Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.US Senate: 400+ Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming
epw.senate.gov — Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
robnhl- 1277 diggs
- digg it
- p0s3r, on 12/20/2007, -164/+180Suck it, warm-mongers. I can only pray that this scam gets torpedoed before we forsake our economy and our sovereignty to the UN.
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -21/+144Our 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.
- thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -35/+30But using global warming to scare people into alternative fuels is *****.
- sirbeta, on 12/20/2007, -26/+7On the contrary, how do you get through to thick headed people?
- chalkboy, on 12/20/2007, -3/+31Make it cheaper. When alternate fuels are cheaper they will be used.
- Waiting2awake, on 12/20/2007, -7/+5That would require them to get the same financing that big energy gets....but that doesn't seem to happen...
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2you convince them that the problem at hand is their fault.
- scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -3/+5@waiting
If we simply stop subsidizing everybody, that problem goes away. The market is not blocking alternative fuels, the government is. - hammerattack, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7...so you admit that Global Warming is a scare tactic used to force people to change their habits. Nice. And you wonder why educated free thinkers don't take climate change seriously.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2"On the contrary, how do you get through to thick headed people?"
Said by George W Bush when he was justifying the Iraq War. I recognize that quote.
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -10/+13So is the outright fabrication that by improving efficiency and the onset of alternative fuels somehow destroys the economy.
- bugsy187, on 12/20/2007, -3/+12Sorry to hijack the thread, but the article in question might be a lie.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo ...
(thanks for the link, borneo66) - scubasteve377, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4You are absolutely right. Improved efficiency and the introduction of alternative fuels does not destroy the economy. In fact, it could only help grow the economy. Government regulations and subsidies, on the other hand, decimate the economy.
- hammerattack, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3The notion that alternative fuels is an increase in efficiency might be a fabrication.
We should move to alternative fuels and more efficient methods not because of some fictional man-made disaster, and not because our economy will see a transient upturn, but simply because it is the RIGHT thing to do. If that's not enough, then nothing is.
- bugsy187, on 12/20/2007, -3/+12Sorry to hijack the thread, but the article in question might be a lie.
- OneLess, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3So we shouldn't make the switch at all? Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing.
- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2no, its not.
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7lets make the switch AND do it for the right reason, what's so hard about that goddammit?
- hammerattack, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Lying to people to get them to do what you want is NOT the right thing. Most people learn that in kindergarten.
- sirbeta, on 12/20/2007, -26/+7On the contrary, how do you get through to thick headed people?
- 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.
- Terr01, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5You're conflating the use of biofuels with lobbying by agribusiness which wants to specifically focus on corn, rather than cellulosic ethanol.
E85 is NOT terrible.
CORN-BASED E85 is terrible.
- Terr01, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5You're conflating the use of biofuels with lobbying by agribusiness which wants to specifically focus on corn, rather than cellulosic ethanol.
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -9/+4*****. ever heard of a place called Alaska? look, im all for renewable energy sources, solar & nuclear power even, but don't make a statement like that in an attempt to bolster your argument when its not true.
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6Yes, ever heard of an infinite supply of oil? Yeah, neither have I. The more dependent we become on something we are inevitably going to use up the more we're just setting ourselves up for a fall. Furthermore, solar energy, when all is said and done, is more energetic than the potential energy of all the oil on the planet by many orders of magnitude, as it is nondepletable, or rather, is nondepletable for as long as the Earth can possibly support life, and even long after that.
So unless Alaska is constantly being sent wave after wave of oil by the great petroleum god, I'd say that you desperately need to reexamine your position.- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3yeah, but you said "our economy is going to *****" if it remains on fossil fuel, not Futurama's economy. there is still a ***** of oil under the earth's surface and i would doubt tremendously the supply will end in our lifetimes.
that being said, yes, there's no good reason not to look for better or even cheaper sources of energy. i like the sun because as you mention its infinitely powerful, its a travesty everything isn't powered by it already.
i just hate it when the movement gets co-opted for other reasons, such as scaring people into believing the earth is coming to an end if they don't change their dastardly ways. that is *****. - angryredplanet, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2@bullcutter
Just because there are reserves of oil left, doesn't mean we should extract it to the point where we are dry. Petrochemicals are some of the most interesting and useful synthetic compounds discovered by man. What is a real travesty is the fact that we think we should fill our cars with it and burn it until there is none left. I'm not saying your wrong in what you're saying, I'm advocating that we need to start looking at developing better non-fossil-fuel energy technologies now, rather than protecting the vested interests and waiting until the 11th hour (some argue we're already at this point).
"i just hate it when the movement gets co-opted for other reasons, such as scaring people into believing the earth is coming to an end if they don't change their dastardly ways. that is *****."
You know this for certain? Can I see the peer reviewed article where you read that? People are passionate about global warming mostly for good reasons, not bad. Those reasons include the welfare of me, you and our descendants. It's a good idea to consider motives in all the hype. - bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2no, its a fantasy that people who are passionate about global warming do it for mostly good reasons. really they are doing it for the desire to have control over their fellow man, ideally over those who don't agree with them politically, so even if they can't beat them in a political or intellectual forum they can beat them through involuntary taxation.
if Al Gore was truly passionate about ending global warming, wouldn't he try to more closely practice what he preaches, instead of turning himself into the hypocritical, lying buffoon that he is?
Though I am not certain of it, I don't think the world is coming to an end. It sure doesn't feel like it. The only thing that feels different in the supposed era of global warming is the mood of the public, who want so desperately in something to believe that is righteous that they will go to all costs to uphold its perceived righteousness, even beyond the point of insanity, ie purchasing "carbon offsets," the Bali Conferences and a carbon tax. All are bogus and ineffectual measures that will not result in one less molecule of CO2 being released into the earth's atmosphere.
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3yeah, but you said "our economy is going to *****" if it remains on fossil fuel, not Futurama's economy. there is still a ***** of oil under the earth's surface and i would doubt tremendously the supply will end in our lifetimes.
- Terr01, on 12/20/2007, -3/+6You mean, ANWR which contains enough oil for... six to nine months of normal usage?
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2ANWR is less than 5% of Alaska, dumbass.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -4/+4Terr01 speaks the truth...BURY HIM!
ANWR really doesn't contain that much oil, so your comment was pretty stupid.- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2ANWR doesn't contain 5% of ALASKA, so your comment is really ***** stupid.
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6Yes, ever heard of an infinite supply of oil? Yeah, neither have I. The more dependent we become on something we are inevitably going to use up the more we're just setting ourselves up for a fall. Furthermore, solar energy, when all is said and done, is more energetic than the potential energy of all the oil on the planet by many orders of magnitude, as it is nondepletable, or rather, is nondepletable for as long as the Earth can possibly support life, and even long after that.
- pyrewyrm, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Right.... which is why it picked up the last quarter 4.9%
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4no einstein when it comes to economics.
a free market will sort out how & when different fuels will be used better than any congressman or scientist.
- thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -35/+30But using global warming to scare people into alternative fuels is *****.
- 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.
- ryanwarnersteel, on 12/20/2007, -13/+14Totally agree
- bugsy187, on 12/20/2007, -5/+7Guess who's behind this master plan....
http://arbyte.us/blog_archive/2005/11/drevil_milli ... - 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.
- archiesteel, on 12/20/2007, -10/+8Not all of the 400 scientists worked on the IPCC report, only some of them did. Furthermore, many of these 400 scientists do not deny man-made GW, but rather disagree with some of the details of the study. You want to talk about politicians hijacking what they said? This report is the perfect example of such shenanigans.
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3archiestell : what a bunch of ass-crap double talk.. can't you just admit it when you are wrong? The group wanted to hide this information so it looked like 'everyone' agreed with the global warming zealots. Far from it. If they have to resort to lying what else are they hiding?
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3no, the best we can do is bring this story into Digg, which is amazing enough in itself.
- Whoopteedoo, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Getting us all to believe that global warming is caused by human activity and can be reversed by restrictions is yet another way the global elites plan to further consolidate their control over us "useless eaters", as they call us. This godamned 'carbon tax' thing is only the beginning, and is only one way they plan to extract the last bit of wealth from the poor and middle class in this country.
- 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 ...- aki009, on 12/20/2007, -5/+15Quoting wikipedia isn't supportive of an argument, as the information within it is not very reliable.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 12/20/2007, -5/+9Neither is Senator Inhofe...
- Spuy767, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Denying our impact on the climate and saying that ful on globabl warming isn't entirely true are two entirely different concepts.
- PhilLesh69, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Exactly.
Yes, data shows that the earth's climate got almost a degree warmer in the last 150 years. It is just a political conclusion that it has to be the people's fault (not industry, not government policy, not just the dynamics of a large planet).
- PhilLesh69, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Exactly.
- Whoopteedoo, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Wiki is whack as a reliable source of information on any controversial topic.
- logandurand, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2When did it become necessary for one to be part of a "scientific body" of "international standing" for their view to be valid? Science is not about consensus or world opinion.
- GhostMom, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Notice the link. It says "Opinion" not fact.
- aki009, on 12/20/2007, -5/+15Quoting wikipedia isn't supportive of an argument, as the information within it is not very reliable.
- 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?- superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8If the cost of oil goes up much more we have a lot of reserves still in the US that become viable to tap - and of course at that time lots of other energy sources become commercially viable as well.
Dependence on foreign fuel is a problem that solves itself, when you have an open economy...- br0ck, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5"Dependence on foreign fuel is a problem that solves itself, when you have an open economy"
How can other viable forms of energy compete when they're competing against 100 years of the US government propping up the oil industry?
- br0ck, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5"Dependence on foreign fuel is a problem that solves itself, when you have an open economy"
- sonaboy, on 12/20/2007, -5/+7If the cost of oil goes up much more we have a lot of reserves still in the US that become viable to tap."
incorrect - our reserves have enough to fuel the transportation and consumer economies for about 2 months before tapping out. the US reserves are merely in place to avert complete catastrophe, should something significant happen to displace our normal flow from the MIddle East and Venezuela.
and i don't know about you, but i don't want to be FORCED by catastrophe into jumping onto other fuel sources- we already have a lot of technology ready, we already have some infrastructure - we need to start utilizing them NOW in a gradual shift for the benefit of everyone - not wait until the 11th hour.
- superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8If the cost of oil goes up much more we have a lot of reserves still in the US that become viable to tap - and of course at that time lots of other energy sources become commercially viable as well.
- borneo66, on 12/20/2007, -12/+48Come on, look at who wrote this "report."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo ...- InetRoadkill, on 12/20/2007, -8/+16Inhofe is in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. He keeps releasing these ***** 'reports' which rarely stand up to any serious scrutiny. Inhofe has about as much a clue about atmospheric science as Ted Stevens does about the internet. You really have to wonder how these morons get key committee positions overseeing science and technology.
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3whatever his motivations are, he does an excellent job of finding and presenting evidence that would make any respectable pro-GW scientist head back to the lab. let me guess, next you're going to tell me he made up that list of 400 names...
- Phisolo, on 12/20/2007, -8/+19Marc Morano
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2]- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -5/+3so whats your point? Al Gore is still right and there is a scientific consensus on global warming?
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2its just a question. why don't you eruditic "undeniers" who hold the key to the understanding of climate change enlighten me out of my antiquated, far-right moonshine-drunken stupor?
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -5/+3so whats your point? Al Gore is still right and there is a scientific consensus on global warming?
- sonaboy, on 12/20/2007, -9/+12hahah...Rush Limbaugh's "Man in Washington." hilarious. As if I needed another reason to bury this weaksauce propaganda.
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2so therefore the 400 consensus-ruining scientists just vanish into thin air, like that, huh?
- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3cowards. don't even have a response now that your savior has been proven a false prophet. there is no ***** consensus on GW, there never was, and for the sake of truth and science there never should be.
climate prediction is simply too complicated, too multivariate and misunderstood to be generalized so simply, and anyone who realizes this can see how the issue could so quickly be usurped by those trying to gain power and influence.
but never mind all that, I am sitting here defending a Rush Limbaugh co-conspirator so therefore I must be an evil big oil bushbot. back to chewing at the grass beneath your feet!
- PhilLesh69, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yeah, the senate is always lying to us. I think it's controlled by the democrats, you know how dishonest they are.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...
- InetRoadkill, on 12/20/2007, -8/+16Inhofe is in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. He keeps releasing these ***** 'reports' which rarely stand up to any serious scrutiny. Inhofe has about as much a clue about atmospheric science as Ted Stevens does about the internet. You really have to wonder how these morons get key committee positions overseeing science and technology.
- CheezIt9109, on 12/20/2007, -3/+12http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51
"Energy guru Amory Lovins lays out his plan for weaning the US off oil and revitalizing the economy in the process. It's the subject of his book Winning the Oil Endgame, and he makes it sound fairly simple: On one hand, the deadly risks of continued dependency, and on the other, some win-win solutions. "
This was cofunded by the pentagon. It's not whacky science.
Regardless of whether Global Warming is bad, there are many steps we NEED to take, including reducing dependence on oil.
These will not hurt the economy, they will stimulate it. - D1STORT, on 12/20/2007, -10/+14Seems to me that even if there is a 1% chance that our activities contribute to global warming that it justifies taking action. Once we ruin our environment, it's all over, the economy can always recover.
- godseyeview, on 12/20/2007, -13/+6Once we lose our liberty its over. wake up idiot
- Arachnivore, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Self sufficiency is an inherent benefit of renewable energy sources. I don't see how you get liberty out of being tied to OPEC.
