What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
74 Comments
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -2/+36This doesn't need to be treated as a liberal versus conservative issue. What is wrong with people?
- maledin, on 07/02/2009, -7/+28Seriously naysayers, read the freaking article!
"I have a contrarian section on my Web site, which is climatechange.net. We’re about to triple it because we had to deal with those famous climate professors, you know, professors Limbaugh and Crichton. [Laughter] They have a standard technique, doing much the same thing that the American Tobacco Institute did for a long time, which is to cite the three studies that were equivocal and ignore the 33 studies that were definitive. They use the argument that we still do not, to this day, understand the detailed biological connections between smoking and cancer, but the evidence and data are so overwhelming you’d have to be nuts not to act on it—unless you’re in the business."
"There was a climate contrarian who testified before the Senate last week. He made the claim that climate scientists were some kind of club and they all made money by somehow supporting each other’s findings. The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that’s not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We’re highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they’re wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn’t exist."
"Even science is not value neutral. We make decisions and we have values in our judgments, but at the end of the day we have a code of ethics that says we look at the data and, using our prior knowledge, we make our best judgment. That’s all it is."
This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Global warming is happening for reasons that may or may not be attributed to us and will affect every last one of us. We should not disregard the evidence as a hoax and instead figure out what may happen and what we can do about it. Denying evidence and submitting ourselves to ignorance is really not going to solve anything. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -2/+17Whitehat, do you consider all taxes tyranny and yet still drive to work? I'm real impressed with your borderline anarchist drivel. I was an anarchist once, then I stopped being 14.
- radicaldementia, on 07/01/2009, -11/+26Probably you should read the whole discussion:
"Climate science has reached the point that plate tectonics reached 30 years ago. It is the basic view of the vast majority of working scientists that human-induced climate change is real. There is a real diversity of informed opinion on how important climate change is going to be to various things that affect humans, and there is a diversity of opinion on how to address this problem, but the debate over human-induced climate change is over."
I don't think you'll find a single scientist who will say "Yes, it's all settled, we know everything there is to know about the climate with total certainty" There's a lot we don't know. Possibly we could be wrong about some things, that's how science works. But when it comes down to the basic questions "Is global warming happening, are we responsible, and are there mostly negative effects, however serious?", that is settled. - Wakkyweed, on 07/02/2009, -1/+15Just like being pro-torture is now a conservative issue, and anti-torture is liberal. When I was young ALL Americans were against torture, even Ronald Reagan!
- TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -11/+24"I'm disappointed that they chose not to include a "skeptic" from the scientific community so that there could be some meaningful debate here."
They often, and for similar reason, fail to include skeptics of the germ theory of disease when discussing medicine.
"This was pretty much just a parroting of the same things we hear over and over again, and no discussion of the evidence that supposedly proves that recent warming trends are linked to human activity "
That wasn't the purpose of the article; however, if you're looking, the IPCC reports are a good place to start.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
"There was no mention of the fact that the northern ice sheet increased in size by 30% recently"
Well, in doing so we only moved toward the average in extent (i.e. area): http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_ ...
However, area isn't all there is to sea ice, you need to also consider the thickness. What is happening is that ~2 meter thick multi-year ice is being replaced by ~20 centimeter thick seasonal ice.
"last year's record COLD temperatures"
There is, with some regularity, a record cold or hot day somewhere in the world. What is important is the global average temperature on the timescales which concern climate (e.g. 30 years). Looking at this, the trend is clear: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/glob ...
"or the fact that all carbon/temperature data shows that atmospheric carbon concentrations *lag* temperature change"
Well, all carbon/temperature data for the million years prior to the beginning of the 20th century, after which point, this is no longer the case. However, the reason for this is fairly well known and related to global feedback mechanisms (of which there are many). For instance, the ocean solubility of greenhouse gases is a function of temperature, which is to say that the warmer the ocean gets, the less greenhouse gases it can hold. So, an initial perturbation in the global temperature—say, Milankovitch cycles—causes the Earth, and hence, the ocean, to heat up slightly. This in turn causes the amount of greenhouse gases that the ocean can sequester to decrease. The ocean then releases greenhouse gases, which causes further warming—and so on and so forth.
"There was plenty of talk however about the need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a supposed threat gleaned from a poorly understood climate model. I was not impressed."
