What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.768 Comments
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -21/+143Our economy is going to ***** anyways if it remains dependent on a fossil fuel. A move to renewable resources as primary means of power is the only sensible solution, with or without global warming.
- bentman78, on 12/20/2007, -55/+154I believe in global warming, however believe it's a natural occurrence. I think mankind's impact is so minute it's probably not measurable.
I am for green technologies however for the simple reason of if we can make the world a little cleaner for our children than why not? As long as it doesn't kill our economy we should adapt an energy policy that will make us become self sufficient and get off of the dependency of oil from an unstable area of the world....that is all. Thanks. - OneHine, on 12/20/2007, -55/+127THIS is the best denialists can do? An insane conspiracy theory linking global warming to the UN ruling the world with an iron fist? No wonder people think you're idiots.
- Winoria, on 12/20/2007, -14/+83Cynicism aside, let's keep in mind that scientific debate is not a popularity contest and does not deal in absolutes. A healthy debate is characterized by different sides putting forth evidence to find the truth. In this debate, the majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is a problem and they're still hashing out the details. What people do with scientific findings to support their various agendas should not be confused with scientific consensus. All sides are guilty, in my opinion, of manipulating fact to chalk up points for their side.
- BlackStrain, on 12/20/2007, -6/+74Even if global warming isn't happening, we still have lots of good reasons to stop using fossil fuels. I refuse to believe that spending money on energy that doesn't spew smoke into the atmosphere in a bad thing.
- bentman78, on 12/20/2007, -22/+81I also like this part:
"...for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated."
In NY mafia accent--> Look here see, you're gonna believe in global warming or Mugsy here is gonna bust some knee caps. - BigManOnCampus, on 12/20/2007, -27/+83I would challenge anyone to find 400,000 environmental scientists in existence in the entire world. I doubt there are that many.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/20/2007, -76/+122This is by far my favorite part:
"In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.""
So, why am I called a denier again? - inactive, on 12/20/2007, -53/+99You can digg me down but you cant digg down the voices of 400,000 of the most prominent enviromental scientists. You can't ignore 400,000. And as soon as Al Gore can find them, you'll see. Even if it takes 10 years to do it. Oh, wait the world is going to be under water in 10 years. Oh, wait, that was in the movie 2 years ago, so in 8 years. You got 8 years people before life becomes Waterworld and your floating around at sea on an old oil tanker with a one eyed Dennis Hopper yelling at you. 8 years.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -23/+68I take it your comment is sarcasm but if not, this appears near the end of the article:
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) - crombenevolant, on 12/20/2007, -58/+101The real question is whether or not this can make it to the front page before being buried by the legions for global warming fanatics on digg.......
- diggydougie, on 12/20/2007, -10/+53Like Einstein said. It only takes one to prove it wrong (or right). Science is not a belief system, or a democracy. You can't win just because you have more people on your side. The truth will win out in the end, no matter what us people think.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/20/2007, -56/+95Oh, and if you think all of this push to be "green" these days and reduce your "carbon footprint" isn't being used and abused by industry to charge you more for things that aren't as difficult to do. Think again.
EXHIBIT A: http://digg.com/environment/57_mpg_That_s_so_20_ye ...
That's right, a sedan in 1987 that probably cost less than $7000 back then got 57 mpg. Now how much do you pay for a hybrid that is more complicated and harder to manufacture? It's a joke. You greenies are BEING DUPED and robbed of your money so that you feel better about your imagined impact on the environment around you. - mnocket, on 12/20/2007, -70/+109Well to us TRUE believers, this is easy to explain away. You see these 400 scientists are not "real" scientists. All "real" scientists, by definition, support man-made global warming. Therefore, my fellow global warming ideologues, stand tall in the knowledge that the debate is over, there is a clear consensus, all real scientists support man-made global warming! Oh, and don't even get me started on those who contend that Al Gore is just playing us for personal fame and gain.