- brjohnson789, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5seems to me if there's a 1% a person would be a criminal, we should constantly surveil them. Oh wait, the US already does that. How about instead of rambling on about things you don't understand, and apparently meany scientists disagree on, how about trying to fight real environmental problems, like the amount of poisons China dumps into its own rivers. One way you could do this is by not buying any cheap crap from them.
- godseyeview, on 12/20/2007, -13/+6Once we lose our liberty its over. wake up idiot
- phike, on 12/20/2007, -14/+8there are either 400 misguided scientists in the world (definate possibility), and/or the oil companies wrote 400 more checks (defiinite possibility). Anyone who believes this report immediately should be labeled a sucker. Do you know how many billions the oil industry can make if they can delay this global warming movement a couple more years?
- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -5/+11These are some of the same scientists you were lauding just two years ago before their complaints against the politicizing of their report became known.
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -5/+5great, if the scientists are no longer reliable sources of opinion, who does that leave you with? gimme an M-B-P!!
- brjohnson789, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4If you think the global warming 'movement' will lead to less profits, you need to make more effort to fight a 'carbon tax' then, cause that kind of tax would not eat at their profits because the costs would be passed on to the consumer. Renewable energy should be developed more aggressively, but not through a global carbon tax that will only be used to implement 'global' programs that usurp countries' sovereignty.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/20/2007, -5/+13Yeah, because if something really hurts the economy, it's renewable energy. This is so damn depressing.
400 potatos are brown. Therefore yellow potatoes don't exist, ***** genius.- brjohnson789, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2I think there's more potatoes in the world than climatoligists.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Not half of them are climatologists.
- Iconoclast25, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2. . . but we aren't discussing the intellectuals in your family, Mr. Potato Head. This is a group of 400, several of whom contributed to the UN report, noting that said report is misrepresented, as is the whole issue of anthro-GW. Sorry their commentary couldn't be translated into vegetable so you could grasp it.
- brjohnson789, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2I think there's more potatoes in the world than climatoligists.
- theOster, on 12/20/2007, -0/+18"warm-mongers" cute.
- hierophantus, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7Something tells me a "warm monger" is worse than a "war monger" in p0s3r's book...
- tgc1, on 12/20/2007, -6/+10I'm in Canada. In the summer we have tropical weather. Right now, however, there's about 4 feet of snow on the front lawn. Global warming is a flawed theory.
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2Wow. What an amazing, insightful, convincing argument! Who cares about all those glaciers that will completely disappear in the next decade, who cares about the polar bears dying off because the arctic ocean no longer freezes over, you still have 4 feet of snow in Canada! You have me convinced.
- allengeer, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4or those glaciers that will reappear after sometime. its a natural cycle. get your head out of your ass.
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2I actually studied the very well-documented, extensive and detailed scientific evidence for the man-caused global warming. Only a fool or a fanatic would not be convinced by all of it. You are a one with your head up your arse, buddy.
- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3only a fool, a fanatic, or a scientist... did you RTFA?
- allengeer, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4or those glaciers that will reappear after sometime. its a natural cycle. get your head out of your ass.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Snow! IN THE WINTER! *GASP*
Two things. One, it doesn't mean instant climate shift, it's incredibly gradual (from our perspective anyways). Also it's climate change, and it means dramatic shifts that aren't necessarily alll warming. Although the global climate as a whole will warm, some climates may get cooler.
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2Wow. What an amazing, insightful, convincing argument! Who cares about all those glaciers that will completely disappear in the next decade, who cares about the polar bears dying off because the arctic ocean no longer freezes over, you still have 4 feet of snow in Canada! You have me convinced.
- whyufail, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3Right, because the economy, personal wealth, little scraps of paper that we bandy about for favors, are more important than the planet we all live on. Why should we consider that we might be drastically impacting the planet. Why bother working on sustainable technologies rather than simply strip mining the globe. It mean, it's more profitable that way right? Wouldn't want to anger god money.
- heystoopid, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2Unfortunately history tells us the US has internally self destructed and torpedoed its economy from within rather then without at numerous times ! The current mortgage sub prime loan implosion is a prime example of absolute greed for profits above all else thus over riding logic and financial sanity !
But then again guess which shadows lurk deep in the background funding all this side show so call science of denial is but the reformed sisters of "Standard Oil" no less !
Interestingly these same scientists have also amassed the same data as those who put forward the argument but have chosen to either eliminate that which conflicts their paymasters stance or bend the figures to suit their questionable side show arguments of denial !
What price denial indeed ? - diggduggjoe, on 12/20/2007, -5/+10I love how they claim the article is inaccurate? They do not even want to allow discussion. That is anti-science. They wish to replace true scientific debate with political dogma. What vile peole they are!
- bugsy187, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4There's no need for low blow comments. The article may be inaccurate.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Mo ...- diggduggjoe, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5I do not see it as inaccurate. It is a real report before a Senate committee. You can argue about the scientists' opinions. However, the report exists and the scientists exist. I do not feel it was a misleading article or digg submission. Let's discuss the content of the report.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1"bah! i would prefer to digg you down for not accepting that my position is the only one." - anonymous digger
- diggduggjoe, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5I do not see it as inaccurate. It is a real report before a Senate committee. You can argue about the scientists' opinions. However, the report exists and the scientists exist. I do not feel it was a misleading article or digg submission. Let's discuss the content of the report.
- starmanjones, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1>II love how they claim the article is inaccurate?
did you read any or most of the desenting comments? most aren't rebutting the science and the measurements.... which are what they are. not much to rebutt there. layers of ice with captured air and other stuff. they are scientists making political comments about the economy... or scaring people... or not conclusive so we shouldn't concern ourselves. mostly they are variations on "who cares."
- bugsy187, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4There's no need for low blow comments. The article may be inaccurate.
- starmanjones, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1|>There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
or who cares! it is an unprecedented rise. there is no doubt about that
|>“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man
|>would not perceive the temperature impact,”
big iron at NOAA disagree. he is willing to bet you and your descendants life that its wrong.
|>“There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to
|>study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,”
don't worry... be happy...
|>“I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like
|>a home heating system to a changed setting of the
|>thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature
|>will soon be reached."
huh? home heating? this is a substantive critequie? nobody is suggesting it is. in fact the suggestion is that it can't be just turned up and down. once out of whack it might be unstable bring who knows
what.
|>“The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to
|>global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring
|>very important facts that point to a natural variation in
|>the climate system as the cause of the recent global
|>warming,”
what facts? can't he suggest what they are? ya ... someone asks me why i think we are screwing up the climate i can say... the ice caps are melting and the glaciers are melting. you know what i mean. cant he give us a clue?
|>“Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming
|>up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’
|>and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
|>Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the
|>average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into
|>mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse
|>scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted
|>the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the
|>Inquisition is no longer with us!”
lobotomized? bamboozled? what branch of science are these terms from. there is nothing of substance in this comment. its politics... religion. i can tell you what branch of science this is... its the science of propaganda and swaying weak intellects with misdirection and semantics.
those are the first few... these are not scientific opinions. they are opinions with no support.
the fact that people can read these and find them supportive when no science is used is scary. someone backup at the start of this said "they" are calling this article inaccurate... you miss the relevance of "scientists" opinions. its the same thing you miss always. these people... scientists are not supporting their views with any facts. the people i quoted above are the first few in a row. many don't even disagree they just don't care. so along with inaccurate is that its irrelevant.
a rebuttal that tries to make a case that these quotes were out of context is just goofy. the quotes are what were considered important. what was important was is getting a group of people who work as scientists. yes they could have summarized their objections.