While certain aspects of the climate are poorly understood, that doesn't mean that our understanding of the entire climate system is so poor as to render us unable to diagnose anthropogenic global warming. From your comment, it does't appear that you are very well informed on climate science in general. It will take more than reading through a few blogs to really understand what's going on, but I invite you to dig into the science and see what it's about. The references in the IPCC reports are really good, and you might want to further your reading with some of the peer reviewed journals (e.g. Journal of Climate) and with talking to a few people who study in this area. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/02/2009, -3/+15Exactly. To go even further, it is the characterization of this as liberal vs conservative issue which has paralyzed us from action when there no time left to wait.
- TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -5/+15"Biggest scam yet."
Please substantiate this claim.
"People are just plain stupid. And gullable."
Ironic. - homercles337, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11Humans also need an outlet for their stupidity. Apparently this is your radio tuned to AM right-wing talk.
- homercles337, on 07/02/2009, -5/+14FTA: At the same time, a significant portion of the American public questions whether global warming will really cause any major harm; many still doubt that human-driven warming is happening at all.
If science was guided by the American public we would be propelled back to the stone ages. - homercles337, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11Please do enlighten us. Here is an interview with the top climatologists and you disagree, i suspect this means that you will provide us with credentials and a list of publications in peer-reviewed journals?
- Math, on 07/02/2009, -4/+13There has never been an "accepted theory" that all methane emissions are caused be man.
In fact, it is a prediction made by climate scientists that once the permafrost starts melting due to global warming, large stores of methane will start being released:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0904/full/clima ...
You need to start reading a bit more widely than just Fox news. - Geoth, on 07/02/2009, -1/+10This post should have as many diggs as the "SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!" post from the mysterious sewer creature story. Seriously.
Good job, TheMoniker. - homercles337, on 07/02/2009, -2/+10RTMFA you ***** asshat.
- NiftyG, on 07/02/2009, -6/+14***** Op-Ed.
That list of scientists touted by Senator Inhofe include:
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
49 are retired
44 are television weathermen
20 are economists
70 have no apparent expertise in climate scienc
Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/la ... - MudMan69, on 07/02/2009, -2/+10"'Man-made global warming is a HOAX.'
Please substantiate this claim with reference to the peer reviewed scientific literature."
Didn't you see "hoax" in all caps? What further proof could you possibly need? - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -7/+15"Sounds like a discussion amongst 4 young earth creationists - they see what agrees with their prejudicial position and give short shrift to the rest. Fail."
An important difference (among many) being that they base their opinions on the peer reviewed scientific literature, as opposed to a holy text. - Whackly, on 07/02/2009, -1/+9snap!
- homercles337, on 07/02/2009, -1/+9I love this: The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that’s not true.
Because it is so ***** true. All those dopes that are not scientists need to read this, understand it, and know that it is absolutely true. If you can show that your colleagues are wrong you have made a career. This is true in EVERY scientific discipline in which i have published. Im going to let you guys in on a secret, some fraction of all of science is concerned with showing that someone else is wrong--often that "someone else" is yourself. - Wakkyweed, on 07/02/2009, -2/+9Volcanoes actually cool the atmosphere, moron. From NASA's website:
"Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect." - homercles337, on 07/02/2009, -4/+11So, in effect, you are claiming that i should trust an opinion piece in the right-wing WSJ over the words directly from the mouths of top climatologists? Do you see a problem with your logic?
- disappointment, on 07/02/2009, -1/+7The problem with implementing a fair policy for the world is that the leaders implementing a solution will undoubtedly give loopholes to certain businesses with effective lobbyists.
If "we" can't stop genocide and wars worldwide, which has an immediate impact on lives, how effective are "we" going to be at controlling worldwide greenhouse gas emissions?
To hell with it all, I say, lets continually develop better technologies and encourage their use because it is the responsible thing to do, not because some international coalition decided it. I have faith in people everywhere to make the environmentally-responsible choice when they possess enough information. - TheMoniker, on 07/02/2009, -6/+12"Man-made global warming is a HOAX."
Please substantiate this claim with reference to the peer reviewed scientific literature.
"Our climate has been in a CONSTANT state of change for how many millions of years ?"
And the same body of scientific knowledge that allows you to know about the changes in climate for the past few billion years allows us to diagnose the anthropogenic contributions to the present climate.
