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.
700 Comments
- 5r4r3r2r1r, on 11/16/2008, -136/+323Watch this get buried quickly ... after all, truth is not a high priority on this site!
- notadiggtard, on 11/16/2008, -85/+269Love it love it love it!!!
- chriskzoo, on 11/16/2008, -35/+186LOL "Oh, did we say it was the warmest on record? We meant the 70th warmest - sorry about that. All carbon credits are non-refundable."
- professor357, on 11/16/2008, -54/+204Hansen has been playing with the numbers since he got into the limelight. Now that the temperatures have peaked, and are headed downwards, he and his followers are doing everything in their power to push for IMMEDIATE action to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Of course, if they can get the IPCC agenda into enactment with any government stupid enough to want to ruin their economy on a fool's errand, they will immediately declare the obvious... that the temperatures had reversed their upward climb. The kicker is that they will claim it is due to their greenhouse gas controls rather than the true cause, which is normal cyclical climate variability. - Kagnew, on 11/16/2008, -56/+183NASA = Global Warming. Every headline. All the time. "October Heat" scare headline = Fake but accurate.
NOAA = Not seeing any warming in the oceans or satellite readings. Actually seeing global cooling.
Guess which one is headed by Al Gore's buddy? - trafficlight, on 11/16/2008, -19/+145Whether the temperatures are higher or lower are ultimately irrelevant.
It doesn't change that fact that humans continue to dump millions of tons of pollutants in the air every year. We need to change our wasteful habits regardless of what the temperatures are.
If we find out tomorrow that global warming is definitively false, should we go straight back to our old polluting ways? Of course not. - PuterPrsn, on 11/16/2008, -43/+153Got caught touting bad numbers again. This arm of NASA is fast losing credibility since they no longer adhere to the scientific methodology but fudge the data to correspond with an expected outcome rather than revising a theory to fit the current facts.
- rjey, on 11/16/2008, -95/+197And Al Gore will have Obama's ear in some fashion.
Scary stuff right there. - dha07030, on 11/16/2008, -22/+108One month? Wow stop the presses. This means little to nothing for either side of the argument.
- TheJalu, on 11/16/2008, -15/+78It's still ***** cold here in Sweden.
- Chahrlie5, on 11/16/2008, -70/+122Nothing to see here folks, move along.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -22/+72The "error" was not discovered by the people who made it. It was corrected only because the scammers were caught red-handed. But, I guess there are some people who will continue to believe anything.
- proliance, on 11/16/2008, -68/+118Does it matter if the numbers were intentionally incorrect? If so, then someone was "cheating."
But the fact remains, incorrect data were posted and many people believed it.
The US will soon have a president who believes so strongly in these blunders he is willing to "bankrupt the coal industry." He'll force hundreds of thousands out of work with his cap and trade programs and raise taxes which will be passed directly on to consumers. He has no problem with $4.00 per gallon gasoline (his words) and plans on completely replacing the fossil fuel industry within 10 years with an unnamed technology that doesn't exist yet.
So it doesn't really matter why the wrong information was submitted. People like you are going to believe it, defend it and promote it while attacking those who can see beyond the numbers. - Kronos6948, on 11/16/2008, -5/+54Hey, look! Someone with some friggin sense. People shouldn't need a scare tactic to realize that we're doing the equivalent of taking a ***** in our living room.
- keraneuology, on 11/16/2008, -34/+74Please make sure this is plastered all over Daily Kos.
- NigelSheldon, on 11/16/2008, -13/+48Even if global warming doesn't exist, it's for the best that we try to wean ourselves off of our current highly polluting energy sources.
I do wish someone would come out and say what the hell the truth is, though. - elebrio, on 11/16/2008, -17/+51Science is never settled by consensus, but by creating models that make accurate predictions. So far that hasn't happened.
- Yetisquatch, on 11/16/2008, -7/+41I buried you because you just lumped all "scientists" into one convenient little category that fit your own beliefs. You do realize that there are thousands of different fields of study that make up science, right? You are criticizing two completely different and unrelated fields of study to try and prove a point.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -142/+174When are you Gore cultists going to wise up? How many times do you have to have your nose rubbed in the truth before you keep enriching the hot air con men? Go off and worship your new Dear Leader, Obama. Wait. Forget I said that.