"al gore would say we have measurements of the atmosphere and its cotent history. the glaciers are melting and the ice caps are going away."
they didn't do that. they gave political arguments by in large.
- 1337Einstein, on 12/20/2007, -21/+144Our 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.
- aki009, on 12/20/2007, -60/+42Hear hear.
- bogatash, on 12/20/2007, -4/+10Lets see we have the world famous luntz memo, where the admin prettyy much said it would pay sciencetist to deny global warming.. we have had several other leaks from big oil.. There is a money trail for the deniers.. and lkets see this is 400 "scienctists" comapred to the almost 4000 that worked on the ipcc.. and do we recall when 1500 scienctists signed that letter against global warming and then it turned out that a majority were not even in teh field, several were accfredited as doctors and never got their degree and even a few names where by people that denied signing it.
And yet not a signal leak about this vast conspiracy on the global warmers side
and we are supposed to belive no the real conspiracy lies with them.
and dont buy the entire soverenty bullll crap bs bullcrap.. if cnada was dumping radioactive waste in rivers that traveled into ameria.. you dont think we would do something about it? well our polllution is going world wide..t hey asked us for years to voluntearily do soemthign about it.. gas millage has actaully gone down over that time.. instead of going up.. as computers get better cars are getting worse.
SO blow it out your bung hole... this is a shame and you have been exposed
it is hard to belvie you can find supporters still
you said you would buy evidence against gloabl warming
we can follow the money
and yet.. we are the nuts.- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -7/+6Global warming deniers have been paid a total of 19 million dollars. Global warming alarmists have been paid over 50 BILLION. Who's impartial now?
- archiesteel, on 12/20/2007, -4/+4BS
- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -4/+4http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...
Try that out.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Poorly worded yet well said.
- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -7/+6Global warming deniers have been paid a total of 19 million dollars. Global warming alarmists have been paid over 50 BILLION. Who's impartial now?
- a5tr0cr3ep, on 12/20/2007, -8/+2how many people deny the holocaust? just b/c your head is in the sand does not make others wrong...
- BESTenemy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5What does holocaust have to do with this topic? Apples and oranges. You say denying human caused Global Warming is like denying Holocaust. I say, believing it is like believing in Santa. Neither our arguments are valid, cause they have nothing to do with the subject discussed and rely on reverse reasoning.
- bogatash, on 12/20/2007, -4/+10Lets see we have the world famous luntz memo, where the admin prettyy much said it would pay sciencetist to deny global warming.. we have had several other leaks from big oil.. There is a money trail for the deniers.. and lkets see this is 400 "scienctists" comapred to the almost 4000 that worked on the ipcc.. and do we recall when 1500 scienctists signed that letter against global warming and then it turned out that a majority were not even in teh field, several were accfredited as doctors and never got their degree and even a few names where by people that denied signing it.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -78/+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.
- 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.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -37/+13Hello it's called Google! So far in 20 minutes I found 4 scientist in Michigan who are working with grant money to show how Global Warming have negetively effected skunks mating practices. I found a wickan priestest with a doctorate from Santa Barabara college in Magnetic Science and her lover who has a degree in naturology who can prove that man made CO2 has decressed the sexual energy the planet. I found a group of 4 scientist that with grant money can prove that too much CO2 is to blame for the lowering the amount of poison ivy growing around peoples homes and playgrounds. I found 10 scientists who came out of retirement work for Club Med to prove that global warming is causing tides to rise around vaction resorts.
That's 20 reputable scientists in just 20 minutes. You can ignore the hard science but you can't ignore the people, man. And the people have hard science so you can't ignore hard science either.
Global Warming is not a myth!! I've seen it!!! In a movie!!!- Miche1987, on 12/20/2007, -5/+1420 down, only 399,980 to go!
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -6/+6Are you daring me? Oh, it's on. I'll find them you'll see! You wait right here. I'll find them. And when I do you will feel soooooo stupid.
- ebcreasoner, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3I'm in
- p337r, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3At a rate of 1/min he'll be done in nooo time.
- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1"don't tase me bro" sez Global Warming lost Kerry the election because he is a cold climate specie and could not flourish properly as a candidate in 2004's tempestuous climate catastrophe (the ex-hottest year on record btw), which was incidentally masterminded by Karl Rove...
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5You can digg me down but you cant silence the truth just like you cant silence Donald Lewis who is using government grant money to prove that raised CO2 levels have made spiders lazy causing them to make sloppier webs, so they eat less and have less babies causing a chain reaction that will inevidably destroy the entire ecosystem. The world is incredibly unbelievable fragile and that's scientific proof.
Global warming is not a myth! - I've seen it! - In a movie! - BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I replied before my brain was engaged. Sorry.
- Miche1987, on 12/20/2007, -5/+1420 down, only 399,980 to go!
- hmunkey, on 12/20/2007, -7/+4Go to any college campus and ask to talk with the professors.
- Rich711, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6Because as everyone knows the smartest people can always be found at your local college campus making 40K a year....
- Rhodamine, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1Unfortunately so.
- Rich711, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, you keep telling yourself that Professor. As anyone who has ever excelled in their field and returned to college for a refresher or insight into new technology knows... those who can do, those who can't teach.
- Rich711, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6Because as everyone knows the smartest people can always be found at your local college campus making 40K a year....
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -4/+12Do you doubt it or do you DENY it? Stop being a denier!! The facts are out there. Theres a consensus, a consensus damnit! CONSENSUS!!!!
Global warming is not a myth!! I've seen it!! In a movie!!- johndi, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11The problem with a consensus is that it is the antithesis of science. It is arguing through emotion and not logic.
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6well said.
no one can assuredly predict the weather 5 hours from now (let alone the climate decades from now), so really any "consensus" referenced are scientists who were asked whether or not they think anthropogenic global warming is real and answered "yes".
they did not have to provide some proof or evidence to support their beliefs. the science behind the "consensus" therefore is based on "feelings" and not solely objectivity, as you might think any real science might be. - OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -4/+5Bullcutter, you do realize that the Weather and the Climate are two entirely different things, and Climate is actually alot easier to predict.
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5that, my friend, is stinky *****.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5really stinky *****.
