What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
55 Comments
- VitriolAndAngst, on 06/29/2009, -9/+24Wing-nut Feeding Frenzy is GO!
Make sure the world never discovers that people are sick of the fascists. Nope. /s
Environmentalism is not a fringe interest folks. Sustainably using our resources is necessary for life on earth. It's only a political debate, because polluters found it's cheaper to raise an army of fools by shelling out big cash to a few pundits. It's only going to mean more money going to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Rush and the rest of the armchair heros. It's amazing this crap works. - OwenKellogg, on 06/28/2009, -16/+31Wait.... are you referring to your favorite judges Ginsburg & Co.? You know, the judges that voted to allow cities to exercise eminent domain on private property to force big box stores into small towns? You mean those justices?
- Bloodwine, on 06/29/2009, -1/+14Holy ***** I hope you are making an attempt at humor.
- OwenKellogg, on 06/28/2009, -13/+25ahhhh!... Dugg down... no response from the wonder scientist? No defense?... No intelligent comeback?
- pintomp3, on 06/29/2009, -12/+24It's sad that people put short-term corporate profits ahead of the environment everyone must live in.
- vault, on 06/29/2009, -15/+26Because chicken little environmentalist fearmongering doesn't count as an agenda?
- Zarchon, on 06/29/2009, -2/+12You mean judges without an agenda. Sotomayer even said "court of appeals is where policy is made."
You know, if you want to be a dick then be one. It's not like there isn't enough true stuff to blame Republicans for but stating the exact opposite of the truth is just insulting.
\As for Obama having the ability to remove justices at will sort of sounds like a totalitarian state. I am sure you would love that while Obama is in office but what if Bush had those same powers. Please grow up. The courts are there as a check, as in checks and balances. The left has judges with an agenda, not the right. If the right had an agenda then Roe vs Wade would have been overturned during Bush's eight years. - AWBoy666, on 06/29/2009, -18/+28Maybe it's because environmentalism has converted from what was a purely moral endeavor, that being saving the beauty of nature, into an economic and political force far removed from its original theory.
The morality of continual government intrusion into private business should rightly come to an end, as the supreme court has worked to achieve. - tbhurst, on 06/29/2009, -0/+9Environmentalism may have once been (narrowly) defined as "saving the beauty of nature" by Thoreau, Muir and others, but that didn't really work, did it?
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -6/+12"this is why we need to have a presidential power given to Obama to remove justices at will"
I'll give this lib some credit, he's honest about his desire for a totalitarian leftist state. - s73v3r, on 06/29/2009, -2/+8How about when they ok'd the Warrentless Wiretaps? Sounds like they dropped the ball on the Constitution there.
- DreadPirate, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Or how about the leftests on college campuses around the country that have created "Speech codes" and "free speech zones", and attacked anyone who dares to disagree with them?
- OwenKellogg, on 06/29/2009, -7/+12ahhhh.... c'mon Orkin man... don't tell me that you are embarrassed by that ruling? You mean that Ginsburg & Co. aren't the champions for justice as you would like us to believe?
- pinchduck, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Not if you define Obama as one of those leftists. He saw the power-abuse structure that Bush put in place and said "Say....Nice power machine! Thanks, W!"
Also ask Larry Summers how much most leftists value freedom of speech. The sad truth is that too many people on both ends of the spectrum are all too willing to limit the freedom of their fellow man in order to push their own agenda. - Swivelstick, on 06/29/2009, -4/+9Thinking you are confusing issues and "sides" a tad much.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5"Most leftists value freedom more than their hivemind con counterparts can fathom. We've been fighting for it for years"
Sure you do, Novenator. Freedom for leftists maybe. - OwenKellogg, on 06/29/2009, -4/+9Nope... just waiting for assessment of Ginsburg & Co.