"But now, because the global warming lemmings happen to be alive, the climate needs to STOP changing ?"
It's odd that you'd refer to the global climate science community as 'lemmings'. Aside from that, the issue is rapid climate change, which will be costly, both in terms of life and economics and which, in the past, is often linked to extinction events. So, we do need to prevent rapid climate change, yes.
"what arrogant ***** they are."
You refer to the community of global climate scientists as lemmings, conspirators of a hoax and present no evidence for your position, yet they are the arrogant ones? - TheMoniker, on 07/01/2009, -9/+14Exactly. Well said.
- Math, on 07/02/2009, -2/+7I like how in that article Steve Fielding is the poster child for Global Warming skeptics.
This is the Australian Senator for the “Assemblies of God” religious movement, doesn't believe in evolution, and is generally considered to be a bit of a nutcase over in Australia, but somehow he's the shining beacon for skeptics everywhere.
It kinda says a lot about the Global Warming denial movement. - Math, on 07/02/2009, -3/+8Why? There are thousands of substances that are controlled in modern society. There are hundreds of gases that factories around the world are only allowed to release limit amounts of, and thousands of liquids that you can't just dump into a stream.
Sometimes giving companies a little less liberty actually provides a bit (or a lot) more freedom for the average person.
Do you really want to go back to the good old "free" days of leatherworking factories upstream ruining a river for the rest of us? - novenator, on 07/02/2009, -1/+6How is the climate bill tyranny exactly? My environmentalist friends on the net seem to think it's a very good thing that we need. Also, I am a freedom loving liberal, and don't share your skepticism. In fact, I think this is the greatest chance we've had since Kennedy to shake off the yolk of an oppressive government controlled by the corporations.
- qkrotor, on 07/02/2009, -3/+7IVloe, perhaps you can help me. I'm a recently unemployed petroleum engineer looking for a job. Since you clearly work for Exxon Mobil, could you pass my resume on to a hiring manager? I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks. - greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -2/+6The girls I know don't find stupidity attractive ... they prefer men and women who who can talk intelligently about the science
http://cce.890m.com/ - Whackly, on 07/02/2009, -7/+11Scientist: knows he doesn't know and follows the evidence
Richmonz: thinks he knows because somebody he already agreed with told him so - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -9/+13And no mention that Methane increased uniformly around the globe last year. The accepted theory was that Methane (which has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2) emissions were caused by man; however, since it takes years for Methane levels to spread from the industrialized Northern hemisphere to the South, levels should not have risen in the North and South at the same rate. This casts doubt that rises in Methane levels are caused by man.
- richmomz, on 07/01/2009, -27/+31I'm disappointed that they chose not to include a "skeptic" from the scientific community so that there could be some meaningful debate here. This was pretty much just a parroting of the same things we hear over and over again, and no discussion of the evidence that supposedly proves that recent warming trends are linked to human activity other than to say "the science is settled!" (I say 'recent' since global temperatures are now in decline after solar output reached its peak a couple years ago).
There was no mention of the fact that the northern ice sheet increased in size by 30% recently (an area roughly the size of Germany), last year's record COLD temperatures, or the fact that all carbon/temperature data shows that atmospheric carbon concentrations *lag* temperature change. There was plenty of talk however about the need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a supposed threat gleaned from a poorly understood climate model. I was not impressed. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4@gnoad: Haha, to be perfectly honest, I'm always thinking whether I want to be or not.
- Gndoab, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4I tried to figure out how to send you a message, but couldn't, so I thought I'd reply to your last post...
what do you do when you aren't thinking? - greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -2/+5No one is funding anti-gravity devices, perpetual motion machines, or time travel either ... in a sane world you don't fund stupidity.
- WhiteHatTrick, on 07/02/2009, -9/+12Exactly, like so many other issues, this is actually a liberty versus tyranny issue.
- greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -2/+5You don't debate reality,
http://cce.890m.com/
you talk about dealing with it ... or rational people do - Gndoab, on 07/02/2009, -1/+3it was a loaded question ;) I saw some of your posts about the religion-sex graph, regarding the confusion of some people with regards to "buddhism". More than once on Digg I've tried to clear it up, but fail miserably.
anyways, how long have you been practicing for? - KyotoWolf, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1I've always wondered what's up with the American 'Liberal vs Conservative' fight, it seems everyone just sticks to the extremes and supports their own brand of politics whilst towing the party line which ultimately will only harm your country. Vote for who you believe will benefit your country (read: not just you) the most whether they're on the same part of the antiquated political spectrum as you or not. I've heard the word 'liberal' used as a dirty word on digg many times and it's just plain puzzling how people can actually use the word as some kind of insult.