- ChronicColonic, on 11/16/2008, -4/+36I do not like what he says, and I do not agree with it. But I do not report annoyances on Digg. Offensive, racial, and threatening get reported.
If I reported everyone I thought was annoying, I would be reporting the whole time I was logged into Digg. - dballagh, on 11/16/2008, -33/+63Can there be anymore proof that SOME scientists are bias when it comes to global warming. Geez.
- Glynth, on 11/16/2008, -10/+40Here comes the alarmist, greenfyre, with his copy+paste links, epithets of "Denier!" ringing out as though it were sacrilege, and complete dismissal of contradicting evidence without even looking it over. As usual. Just bury him - we've seen his unvarying song and dance far too many times to believe he's actually interested in a rational discussion.
- Troika37, on 11/16/2008, -16/+45NASA must investigate this episode at GISS and insist on reliable production of accurate statistics. If they have scientists who can’t tell September from October and can’t recognize a cooling cycle in the Arctic, then they need new leadership at GISS, starting with Hansen. The admission from GISS that they can’t verify their source data when reaching to conclusions should embarrass scientists throughout the profession, as verification of data is absolutely necessary before reaching any conclusions. Without that, GISS may as well be studying the entrails of goats to make predictions about the future climate.
- semrocks, on 11/16/2008, -11/+40The source, greenfyre, is the article itself. Did you even read the damn thing?!?!
And, it became the 70th hottest in the last 114 years.
My god you're an idiot troofer... - Maninthemiddle, on 11/16/2008, -29/+57The truth - that (generally) we have been gradually cooling for several years - has been rising to the surface despite both media and governmental efforts to keep it buried like some primordial ooze.
This was evident in the release that referred to the end of any cooling.
Clearly, this was with the clear purpose of countering a fragment of sanity that had entered the public discourse.
Whether the data was purposely rigged, or done so out of zealous incompetence is of little relevance - though purposeful may be lent some credence with the attempt to find a "hot spot" in the Arctic - note this from the UPI...
MOSCOW, Oct. 4 (UPI)
Ship traffic through Russia's northern sea route is nearly over for the season.
The Itar-Tass news agency said Monday that the last cargo ships are leaving for the arctic districts of the Russian republic of Yakutia as winter closes in. - youannoyme, on 11/16/2008, -4/+30Global warming should not be the only motivation for moving on to other better energy supplies. Energy demands are always rising and we will tap out the old sources at one point or another. If we wait until the tapping out is complete, there is going to be one heck of a painful transition. Besides, even if the burning of fossil fuels is not creating global warming, it is still pollution and noxious to life. So while yes, we don't want to break the economy doing an abrupt switch, the sooner we can wean ourselves from that poison, the better.
- keltin, on 11/16/2008, -15/+40The article is very straightforward in its reporting. Dr. Hansen, may he burn in his own Hell, and his minions, did not find out the error. It was pointed out to him by those who monitor these Global Warming idiots.
It is time for Hansen to be stripped of his position, and his alma mater needs to think seriously about repossessing his PhD, since he doesn't know how to use it correctly. - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -43/+68The 'Global Warming' story is like watching scenes from America's Funniest Videos where the stars get hit in the crotch by varies means.
The entire goal of this endeavor was to control the world by taxing the weather.
I wonder if, in my lifetime, morons that support the global warming luncay might turn their attention to real tangible threats to our survival as a species. Nothing like an inbound asteriod to make all our arguments and opinions mute!!!
When it comes to global warming, I agree with General Kimsey:
"We spend two hundred and fifty billion dollars a year on defense, and here we are, the fate of the planet is in the hands of a bunch of retards I wouldn't trust with a potato gun!" ~ General Kimsey / The movie Ammegeddon - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -19/+44So global cooling is better somehow?
The point of the "global warming" concept is that we are impacting out environment, possibly to a point where the feedback loop forces us to fundamentally change the way we live.
Are you really paranoid enough that you think this was a plan to try to control people and not a real concern for the ability for us to survive? Do you know how irrational that sounds and how many people would have to be in conspiracy for that to work?
I see the person below complaining that "truth" doesn't fly well on this site. But when you have just as much understanding about the situation as the rest of us, your calling others "morons" who are concerned about our future is very offensive and counterproductive.