Computerized Climate models use the same routines that weather predicting software does. Is weather easy to predict 10 days from now? No. You can watch your 10-day forecast change each day in most places. We have a much better understanding of local weather patterns than climate. Climate depends on internal earth processes, which we cannot watch because we do not have instrumentation down there. Climate also depends on extra-terrestrial processes, such as solar output and solar wind, which we are just beginning to understand properly, can't accurately track yet, and are unable to forecast.
Summary: We have the same computer models with fewer of the necessary important variables in the climate models.
Conclusion: The computer models cannot predict anything worth a damn right now. - thecatcantalk, on 12/25/2007, -0/+2Also, it's worth recalling that some of the loud voices screaming "the Sky is falling!", such as that of Dr. Paul Ehrlich (author of the fantastically mistaken non-fiction book, "The Population Bomb", ca. 1970) are the same fellows who, in the 1970's insisted that "99.99% of reputable scientists agreed..." that the Earth would enter a New Ice Age by 1980 at the latest.
Thirty years later, this is the new intellectual Chicken Little fad. Multi-million-dollar research grant, anyone?
But I'm sure he was being ironically funny, y'all!
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6well said.
- johndi, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11The problem with a consensus is that it is the antithesis of science. It is arguing through emotion and not logic.
- Patrikimo, on 12/20/2007, -4/+9Heh, if you read many of the global warming reports you'll see that the scientists that deny global warming are generally speaking outside their field and really have little or no training in climatology or environmental science. Sometimes they just like to put as many names on those reports as they can. At least the IPCC reports are full of meteorologists and climatologist and environmental scientists.
- caponumen, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2The denier tag is just a cop out, it is an absolute fact we are in the middle of global warming and have been for over 10 thousand years.
The fear of this natural event and the sick aholes that are using it to prey upon the ignorant is the real issue.
If you support the man made global warming church and don't know about ice ages or any of the other undisputed facts then you are operating on blind faith alone and should let your high priests such as the Gorical speak for you. - diggadigga, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Um, there are millions of scientists in the world. Millions isn't that big of a number compared to the several billions of people on earth.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -37/+13Hello it's called Google! So far in 20 minutes I found 4 scientist in Michigan who are working with grant money to show how Global Warming have negetively effected skunks mating practices. I found a wickan priestest with a doctorate from Santa Barabara college in Magnetic Science and her lover who has a degree in naturology who can prove that man made CO2 has decressed the sexual energy the planet. I found a group of 4 scientist that with grant money can prove that too much CO2 is to blame for the lowering the amount of poison ivy growing around peoples homes and playgrounds. I found 10 scientists who came out of retirement work for Club Med to prove that global warming is causing tides to rise around vaction resorts.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -52/+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.
- slidell4life, on 12/20/2007, -7/+13Love this guy.
- 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.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -4/+15Are you calling me copernicious! F-U, you dont know me, man! You're the one that's copernicious!
- floorman56, on 12/20/2007, -5/+12I can show you with mathematical certainty that Copernicus was right.
Can you do the same with GW?
I can "Do the math" and tell you where the planets will be is 6 months.
Can you "Do the math" and tell me how many hurricanes we will have next year ?- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4You are not comparing apples to apples here. Are you really trying to say that the math behind planetary motion is the same as weather prediction?
Can you "do the math" and tell me where an electron will be in 10 microseconds? If not we'd better throw out quantum mechanics.
In fact, can you "do the math" and tell me how my next ten coin flips will turn out? - hexydes, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6Except for one of the main points in quantum mechanics is that the math PROVES that you can't know both location and time for what you are trying to observe. That doesn't make it wrong, it makes it right.
The point of man-made global warming is trying to prove that man is influencing global warming, which has not been done conclusively at this point. Mathematically you can prove planetary rotation. Mathematically you can prove that you cannot predict both time and location for the quantum particle. Mathematically, man-made global warming theorists have conclusively proven nothing. - Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Yes I can there will be 15 named hurricanes, if there are more then we wont name them and if there are less we will start naming tropical storms. So there, mister "I know math and stuff".
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -5/+2well said, but you should know that climatology is now more of a subjective, "soft science" of feelings apparently.
because of the chaotic, nonlinear nature of atmospheric dynamics, and for the reasons mentioned, no one can assuredly predict the weather 5 hours from now (let alone the climate decades from now), so really any "consensus" referenced are scientists who were asked whether or not they think anthropogenic global warming is real and answered "yes".
they did not have to provide some proof or evidence to support their beliefs. the science behind the "consensus" therefore is based on "feelings" and not solely objectivity, as you might think any real science might be.
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4You are not comparing apples to apples here. Are you really trying to say that the math behind planetary motion is the same as weather prediction?
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11About Galileo, not Copernicus, but it still applies:
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."
Bob Park
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -4/+1ignore
- godseyeview, on 12/20/2007, -6/+1you are a complete idiot of the highest degree of moron
- scrogger, on 12/20/2007, -7/+1if you actually read the article, it's NOT 400 environmental scientists, it's just 400 scientists, so extrapolating to 400,000 environmental sc. is fallacious. How many of those 400 are environmental scientists? Typical Bush admin spin that morons with no brains like you fall for.
- bullcutter, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2uh, it was a lil' fallacious before your comment, sorry ye didn't notice. but core sampling is done by an extremely similar methodology of extrapolation, and is about as useful or accurate, so its only fair that we demand 400,000 environmental scientists sign your manbearpig petition.
- zediker, on 12/20/2007, -2/+9*sigh* according to the geological record, we are OVERDUE for a global warming trend. The Earth was going to warm up whether we did anything or not, if anything, we are just making it occur quicker, that's all. When that happens, the caps will melt considerably (which they are doing right now BTW), releasing fresh water into the oceans and disturbing the oceanic currents causing warm water from the equator to stop circling north and south, causing a freeze over of the north and south, this freeze could last a few thousand years, or as long as it takes for the oceanic currents to start recurculating warm equatorial water north and south again. Enough to deminish the human population to point where we can no longer artificially accelerate climate change because we would have died of starvation. The Earth will be fine, and life is hardy, the only thing we are doing is killing ourselves, instead of the environment taking care of that for us. Frankly, it will probably be a good thing, perhaps will knock some respect and reverence of the environment into whomever survives...
- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2...and you know this cuz a lil birdie told you in a dream, or because Al Gore told you it would be this way? Al Gore also predicted that we only have about 10 years to counteract man's impact on the climate, and that was, gee whattya know, 10 years ago! Oh well, nice knowin y'all!
- zediker, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3No, I know this because I acutally researched this information. I didnt listen to a politician. What kind of moron listens to a politician? I went out, found records about the geological climate trends and learned about it. Read up about what the effects a vast amount of fresh water may do to the ocean, and what the possible effects of a reversal or shutdown of the ocean currents may cause. Its easy. even you could do it...
- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2...and you know this cuz a lil birdie told you in a dream, or because Al Gore told you it would be this way? Al Gore also predicted that we only have about 10 years to counteract man's impact on the climate, and that was, gee whattya know, 10 years ago! Oh well, nice knowin y'all!
- nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2wow, you apparently really hit em where it hurts, with numbers and stuff. you didn't bring up God once either, so that must really stick in their craw. good job! (double-digg)
- SamMcPhy, 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)- bullcutter, on 12/20/2007, -6/+14golden.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -13/+5Well sure but who are you going to trust the 52 highly paid scientists that work for the UN who prove the UN's opinion or the 400 scientist that have to get by on they're reputation and past work in their field?
Really who do you trust to be truthful and get something done right, the UNITED NATIONS or some scientists that work in universities and the private sector? And with all the money they are taking from AIDS Africa, malaria, genocide and poverty to pay for Global Warming policy they are bound to succeed. Do you no how much money they collected for those projects, and with how little has been done by the UN for those causes they must have saved tons of money. So get ready for change deniers. Or not. - yelofnivek, on 12/20/2007, -3/+11the 52 scientists on the IPCC aren't the only scientists in the world who believe that man is warming the earth..
- Rich711, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3Thats right there are tons of scientist a lot of whom dont even know anything about the enviroment or weather or the planet. There's a guy that studies poison ivy who can prove man is warming the planet and has the government grant to prove it. So wake up people the consensus is in, stop questioning the facts or the people that bring them to you.
It's time we stop wasting money on causes like AIDS and genocide, there will always be war and disease, so it's just depressing to keep spending money on it. Lets focus on planting more trees for carbon credits to stop global warming, think of how good it'll make you feel when politicians tell us the consensus is in and we fixed global warming. Wont that be great? We can say we SAVED the planet. Stopped an actual planet from being destroyed, that's God-like power. And then we'll finally be able to prove that we are really as omnipotent as we feel . Thank God for hippies. And by god I mean Mother Earth, ofcourse, fragile, vengeful Mother Earth. - thecatcantalk, on 12/25/2007, -0/+1Oh dear, I was wrong. Rich711 wasn't being ironic when he said "Of course it's real! I saw it in a movie!"
Rich711, back in the 1970's (when I was in 4th grade) every reputable scientist in America believed that we would have entered a New Ice Age by the mid-1980s at the very latest. The sad truth is, neither you nor I are likely qualified to even read the relevant research with any understanding of the methodology underlying it. Why are you so eager to believe that the sky is falling?
BTW, smoking marijuana turns your brain into oatmeal.
- Rich711, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3Thats right there are tons of scientist a lot of whom dont even know anything about the enviroment or weather or the planet. There's a guy that studies poison ivy who can prove man is warming the planet and has the government grant to prove it. So wake up people the consensus is in, stop questioning the facts or the people that bring them to you.
- BECoole, on 12/20/2007, -15/+7LOL, Rich. That's about the best two posts today!
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -15/+6So why do they keep digging me down!! :((
- hierophantus, on 12/20/2007, -0/+71) People don't get the irony or 2) People get the irony. Either way, there's no telling who really agrees with you and who doesn't.
- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7Let's talk about the consensus that the earth was flat or that eugenics was a good plan. How did either of them work out?
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Sorry, there was a consensus about eugenics? Missed that one.
But you nailed the "world is flat" thing. Clearly any consensus must be discarded as meaningless because we have an example of an incorrect one in history. Why do people still bother to come to them? - Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5The point is not that consensus by its definition must be discarded. The point is that consensus, no matter how overwhelming, is not necessarily right.
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Sorry, there was a consensus about eugenics? Missed that one.
- Maninthemiddle, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Because much of the digg world get their ideological jollies out of bashing the evil US and unrepentant capitalism. How can one deconstruct Western civilization and their capitalistic addiction if you keep making fun of global warming?
Next you'll be telling me that radical Islam is a problem. Phhhffffffffttttt...
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -15/+6So why do they keep digging me down!! :((
- bratpack8, on 12/20/2007, -20/+22Sorry to break the news to you, but Al lied to you dude. Remember, he is a politician, and not surprisingly has set himself up to profit massively off of carbon exchanges and the such.
- caponumen, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3He is far worse than a politician he is a monster disguised as a politician.
He is in league with those with a much darker agenda, virulent pasts and horrendous futures in mind for a large portion of humanity.
- caponumen, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3He is far worse than a politician he is a monster disguised as a politician.
- tattertech, on 12/20/2007, -16/+13Much like Creationism, the list of scientists supporting the Al Gore camp is made of very few actual relevant scientists, instead drawing names from other fields. Granted the Creationism vs. Evolution "debate" is a little more one sided (the Steve's that back evolution far outnumber the 'scientists' that support creationism), but the principle is the same. You can't just accept the numbers supporting a theory, you need to look at their relevancy to supporting the theory (I'd be willing to bet this list has some questionable inclusions also).
- godseyeview, on 12/20/2007, -14/+14your an idiot al gore is a scam artist
- keebler, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3"your an idiot al gore is a scam artist"
That's great. Apparently godseyeview can call Al Gore an idiot, but has trouble backing up his own claims to intellectual superiority through proper use of English. I will translate for you in lieu of his mistakes: "I am a complete and utter moron and Al Gore sucks."- tsos2, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I think you just got the "Al Gore sucks" part right.
- keebler, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3"your an idiot al gore is a scam artist"
- 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.
- Commodore84, 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..." - caponumen, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6Funny coming from the camp that declared the debate was over, it has just begun......
- Leadhyena, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2Um... hate to be the math nazi here, but that doesn't mean that 400,000 scientists do believe in global warming... it means that the 400 that don't represent 0.1% of the scientific population, or that there are 400,000 total scientists. Taking those statistics at face value, it would mean that 399,600 scientists believe in global warming, not 400,000 scientists.
- tsos2, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2If Al Gore says it, it must be true...
- kyleraine, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1Do you always believe whatever Al Gore tells you and make careless judgments? Genius wake up and smell the coffee:
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists:
http://www.oism.org/pproject
On top of that genius, since when does MORE make right? Is that a scientific truth lol? Is that a moral truth? Love God, the truth, not your ignorant opinions anti-scientific.
Haven't you ever heard of don't judge a book by its cover? Or "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof leads to death." - Proverbs? Or "Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment." - Jesus
Those are the problem, people judging by what mere seems true, judging by mere appearances. May the hypocrites stop being shallow.
- 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, -115/+116Socialism was actually never defeated, it just went into guerilla war tactics. Anthroprogenic Global Warming is their best shot at a worldwide socialist government.
- dullly, on 12/20/2007, -41/+15you are correct
- JanYpe, on 12/20/2007, -11/+22You're both retarded.
- BK88, on 12/20/2007, -16/+3takes one to know one.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1No.
Tell me what the endgame is when you institute a mandatory carbon-trading scheme/cap on the entire world. Tell me what happens.
That is precisely the definition of socialism, now there are government-mandated restrictions on what is and is not created by mankind. Freedom is taken away.
- JanYpe, on 12/20/2007, -11/+22You're both retarded.