I know you've been on here reading this... I checked your activity. But no response.. hmmm.. I wonder why. - h8f8kes, on 06/29/2009, -6/+11After seeing some of the comments here I have to wonder how we let environmentalism get so rabidly out of control. We all want clean water/air and plentiful wildlife - but not at the expense of human beings. There is a happy medium that can be achieved with common sense if only people would be willing to listen to each other. Cramming Cap and Tax programs down our throats based on a statistically flawed slide-show is only going to hurt the environmental cause in the court of public opinion.
- OwenKellogg, on 06/29/2009, -11/+15Ah.. yet one more bury tossed on the wood pile... and yet STILL no response from our fearless Colonel Klink.
- DreadPirate, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4*****. Find me one post I made where I "supported" the free speech zones during the RNC. I may have made comments about the behavior of the protesters at the convention, but that is not the same as supporting free speech zones.
- OwenKellogg, on 06/29/2009, -5/+9ahhh!... It's novenator's other ghost account.
- RastaD, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5Remember this is the same court that defined CO2 as a pollutant, giving the EPA a tremendous amount of new power. But now they are a bunch of conservative activists trying to hamstring the environmental movement? Maybe they are just doing their job and ruling on ambiguous cases based on their interpretations of the law.
- s73v3r, on 06/29/2009, -4/+8Nuclear war didn't happen because cooler heads prevailed, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Should it happen, it will most certainly devastate our planet. One only has to look at the sites of major nuclear disasters (Chernobyl) to see what could happen.
- DreadPirate, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Kingnova - I'm pointing out Novenator's hypocrisy in claiming that leftists value freedom so much, when there are so many easy examples of them *restricting* freedom. I never said it was *just* a leftist issue. You enjoy pointing out hypocrisy so much, I'm surprised that's not self-evident to you.
- stompk291, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3oh noes! dihydrogen monoxide! I heard every person who has ever died had traces of it in their system! we need to ban it now !!! :-)
- Barackalypse, on 06/29/2009, -10/+13FTA: "This term's environmental decisions, taken as a whole, convey a message of extreme hostility to the goals and methods of environmental law"
Given the Supreme Court seems to be the only people who even pretend to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution, I must conclude based on the above statement that the goals and methods of environmental law are hostile to the Constitution. - vbullinger, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4Really? Looks like someone needs to go take remedial reading classes.
- seala, on 06/29/2009, -3/+6Thousands of people die every year from inhaling too much dihydrogen oxide or more correctly dihydrogen monoxide.
Last year we had to evacuate over 900 people from our building because some idiot thought it would be fun to add some to the calcium carbide and the stink was horrendous -apart from the fire risk. We also have to keep our Sodium and Potassium under parafin oil to protect it from dihydrogen monoxide gases in the atmosphere. Dihydrogen monoxide definitely is a substance that needs regulating to protect it from contamination and to keep people healthy and safe. - kingnova, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3"this is why we need to have a presidential power given to Obama to remove justices at will."
Wow. Get OFF the internet, and go do some reading. That is the single stupidest thing I have seen someone write in a long time.
Here, try this on for size: "this is why we need to have a presidential power given to BUSH to remove justices at will."
Still support your statement? Do you plan on appointing Obama President for life, because you think he is so great?
Good God I hope you are trolling. - DreadPirate, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Hmm - Given links and opportunity, it seems that KingNova actually *can't* back up his claims about me, and has instead chosen to abandon this thread. How unsurprising.
- Barackalypse, on 06/29/2009, -1/+3Hence the part of my comment that reads "who even pretend".
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -8/+10Good! "Environmentalism" is not about protecting the environment, it's just a facade for the socialist movement because socialism is not a politically correct term in America, and for the ignorant anti-technology, anti-industrial, and anti-nuclear movements. Ever see Penn and Teller telling the greens about the dangers of dihydrogen oxide? Almost every single one of them at a particular demonstration signed a petition to ban water. Green = socialist, naive, misguided, or just stupid.
- ivandurakov, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Damn. That pesky Constitution gets in the way of the red-green counterrevolution every time.