This is all irrelevant of the cause of the phenomena. If we caused the environment to change or it does so naturally still means it will impact us.
Either find out what is happening, do something constructive, or shut the ***** up. - youannoyme, on 11/16/2008, -8/+32the point wasn't that they screwed up with one month's data, but the admission that their data sources are not terribly reliable, and their actions where they scramble to change their story to reach the same conclusion in light of the corrected data (i.e. the "discovery" of a new hotspot in the arctic where the ice was in fact 30% more expansive than the same time last year, or whatever the actual quote was...) Science is supposed to look at facts and then draw a conclusion, not cherry pic convenient facts to support the conclusion you've drawn
- zelig, on 11/16/2008, -11/+35The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Hello greenfyre, my aren't you busy! Plugging your hilarious climate change blog again, I see. It's amusing but just a bit pathetic- pasting links to your own blog and pretending it's factual scientific information.
Nice graphics, though. How do I order my climate ranger badge? - randypanda, on 11/16/2008, -12/+36Horseporn is my highest priority.
- fish0507, on 11/16/2008, -9/+32hahahah this ***** cracks me up. Digg is full of religious global warming followers. Thank you
- RobotBuddha, on 11/16/2008, -2/+25"The world has been around for 4.5 billion years, it knows what it's doing folks."
The earth does not care if humans die off either. - Troika37, on 11/16/2008, -6/+29Nevermind the opinions at the end of the interview, read the interview.
Money shot: Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ... - biotch, on 11/16/2008, -19/+40what are you talking about?
Theories debunking global warming have not once stood the test of peer review.
Show me otherwise by using a reliable source and maybe people will listen to you.
Here is 130 years of data backed by NASA showing a clear warming trend.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -19/+40The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is headed by a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science.
ROTFL - gfryesc, on 11/16/2008, -36/+57'Hottest on record!', psych, one of the coolest ever. If I were a british citizen with all my wasted tax dollars on capping co2, I would be furious. Is it safe to sue Gore now, or should we just settle with tar and feathering him?
- Troika37, on 11/16/2008, -9/+29The issue isn't the time frame. The issue is the admission by NASA that it can't verify the data it uses to create models and make decisions.
- PuterPrsn, on 11/16/2008, -12/+32NASA's figures are suspect now, and temperatures have been falling for over a decade. Peculiar how NASA's numbers don't agree with any other group's temperature readings - not even close. Looks more like an axe to grind than pure science being done here, otherwise their measurements would be echoed elsewhere.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -6/+26I thought it was the Maoris who collected ears. ;-)
Well, maybe it's . . . No, nevermind. - RobotBuddha, on 11/16/2008, -3/+23Good. Common sense is thinking that ghosts cause illness, witches are responsible for bad crops, and that magic is real. Scientific methodology isn't perfect, but given the choice between living in a culture with or without it I doubt a single person here would choose anything but to enjoy the fruits of science.
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -29/+49British historian Michael Wood produced an excellent documentary titled "Hitler's Search For The Holy Grail" (1999) (you may remember his excellent PBS program "In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great").
Near the end of the program Wood said (not the exact quote but roughly as I remember)
... the disturbing, saddening information I discovered was how easily and exuberantly those in academia and science who knew the Nazi Aryan race paradigm was a lie fabricated evidence and participated in the fraud.
Nothing changes, human nature and the desire for short term influence and wealth often trump science and truth. - anonymous1986, on 11/16/2008, -12/+31The anti-science crew seems to be out in full force on digg these days, this article is from the daily telegraph which the article in wikipedia states as:
"The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative[11] in modern times. The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, also known as Tories, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph".
Pure anti-science filth.
Here's a nice quote from the comments section:
"Hahaha, looking through these comments reminds me why the average I.Q. is 100, when everyone I know personally is over that.
When you Neanderthals make it out of the Stone Age and figure out what's happening, I expect to see each and every one of you post a full apology to the people whom you're maligning." - Gandalff, on 11/16/2008, -5/+24That's just a coincidence.... (Tongue in cheek) He is a scientist and would never go against science for money....
"...On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen..."
These are simple mistakes and not biased in the least bit.