- castlecraver, on 12/20/2007, -42/+80"The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists"
So this is essentially FoxNews journalism disguised as a congressional report. Sometimes I think global warming "skeptics" are amongst the biggest political hypocrites of our time. Al Gore = bad, ergo global warming = wrong. It's all about the money. But they'll eat up any biased, manipulated, and neutered report that a government agency churns out (i.e. everything the EPA has published since 2002) which supports their own politically-biased analysis. And the policymakers couldn't _possibly_ threaten funding cuts for agencies that don't play down climate change such that it satisfies the administration. Only those stuffy liberal climate researchers are corrupt. Riiight. - borneo66, on 12/20/2007, -12/+48Come on, look at who wrote this "report."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo ... - Coven, on 12/20/2007, -8/+43If you'd read the article in "Exhibit A" you'd see that it is explained why prices went up and mileage went down. Vehicles are now far heavier and feature rich (both in safety and luxury)
- chalkboy, on 12/20/2007, -3/+31Make it cheaper. When alternate fuels are cheaper they will be used.
- desqjockey, on 12/20/2007, -3/+30SPARTA!!!!!!
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -32/+58Because you probably aren't a climatologist, and thus have little to no understanding of the principles you would presume to deny exist? Just a hunch.
- Zandarrr, on 12/20/2007, -6/+32I've listened to some of the argue from the small batch of opposing scientists and I have to say they make a good argument. Their facts and points appear to be very accurate. Also, some of the research they've shown to support their claims has been shown by scientists would DO believe in manmade global warning.
Honestly, I'm on the fence with this debate. However, regardless of whether we are experiencing man made global warming or we're just going through a hot period, we still NEED to eliminate our pollution and cut down on wasteful energy use. But more importantly, we need to treat "going green" less like a fashionable fad and get productive!!! - siszam, on 12/20/2007, -27/+51You're an idiot. Like it would hurt you terribly for all people to have health care and dignity. Oh no, can't have that. You must have your idiot dictators who line their pockets, kill your sons and live off your tax dollars while you go bankrupt and die because big business finds it more profitable to deny you care. You don't even know what socialism is. We have these things called BOOKS. You might want to read one that isn't written by a Neo Con.
- wheninva1, on 12/20/2007, -20/+42"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -21/+43And Al Gore does?
- DiggOrNotToDigg, on 12/20/2007, -28/+48400 vs How many??
- StealthMonkey, on 12/20/2007, -0/+20Renewable energy is a good thing, and some of these technologies have potential, however, some of them, like E85, are terrible. E85 is the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11. It is raising the price of corn through the roof. If you talk about corn as an ingredient, corn as an animal feed, corn as high fructose corn syrup, corn is in almost everything we buy. Milk, for example has gone through the roof directly due to E85, along with most other things in the grocery store. I'm all for alternative energy IF IS IS BETTER. We need to focus on the better part though. Just because it is "alternative," doesn't make it a viable solution to our energy need.
- sensoukami, on 12/20/2007, -30/+49you're an idiot...take the tinfoil hat off dumbass....
- thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -6/+24Wasn't Copernicus one voice against the world? Just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't make you right.
- theOster, on 12/20/2007, -0/+18"warm-mongers" cute.
- norsurfit, on 12/20/2007, -34/+51I love this -- look at all of the armchair non-scientists weighing in on whether or not you believe in global warming. Who cares whether you believe it in, any more than whether you believe in evolution? The truth is that the scientific consensus -- people who have PhD's in climatology and think about these issues carefully -- people whose job it is to think about this for a living, and who have studied this for years -- are convinced that global warming is happening. Just because you don't want to believe in global warming, doesn't mean it's true, any more than your not believing in quantum tunnelling.
- BufordT, on 12/20/2007, -9/+26How the hell did this make it out of the Environment section of Digg without getting buried. Not to mention that anti-Gore/environmentalist wacko comments are being dugg up. It's like bizarro world day on digg. I dugg the article for getting the truth out there.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -79/+95 So what there are 400 scientists that dont believe it. Al Gore told me 99.9% agree. That means 400,000 of the most prominent enviromental scientists that believe Al Gore is right.