- DreadPirate, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Kingnova - Try again. I have looked at my posts from back then, and the closest I come to your claim is discussing how the Democrats were forbidding protesters from bringing buckets of feces into the protest areas. The story I was referring to is at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008 ... and the comment itself is at http://digg.com/politics/Police_fire_water_cannon_ ... .
For future reference, there *is* a third party tool to let you go back and review your comments. I used http://www.neaveru.com/digg/stats/ to go back and check out my posts from during the RNC, and the above link is the *closest* I could find to what you mistakenly claim I said.
And just to make you happy, I hereby come out against "Free Speech Zones". I have commented negatively on them repeatedly in the past, but this is my official statement against them being used by either party. - JoeParanoid, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2That's called assuming facts not in evidence.
- nepidae, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Environmentalism is great when we have money to blow on w/e we want, its not so good when people can't afford basic services.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -19/+20LOL!
More like the conservative justices are more interested in following the Constitution than pushing an agenda. - h8f8kes, on 06/29/2009, -4/+5Wish I could digg you twice. Well put.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Dugg down? Dred Scott was correctly decided?
- OwenKellogg, on 06/29/2009, -12/+13And here I thought Novenator was supposed to be the brilliant scientist. I am waiting, with baited breath and star-dazzled eyes, to hear his wonderful explanation for the Ginsburg & Co. ruling on eminent domain. I'm sure he has a fantastic explanation as to how a) it is constitutional, b) how that ruling supports individual freedoms and rights, and c) how the small business owner will benefit from this ruling.
I need to know!... please oh please oh please! - paidhima, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2I'm going to go ahead and call ***** on pretty much your entire post:
1. "Nuclear war WILL wipe us out." This was not a liberal fringe interest. If we had entered into Nuclear war, the world as we knew it would have ended - emphasis on "as we knew it". Actual models and actual simulations based on actual tests and actual uses of nuclear weapons show that, had a nuclear war began and the armed nations used their weapons the fallout would have been enough to markedly alter the climate of this planet long enough to very possibly wipe out the human race and most land-dwelling creatures. Of course, the planet would have recovered eventually, but we probably wouldn't.
2. "An ice age is coming." I'm not exactly sure where you heard that. The last glacial period was about 12k years ago. In an ice age, of which we are at the tail end, there are many glacial and interglacial periods. We are in an interglacial period. If you look at climate data going well back, you would see that interglacial periods are actually growing shorter, indicating that we may be due for another glacial period in the next 5k years. I'll come back to ice ages and climate later.
3. "Acid rain is going to wipe out our food supply." This has not happened. There is, however, no denying that acid content in precipitation has steadily risen in areas of high pollution and has been spreading slowly. While I don't think it will necessarily wipe out our food supply anytime soon, the trend toward more acidic rain is worrisome. Not catastrophic yet, but worrisome.
4. "AIDS is going to kill everyone by 1990." Please provide a citation. Show me one non-wingnut, non-moonbat prediction that supports this statement. Of course, regardless of the veracity of this particular nonsensical statement, do you argue that AIDS has not had a profound effect on the human race? Many African countries are in the process of being absolutely decimated by the disease, and we still don't have anything approaching a real cure. If it weren't for proper precautions, AIDS could very well have been the end of the human race. AIDS is every bit as dangerous as variola majora, and look at the panic that erupts whenever you even mention that: smallpox.
5. "We are going to run out of oil by 1990." Please provide a citation.
6. "Ozone layer is going away." The ozone layer has been depleted - of this there is no question. Satellite thermal imaging has supported this. At the rate of decay at the time of most of those predictions, it was very likely that the Ozone layer would be depleted sooner rather than later. That it hasn't been is not reason to ignore the problem.