"...GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year." - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -31/+50Not all in NASA have thrown science away in favor of anthropomorphic global warming dogma.
James Hansen, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) chief, is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally and has been dishonestly manipulating temperature data for years in order to promote his very biased politically based dogma.
Climate Audit has been documenting the dishonest manipulation of temperature data by GISS for several years.
The truth is human produced CO2 does not drive global warming - but the Gore/Hansen/et al. crowd prefer their current fame, influence, and derived wealth over scientific truth. - PuterPrsn, on 11/16/2008, -9/+27All you're doing is quoting yourself - exactly what are your credentials in climatology? So even if temperatures are falling, there's no global cooling? How exactly does that work again? But if temperatures were rising, which they are not, that would be global warming? Why one and not the other? Could it be that it doesn't fit with how you think it should work? That's not the scientific methodology - what you think doesn't matter, facts and measurements matter. And the fact is that the measurements are showing a cooling trend.
- Bub978, on 11/16/2008, -18/+35Oh god, digg users are anti-global warming. Why the ***** do I post here.
*sigh*
Guys, the Earth has been tucking CO2 into itself for billions of years. Oceans deposit limestone and oil over long periods of time. Both of these are made up of carbon, oil especially. The Earth has been cooling over time. Go back a couple hundred million years and the planet was much warmer. So as carbon has been deposited, the Earth has cooled. And now we're digging into the Earth and pulling out the carbon, and putting it back into the atmosphere. We are basically turning back the clock on the Earth's atmospheric history, undoing all of the carbon deposition.
Granted, climate is affected by the sun as well. We're seeing cooling now because the Sun is in the low end of a cycle. Nobody is going to claim that these solar cycles are unable to affect our climate. However, it's naive to think that the sun is the ONLY thing affecting our planet. Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, has a surface temperature of a few hundred degrees. Venus, the second closest planet, has a surface temperature of about 850 degrees. Further away from the sun, Venus is over twice as hot as Mercury. Venus' atmosphere is thick with greenhouse gases (including CO2). Global temperatures are two pronged.
Let's also not forget that weather is local, climate is global. Arizona's October was incredibly warm, with temperatures in the 90s until the last week of the month, and even now in November, we're still pushing into the mid 80s. While Arizona is known for hot temperatures, these are atypical for us. We usually cool off in late September and temperatures gradually side through the 80s in October and through the 70s in November. This isn't evidence of global warming, though, because this is just Arizona. Just like a big snow storm in your neck of the woods isn't indicative of global cooling.
Don't let one organization's errors blind you. Global warming is a real threat. All you have to do is look at context greater than your own front yard. The history of our own planet and the current state of the planets in our own solar system give us a lot of information that we should not ignore. - biotch, on 11/16/2008, -8/+25"who can you trust"
1 faulty month in oct. does not negate over 100 years of NASA backed data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ - takingcharrge, on 11/16/2008, -2/+19ok -- as someone who studies meteorology and climate i feel like i have to butt in here.
it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to find evidence of global warming in weather patterns at all. yes, that means that even attributing more hurricanes (which btw there are more in this cycle than in past cycles) and floods, etc to global warming is pretty bunk at this point in time. using very basic logic, there should in fact be more hurricanes and floods on a warmer planet. but its a little early to start linking them to climatic variations.
the best way to look at climatic variations is to observe what does NOT vary from year to year. The 'northwest passage,' filled with sea ice for the past oh 6000 years or so opened up in 2007 and 2008. Areas covered in permafrost for all of documented memory are thawing out in the summer in Siberia and Canada. Glaciers in Greenland are melting -- fast. There IS evidence of a warming climate outside of this highly insignificant october temperature data clearly effed up by NASA (which i highly doubt they would do on purpose given the scrutiny that their data is subjected to now via the internet and their current respect among the american people).
Also, for those who believe that this warming trend is due to a change in the sun's intensity or whatnot, give me an explanation why the upper atmosphere has not shown the same trend that the lower atmosphere has over the past 30 or 40 years and then maybe i'll start believing that CO2 is not so much of a factor.
But regardless of whether CO2 is causing the planet to warm (it is), it is not healthy to be pumping it into the atmosphere by the billions of tons. no good. -
Show 51 - 100 of 710 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is