- sensoukami, on 12/20/2007, -30/+48you're an idiot...take the tinfoil hat off dumbass....
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -12/+5People with tin foil hats are afraid of the rise social minded politics? People with tinfoil hats suspect that the asia nations pushing global warming regulations are doing so to for the west to outsource concrete and steel production to emmission exempt asian nations? Really? Go read some more behold a Pale Horse I dont think you've gotten you head around the American Conspircy theorist just yet, Sensoukami
- godseyeview, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2you're an idiot get ur head outta your ass
- MrPig, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1No. People with tinfoil hats are worried MLB is spying on them with satellites so they also put metal hangers on their ceiling.
- MrPig, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Being dugg down? No one gets Simpsons references?
- 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.
- geoffg, on 12/20/2007, -25/+13Get a tissue and a job.
- OSURoss, on 12/20/2007, -17/+6Get Cancer
- BassMastr, on 12/20/2007, -9/+9Health care has nothing to do with dignity. I could go on, but you are so far out there that no matter what I say it's not going to help you. AND you never seem to stick around to defend your positions, you seem to go off on some random extremist "the govt is the devil" rant and then disappear and do it again in some other thread. If you do decide to comeback and actually defend you babble...have you ever used universal health care? Be careful what you wish for...just b/c YOU don't have to pay, doesn't mean it's free.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -9/+8Yeah, like the dignity that social programs have brought the people of china. Or the proud look of dignity that a welfare check brings a mother knowing that her efforts avoiding work has earned her family more meals of breakfast cereal. The look of dignity on a man's face as he sits dying in a crowded emergency room knowing that while the wait period for critical surgeries has increased by taking profit out of heath care he will receive the same sub-par treatment as everyone else with no expense to his loved ones that depend on him. You just can't buy dignity like that.
- DavidYeah, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6Hahaha--ohman, I can't stand this argument anymore. Name ONE PERSON in the entire united states that wants government administered healthcare. Even if your argument about "long lines" is true, it doesn't even make sense in the debate we're having.
We're looking to create a single payer system in America. We're looking to cut out the middle man that takes 20-30% of the money out for profit and beureacracy and instead have doctors and other practitioners get paid directly by the government.
In other words, the people who actually provide healthcare are the only ones that will be profiting, instead of these weird middle men insurance companies that you think is a good idea. There are none of these long lines in any country with a system like this one.
The ***** cold war is over, get over it.- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5Youre not eliminating the middle man, youre making the government the middleman. And the government has yet to prove they can be successful in a single profitable investment which they need to be to pay for the eventual cost of healthcare. Infact they have proven the opposite, look at social security, you will get less back than you put in. You should look into it instead of just trusting the politicians that want you tovote for them in 2008
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Yet I can still mail a letter across the country for under 50 cents and not get shot by a death squad if I openly berate major world religions. Yeah, our government totally sucks. It can't do anything right. Get rid of it.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Really you only pay 50cents, you really think the post office runs on postage stamp income? I'm sure you also don't pay income tax, sales tax, state tax, property tax...
I cant believe you used the post office as proof of the governments efficiency... take your supercool screenname StaticThunder and go back to playing HALO, the adults are talking. - nutsakharry, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Markos Moulitsas and his army of brainwashed Cyber-Che Guevaras
- StaticThunder, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0Ah, yes, the insults come out. Nice argument, argumentum ad hominem.
The "adults" of digg -- more like the spoiled knowitall brats of digg: I'm sure your government would work better. Because ideologues have such a great history of making positive changes. - BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2The cold war might be over, but the war between free-market capitalism and government-controlled socialism never ended.
- DavidYeah, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6Hahaha--ohman, I can't stand this argument anymore. Name ONE PERSON in the entire united states that wants government administered healthcare. Even if your argument about "long lines" is true, it doesn't even make sense in the debate we're having.
- stanleyford, on 12/20/2007, -7/+8"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." -- I love how people can condemn something just by associating it with neocons, without providing an argument for why they object to it or how it's even related to neoconservativism in the first place. Neoconservativism is to the left what terrorism is to the right: both side use their respective bogeymen to shout down detractors without engaging in any real debate.
Smart people have recognized and decried the failings of socialism ever since it was invented. From some men who wouldn't have even known what neoconservativism is:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. " -- Winston Churchhill
"All socialism is slavery." -- Herbert Spencer- DavidYeah, on 12/20/2007, -2/+6I thought medicare, social security, and the eisenhower national highway system were all pretty big socialist success stories.
- geoffg, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3Social Security = going bankrupt
Medicare = going bankrupt
Highway System = are you kidding
Success stories indeed.- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1After decades of sabotage by people who think they are socialist. Pwn3d, geoffq.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Gonna shrink government until we can drown it in a bathtub. Right?
- yelofnivek, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3herbert spencer coined social darwinism...do i need to say more?
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3Yes, you do if that reference is supposed to mean something... oh, were you just saying that to seem like you understood social darwinism? Okay, I'll play along. Wow, social darwinism, tell, me more about Herbert Spencer. (I'll wait while you google for something you can twist till it's useful)
- Aggaman, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2You've no idea what you're talking about you clown. Go download the UN Human Development Report. Look very carefully at the nations in the top spots. Notice that the top few all have socialized medicine, and that the ones at the very top are the same countries that are always being labelled "socialist" by right wing American whack jobs. It's simply a fact that large scale government intervention in certain areas of the economy produces better outcomes. To deny this is to deny obvious facts.
No wonder people think right wingers are thick.- stanleyford, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3"It's simply a fact that large scale government intervention in certain areas of the economy produces better outcomes." -- All social policies involve benefits and costs. The question is not which social policy yields more benefits, but which social policy yields the best benefit/cost ratio. You talk of the purported benefits of socialized medicine but fail to note the costs of socialized medicine in terms of government inefficiency, loss of freedom of choice, and loss of the incentive to innovate that the free market produces. No one's saying that socialized medicine isn't capable of producing good outcomes: the question is, how much do we pay for those outcomes, and could we have gotten them more cheaply using a free market system?
"It's simply a fact that large scale government intervention in certain areas of the economy produces better outcomes." -- Really? Do the richest countries in the world run on socialized or free market economies? Which countries produce the most innovations in medicine? As China transitions from a government-run to a market-run economy, is its level of wealth plummeting or skyrocketing?
"To deny this is to deny obvious facts." -- This would be funny if you'd made a better argument, but since your argument completely lacks analytical rigor, it is downright offensive. You show a UN report which might, at best, suggest a correlation between socialized medicine and better outcomes in terms of life expectancy, eduction, GDP, and literacy and use that to supposedly prove the superiority of large-scale government intervention in "certain areas of the economy." Do I even have to explain to you why that's such a poor argument?