- poitsplace, on 07/02/2009, -6/+7They act as if this is the largest temperature change the world has seen in millions of years. "That’s true, but it got warm over millions of years, and ecosystems had a chance to adapt. What we’re seeing are rates of increase in greenhouse gases and warming that exceed natural rates by a factor of 100"
Go to wikipedia and look up "interglacial". You'll find this pesky little graph off to the side. The temperature has been REGULARLY fluctuating by more than the alarmists suggest. I can see at least 20 swings of 2C or greater within the last 100k years...some within this interglacial. The main spike at the start of the interglacial alone was about four times the suggested spike from CO2 and this supposedly catastrophic, unrecoverable spike is still only half the increase necessary to return us to the warmth of previous interglacials. If life can't survive a 3C increase...how the hell did it survive a 15C increase to 6C warmer temperatures of the previous interglacial? - Stevanoski, on 07/02/2009, -6/+7What about pre-man? When billions and billions of herbavores emitted methane gas out the arse? Ho, there goes your insipid argument.
- poitsplace, on 07/03/2009, -1/+2First off, the temperature hasn't actually shown any signs of going up significantly faster...we're right on track for about 1.5C total rise in temperature from 1900 to 2100. This includes the falling temperatures which are mostly due to ocean currents...although the solar minimum may knock a bit off of that. Almost all of the increase will be in regions that are already cold limited. Equatorial regions that everyone thinks will be "hardest hit" are the regions which will have the lowest increases (probably a whopping .5C MAX). All of those regions actually suffer mostly from lack of infrastructure.
All this climate nonsense takes away from the reality of the situation. Go search the web for a map of countries by development and a map of countries by life expectancy. You'll notice a horrifying trend. That bastard Al Gore would stifle their development because at some future date some additional people might die. But...essentially 100% of the people in those countries are currently dying what we would consider an "unnatural" death. They're dying at between 35 and 50 NOW! The ONLY way they'll survive anything well is by developing. Restricting them to expensive "alternative" energy sources with low levels of reliability will kill them NOW and destroy ANY chance they have of surviving any catastrophy...be it warming, cooling, rain, disease, famine, drought, whatever. - cashmonkey, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1I truly hope you are right that people will change by themselves.
- paulsuckow, on 07/27/2009, -0/+1and it really does depend on the availability of readily understandable information...or failing that, the scientific and political acumen of the population involved. at this point merely hoping for the best is running quite ragged. we face the incredible challenge of capping all greenhouse gas emissions at latest by 2015 and reversing the trend thereafter according to the 2007 IPCC. look at the 17% reduction by 2020 the US proposes...something's disconnected, certainly.
and it's not like we can just skip mitigation and run on into (even more expensive) adaptation...we're faced with concurrent efforts. - greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -2/+3You can say those things, but since they're obviously idiotic and betray an intellect so feeble that you haven't even glanced at the facts, you have to expect some blow back.
Try actually knowing what you are talking about, see if you get some respect
http://cce.890m.com/ - greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -4/+5You can have someone from the scientific community talking about science. or you can have a Denier ... make up your mind which it is that you want.
- greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -4/+5They were discussing facts and science
If you want a debate among people who are wallowing in 'beliefs' and 'faith', then go listen to the deniers talk to each other. - greenfyre, on 07/03/2009, -5/+5So BMOC, I see literacy is still a struggle for you. See if you can manage to comprehend that different nouns are used because they refer to different things.
Hence, while the scientific community has consensus that, barring major new findings, the science is still settled
the issue can still be "most controversial. " in society at large because vested interest funds PR firms like CEI to jerk around gullible people who mindless swallow it. - Countess666, on 07/02/2009, -2/+2nobody says life cant survive a raise in temperature( but likely with a large loss in diversity), the question is: can human civilisation survive a temperature change that large. and the answer for most of the worlds countries is no.
- WhiteHatTrick, on 07/03/2009, -1/+1You're hopeless
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