7. "...world is now cooling again and has been for 12 years. The last three years have seen the mean temperature of the planet go back to what it was 150 years ago." Ah, here's the one I wanted to get to. This is actually false. The planet has warmed in the period since 1998, which is the time after which most of the global warming deniers state it began cooling. One method of proving that point is using the Hadley Center's global surface temperature readings. According to Hadley, 1998 was the warmest year by record on average, and we have seen steady cooling since then. However, it's important to note that Hadley actually excludes the arctic ocean, as there are no permanent stations there - in the place that has been warming the fastest...
Discounting the absence of data on the arctic ocean, given that Hadley shows a cooling over the last several years, isn't it true that the Earth is cooling? Not necessarily. Weather stations take their temperature reading at the surface - where the air meets land/water. The problem with that reading is that, while it's accurate enough for us to decide whether to wear shorts, pants or a parka, it's not very good at telling us what the temperature of the Earth as a whole is doing. It leaves out ocean temperatures which have risen, albeit by a small margin.
Global warming or cooling means one thing: the Earth is gaining or losing heat. What indicates the overall gain or loss of heat - known as the atmosphere radiation budget - has nothing to do with surface temperature, but the atmosphere itself. The sun contributes a certain amount of heat to the Earth. A certain amount of that heat is then lost by the Earth due to (for example) atmosphere radiation.
But what happens when the atmosphere changes, such as gaining greenhouse gases? The reason we call them greenhouse gases is because they act like a blanket over the entire planet: heat can get in, but it can't get out. As such, while the overall heat entering the planet's atmosphere is unchanged the amount of heat leaving the planet's atmosphere is dropping. This can be seen with satellite thermal imaging. The planet's atmosphere appears cooler now than it did before. That's because thermal imaging reads the amount of heat radiating from the body examined. If less heat is coming out, the cooler the body looks. It's like taking a thermal image of your head with and without a ski cap on in winter. If you take the cap off, your head is a big old ball of red heat to a thermal imager. If you put the cap on, your head looks much cooler - but in reality, your head is warmer, because less heat is escaping. The same is true of our atmosphere.
Now, if the atmosphere is heating up, why is the surface temperature dropping? That's because surface temperature on Earth is affected more by the oceans than it is by the upper atmosphere. There's a constant exchange of heat between the ocean and air, and this exchange can be affected in a surge-like increase or decrease in temperature by events such as El Nino and El Nina. This is what occurred back in 1998, when an uncharacteristically strong El Nino caused a shift in heat from the ocean to the air, leading to a record high temperature. This wasn't a surge in global warming, it was simply a particularly strong seasonal event. So, a better indicator of global warming is not solely the temperature trend of the air or water, but the overall picture of heat gain or loss by the oceans and air together. The trend has been toward increased heat rather than decreased. In fact, many scientists predict that the surface temperature may continue to drop slightly for a bit longer, but will ultimately rise again as the ocean temperature rises.
You probably want to broaden your horizons a bit more and take in some serious scientific studies. They support the theory of global warming. Not only that, but the number of scientists that support the theory themselves is rising. Contrary to the statement from places like the Heritage Institute that scientists are moving away from global warming (their proof generally includes polling scientists that have little or nothing to do with climatology - meteorology is *not* the same), more are moving toward the theory than away. For further proof, note that a revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007 (as cited on Wikipedia and verified on the AAPG's own website) leaves no scientific organization of renown - renown being an important word - in the world with the position that there is no human influence on climate change.
You might also want to look into the validity of certain studies people (like the Heritage gang, for example) use to "prove" their side. For example, a study in the 90s that used satellites to prove that the Earth was cooling was declared invalid. It showed that the temperature in the stratosphere was dropping, contrary to what would be expected in a global warming situation. One problem was that the satellites speed degraded over time, affecting the time of day at which readings occurred at any one point on the Earth. This was taken into account by the study, but when the numbers were calculated they were calculated with the opposite sign (negative rather than positive, and vice versa). That skewed the results, and after the correction was made, the study concluded that temperatures were indeed rising - just as predicted.