- jeffiek, on 12/20/2007, -3/+19Speaking of best methods. Nanosolar just knocked the price/watt down to $1, (I think that's a bit more than a factor of four reduction). Privately funded, they did it by trying a different approach to the problem. Instead of going for high efficiency, they went for low production cost. And the total investment so far is only ~$150million. Peanuts by today's standards.
The market works. Every body gets to give their idea a shot and let the best man win. - Minarchian, on 12/20/2007, -11/+27And as long as the Federal Government butts the hell out and lets the markets find the best methods.
- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -6/+21Yes, God forbid you take 400 of the scientists who WROTE the IPCC seriously when they say politicians hijacked their data and issued false reporting.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -165/+179Suck it, warm-mongers. I can only pray that this scam gets torpedoed before we forsake our economy and our sovereignty to the UN.
- snkscore, on 12/20/2007, -32/+45I think it is just fricking funny as hell that all you people, who don't have the first fricking clue about the science that goes into these things, come on here and say what you believe or don't believe.
There are billions and billions of dollars being spent to convince you fools that global warming is no big deal and that we shouldn't do anything about it, and you suck it up.
When the vast majority of scientists agree that Dinosaurs used to live on this planet, MOST of you would agree with them, but when a vast majority say something about global warming you suddenly come up with all kinds of stupid ideas ranging from scientists faking data to get grants to this being some communist plan by the UN to take over america. Digg is getting stupid. - OneHine, on 12/20/2007, -14/+27You sound just like a creationist, right down to the moronic and unsupported claim that the only reason Kent Hovind isn't considered a real scientist is because there's a massive, worldwide conspiracy against creationists.
- br0ck, on 12/20/2007, -13/+25What do you think is going to happen to the economy if we don't destroy the dependence on foreign fuel, especially as our exchange rate tanks and the cost of oil goes up? Also, have you balanced the cost in investing in renewable or nuclear energy now against the cost of famine and sea shore loss in the country when warming occurs?
Where were all you arm chair economists when the scam to go to war was poised to torpedo our economy anyway? - JanYpe, on 12/20/2007, -11/+23You're both retarded.
- buildbyflying, on 12/20/2007, -18/+30I'm far from believing this article supercedes the vast majority of published findings. But hey, it's scientific discourse, and I'm all for it. If they want to say clouds are cotton candy, that's fine but let's see how long it takes for someone to knock their little paper hat out of the water...
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -4/+16"May be inaccurate?!?" The bury brigade is HARD at work on this one.
"If I just deny the truth, then it doesn't exist! I'll just bury this pesky story..." - theprophet84, on 12/20/2007, -9/+21I don't believe in man-made global warming , but I still think renewable energy is bad-ass. I never again want to plug in my iphone.
- zyl0x, on 12/20/2007, -7/+19If anything, these comments have proven that there's no shortage of idiots on either side of the argument.
- chakl, on 12/20/2007, -3/+15Funny thing is that on the IPCC report there are only 2,500 scientist that are named, and of those 2,500 , about 1500 or so say they want their name taken off it.
- boogievan, on 12/20/2007, -8/+19Yes, and its more crap that you dont NEED in a car. Hell the only reason all these cars have to be so overloaded with safety features is because of the amount of unnecessarily large SUV's on the road that have the potential to crush them in the accident. Get rid of the SUV craze, we can go back to downsizing the cars a bit again. Small cars FTW.
- kaelyiesta, on 12/20/2007, -16/+27Many of the so called green industries have been exploiting this hysteria. Ethanol corn industry is the biggest offender I've studied. Those ***** are just as bad as the foreign oil guys. Well maybe not quite as bad, they only want to steal our money, and turn corn into a cash crop. At least they aren't profiteering off of wars. Anyhow, I'm all for polluting less, but not because I think the world will blow up if I don't. I am a true environmental conservative. I bus and walk everywhere, take relatively fast showers, never use heating when I can just put on a coat, don't go for the whole consumer materialism. Do I buy into all the hype though? Not a chance. I've studied the issues and choose to remain skeptical because I've seen just how much this debate is influenced by money.
- comrade693, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand climate change at all!
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -4/+15Are you calling me copernicious! F-U, you dont know me, man! You're the one that's copernicious!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 758 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is