, advancing and publicizing climate change research," said Connaughton in a statement. "Claims that this administration interfered with scientists and with the science are false."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188472/
He came to his position from an environmental legal defense organization. It's interesting to read through the cases that group has handled:
"Defense of the owner of a chemical manufacturing facility against personal injury, property damage, and “environmental justice” claims brought by hundreds of neighboring homeowners due to alleged benzene emissions."
"Representation of the largest manufacturer of truck diesel engines against enforcement actions brought by California and EPA alleging that emission-control “defeat devices” had been programmed into the computer systems."
"Representation of one of the PRPs at the Vertac site in Arkansas involving both on-site dioxin remediation and a natural resource damage claim for dioxin contamination in 133 miles of off-site river sediments and floodplains."
"Representation of a food and textile company in connection with alleged Cryptosporidium contamination of a major metropolitan public drinking water system. We successfully resolved most claims through a structured settlement."
In other words, his background is in guarding the corporate bottom line from environmental regulation and enforcement, regardless of the level of damage done to the environment.
http://www.sidley.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/General%20 ... - pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3reality is one-sided.
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Will I be able to have pudding? I like pudding!
- Arrhenius, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3Wow, you actually fell for the Schulte fraud.
Now, if you could be so kind - could you show me a copy of the actual paper, so we can look over the list of published authors that don't agree with the consensus. That should be easy right? - bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=23571
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2The problem is much more complex than you seem to believe.
- btsr7414, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3I was just about to post that link. "UN interferes with the climate scientists (it does not like)"
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3No actually global warming is fact. In fact our solar system is warming up. What's in doubt here is the Human caused global warming theory.
- geddon, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4Individual access to pudding will depend on the candidate. Clinton will require that everyone purchase their own pudding, while Kucinich will lower the war spending to ensure that everyone has free access to pudding without cost. Ron Paul, however, could care less about pudding.
- LawSchoolBound, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Gore has given his presentation many times in China and trained others to continue giving it. He has also worked with officials in China to try and get them to develop a less damaging approach to industrialization. He might be hypocritical on a personal level with is big house etc. but that doesn't change the fact that he has been trying to get other countries as a whole to change their approach to this problem
- bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1yes, but not this one. no one has witnessed a man-made climate change before, so how are you so sure about the indicators of this one now??? love, bullcutter
- Arrhenius, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Asking that a denier produce some actual evidence to back up his claims ... well that was pretty silly of me.
Now could you produce the paper you were citing? My alternate reality includes things such as "fact checking". Crazy huh? - LokitheComplex, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I was just being honest in saying I am not a climate scientist.
As far as it seems to me there seems to be a counter argument for every argument one way or the other which makes it difficult to tell.
I'm sure I can offer a counter argument for any fact you give me one way or the other. Which makes it difficult to judge with out spending 10 years in the field.
I think the detail of science is too complicated for the layman. Like much of science. Nobody is an expert in biology, chemistry, physics. So you have to rely on the consensus in those fields.
And I would agree that science is not a democracy. So yes a small group of people can be right.
Last year I watched a programme on global warming on channel 4 (I'm in the UK) it was filled with facts by global warming sceptics. I found it quite convincing.
Then other scientists appeared and were very convincing saying the programme was nonsense. They supplied their own facts. One of them was a scientist that had appeared on the programme and said his facts had been grossly distorted.
So I was back thinking that there is human induced warming.
Maybe we could pick a fact and discuss it? - norman619, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Please....
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_sola ... - norman619, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1This is from the page you offered:
"Some of this global warming is due to human causes. This is fact. The question is, how much? "
Is this a fact? - bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1you're an idiot. have fun believing in your alternate reality.
- damnmonkey, on 12/11/2007, -4/+5Hey, I'm glad Bush is out the door too, but if you think signing on to the Kyoto is going to help anyone other than the UN.....well, I'll just have to giggle then.
- bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1hooray!
- bullcutter, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1sure, they just shouldn't say they are doing it to stop global warming, because that's the part that is *****.
- Smiths, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Read up on those who actually did the study. You'll see that one is slightly biased (said in 2004 it was a hoax), one's credibility is severely damaged by taking bribes from Exxon (this is very well documented) and another who's a fundy Baptist (we all know what great, objective scientists they make).
Now I'll all for discussion on this issue, but don't point to articles with questionable or obviously biased researchers as a disapproval of global warming. I know it's hard, but think a little harder next time, and find some better sources.
*Translation for RedDragonAngel*
OMG, U R SO FULL OF FAIL SO STUFF IT!!! - norman619, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2It wasn't supposed to. It's designed to confuse, mislead, and piss people off. To hell with actual facts.
- norman619, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1UV rays?
- Arrhenius, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2"less than half all published scientists endorse global warming"
Absolutely false.
"HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE A WORD THAT FALLS OUT OF THIS GUYS MOUTH?!!!? I MEAN, SERIOUSLY!"
Because he is (usually) consistent with the known science. That's the only reason that matters.
"How you can believe Al Gore and consider yourself a rational, open-minded individual is beyond me."
You don't seem to know what those words actually mean. - norman619, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3They hang their claims on climate models. Well take a look at this bit of info.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ... - throop77, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3You nailed it slashbot. People actually try to use common sense on this topic rather than evaluating the data. Like for example, "The world is so big people can't possibly affect it."
- bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1you're absolutely right. they lie about the integrity of theirs worths as scientists all for some additional government funding.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 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