Finally, there are scientists who attribute climate change to purely natural causes. There's the volcano theory, that states that CO2 released by eruptions such as Mt. St. Helens and Pinatubo contribute more to levels in the atmosphere than humans do. This is actually false. Averaged out over the past 50 years, volcanoes account for about a hundredth of the CO2 that humans release. Now, it is true that humans produce relatively little CO2 compared to nature (about 1/10th average over the year). However, natural production of CO2 is kept in check by plant photosynthesis, which offsets natural production. The excess produced by humans is not absorbed by nature, and this is the reason CO2 levels have risen.
Some say that Gamma rays from space are causing the increase in heat. The idea is that sunspots increases the sun's magnetic field, deflecting gamma radiation entering the solar system, causing less to hit the Earth's atmosphere thus reducing cloud cover. Reduced cloud cover then contributes to global warming. Scientific research has not borne this out. There is no evidence that gamma rays contribute noticeably to cloud cover. In theory, it's possible that gamma ray-charged air particles could accumulate to the extent that cloud droplets would condense on them and form a cloud. But again, scientifically speaking, there is no evidence that such a process occurs or on a level that would measurably affect cloud cover.
Anyway, your post was *****. - VitriolAndAngst, on 06/29/2009, -1/+1So, because decent people have managed to prevent total catastrophe by not giving industrialists who want to push the cost of things like mountain top removal and coal sludge onto the public -- that means that the Hippies were wrong?
>> And it wasn't like we didn't breath a sigh of relief after Reagan left.
We were close to launching nuke about 3 times during the 80's and two of those times were just because of computer glitches - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -5/+5Dred Scott?
- kingnova, on 06/29/2009, -2/+1"Or how about the leftests on college campuses around the country that have created "Speech codes" and "free speech zones",
You mean like the one's at the RNC? Keep pretending this is a "leftist" issue. - kingnova, on 06/29/2009, -2/+1"I may have made comments about the behavior of the protesters "
A convenient non denial, knowing Digg doesn't save comments that go back that far. I will paraphrase your comments:
It's good they have a place liek that to put them. Who knows what they might do. Many of them are violent, and it is perfectly within the city's rights.
That pretty much covers it. How about you show my a comment where you expressly commented AGAINST free speech zones at the Repub convention? I have a much better memory than you think I do. - novenator, on 06/28/2009, -32/+30This is because for 5 of the last 7 presidential terms, Republicans have been stacking the highest courts with conservative activist judges more interested in pushing an agenda than delivering true, blind justice.
- Enthalpic0, on 06/29/2009, -5/+3they are phallocentric greed-mongers
- kingnova, on 06/29/2009, -3/+1"I never said it was *just* a leftist issue. You enjoy pointing out hypocrisy so much, I'm surprised that's not self-evident to you."
I'll hold my breath, waiting for you to digg up something positive about Obama, or negative about Bush. You were a STAUNCH defender of the "free speech zones" during the Repub convention.
This statement assumes I can hold my breath forever... - Zarchon, on 06/29/2009, -15/+12Environmentalism is a fringe interest. Sorry to burst your bubble. Yes, we all know that if we ruin the planet we all die. It's just that you guys on the left have been claiming some sort of world ending disaster for at least 60 years that I know if. It has been something different each time. Nuclear war WILL wipe us out, check, didn't happen. An ice age is coming, check, didn't happen. Acid rain is going to wipe out our food supply, check, didn't happen. Over population is going to happen, check, didn't happen. Aids is going to kill everyone by 1990, check, didn't happen. We are going to run out of oil by 1990 if we consume at the present rate (1980ish), check, didn't happen. Ozone layer is going away, check, didn't happen. Global warming, umm, world is now cooling again and has been for 12 years. The last three years have seen the mean temperature of the planet go back to what it was 150 years ago. Now it is Climate change since the graph is no longer showing the planet as heating up. Digg me down, it doesn't matter. The truth is that the left has been doing this for decades.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is