I don't know what the general opinion is of government where you live. Maybe you have the only government on earth which makes all the best decisions, which enjoys a universal mandate from the people for its social programs, which is never corrupt, and which knows better how to spend your money than you do yourself. If that's so, I can see why you'd be such a proponent of socialism. Let me tell you a little bit about government in the US: it's corrupt; it's inefficient; its social programs invariably have the opposite of their intended results; and no matter whether you identify yourself as a liberal or a conservative, everyone pretty much agrees that the government sucks at its job. Why people want to give our government more power over our lives and more money from our pocketbooks given its abysmal record is a mystery to me.
"No wonder people think right wingers are thick." -- Wait a second...are you saying you're a right-winger, because you're pretty thi--Oh, never mind. I get it know. Excuse me while I go laugh for a while. So wanting people to be free to make their own economic choices makes one a "right winger" now? Thinking that people know how to run their own lives better than some politician a thousand miles away makes one a "right winger" now? Funny, I'd always thought that was just common sense.
- stanleyford, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3"It's simply a fact that large scale government intervention in certain areas of the economy produces better outcomes." -- All social policies involve benefits and costs. The question is not which social policy yields more benefits, but which social policy yields the best benefit/cost ratio. You talk of the purported benefits of socialized medicine but fail to note the costs of socialized medicine in terms of government inefficiency, loss of freedom of choice, and loss of the incentive to innovate that the free market produces. No one's saying that socialized medicine isn't capable of producing good outcomes: the question is, how much do we pay for those outcomes, and could we have gotten them more cheaply using a free market system?
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1"The establishment of a progressive world socialism in which the freedoms, health and happiness of every individual are protected by a universal law based on a re-declaration of the rights of man, and wherein there is the utmost liberty of thought, criticism and suggestion, is the plain, rational objective before us now. Only the effective realisation of this objective can establish peace on earth and arrest the present march of human affairs to misery and destruction. We cannot reiterate this objective too clearly and too frequently. The triangle of collectivisation, law and knowledge should embody the common purpose of all mankind." - H. G. Wells
- stanleyford, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1There is no form of socialism which does not involve handing over some measure of control over our lives and our money to a central authority such as the government. How can a person be free if the fruits of his labor are not his to spend as he will, but must be given to the government through taxation for the benefit of someone else?
This year, "Tax Freedom Day"--the day on which the average American has earned enough to pay off his taxes for the year--fell on April 30th. That means that for almost four months, the average American was working not for himself, but for the government, and not voluntarily, but because the law forced him to. Four months out of twelve! A third of your life you're working involuntarily for someone else! And this is in a country where the economy is more or less free. Would socialism increase or decrease our level of servitude to the government? If it increases the degree in which we are indentured to the government, how can a reasonable person ever call that freedom? - BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Unless you are one of the bourgeoises, you spend a lot more than a third of your life working for some one else's benefit in a capitalistic system. That's the real problem. Capitalist is an economic system dependent on the failure, or the very limited economic success, of the vast majority of its participants to the benefit of the few.
Also, stop describing the government as some alien being. It is "the collective effort of public society to make things a bit better, sometimes at individual expense or sacrifice". - stanleyford, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1"Unless you are one of the bourgeoises, you spend a lot more than a third of your life working for some one else's benefit in a capitalistic system." -- No. When I agree to work for an employer, I do so at terms that I agree to, for my own benefit. If I don't like the terms I'm offered, I negotiate or go do something else. Does my employer benefit more from my employment than I do? In terms of dollars, probably yes. But that's the agreement I entered into: in exchange for a steady paycheck and the security of working for someone else instead of the uncertainty of working for myself, my employer gets to keep what profit he earns from my labor. And that's the beauty of the free market system: although we both are trying to pursue our own ends, both my employer and I end up benefiting each other.
"Also, stop describing the government as some alien being. It is "the collective effort of public society to make things a bit better, sometimes at individual expense or sacrifice"." -- I am perfectly capable of making my life better on my own, and if I see a need in my community, I'm perfectly capable of choosing to help on my own.
As far as the "individual expense or sacrifice" you tack onto the end of your definition, do I get to choose whether or not I sacrifice in a socialized economy? If not, how's that different from slavery? After all, the essential property of slavery is that one must labor involuntarily for the benefit of someone else. Does it really matter that, in a socialized economy, I'm a slave to "society" instead of to a single master as in the classical scenario of slavery? Does the fact that I'm laboring for "society's" benefit instead of for a slave master's make it any less involuntary? - BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Personal sacrifice and resource pooling are the basis for civilization and for eons, it has allowed our race to survive and persevere through incredible hardships. They recently discovered that even the cave-dwelling Neanderthal communities had a form of public welfare, collectively taking care of those members who were not able to fend for themselves. Those who were greedy and selfish, avoiding contributing their share, were exiled from the communities and lost all the benefits and protections that being part of a community entailed.
In today’s world, taxes are the price for the privilege of living in a civilized, First World society. They are part service fee and part insurance policy. They are necessary for a healthy society to function and this is why we, as a society, enforce them. You have to understand, that you don’t really have any inherent rights, only the ones that we, as a society, decide on giving each other. We have to play nice together. - stanleyford, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2"Personal sacrifice and resource pooling are the basis for civilization and for eons, it has allowed our race to survive and persevere through incredible hardships." -- No one can survive on their own. Everyone needs a community that they can belong to and to which they contribute. We both agree on that. But people can survive--and have done so for all of human history--without requiring the government to codify those relationships for them. When government becomes the arbiter of society, as it must in any socialized economic system, people lose the freedom to voluntarily choose what communities they belong to and to which communities they contribute. A person may make the individual choice to sacrifice on behalf of his community, but if government makes that choice for him--through taxation and without his consent--he is nothing more than a slave.
"Those who were greedy and selfish, avoiding contributing their share, were exiled from the communities and lost all the benefits and protections that being part of a community entailed." -- The free market system doesn't advocate greed, contrary to what you may believe. (I don't believe it's greedy to pursue one's own self interest, provided one does so legally and ethically.) The free market system allows people to be greedy, yes, but it also allows people to be charitable too, and in a free market system, even the greedy benefit others, for they must provide something that others want in order to satisfy their greed.
The problem with thinking of economic interactions in terms of how people get their "share" and how they contribute a "share" back to society is that somebody has to decide what constitutes a fair share. I know I'm not qualified to tell you what your fair share is. Are you qualified to tell me what my fair share is? Is a politician?
"In today’s world, taxes are the price for the privilege of living in a civilized, First World society. They are part service fee and part insurance policy." --- I'm no anarchist. I don't believe in the abolishment of all government. I agree with you that government is necessary, and if government is necessary, taxes are necessary. But government is a necessary evil, because as government grows larger, so it becomes more corrupt and inefficient. The taxes government levies should only be those required to fund essential functions which no private entity can handle (e.g., national defense).
"They are necessary for a healthy society to function and this is why we, as a society, enforce them." -- Hold on there. Taxes are necessary. Government social programs are not. One is not the same as the other.
"You have to understand, that you don’t really have any inherent rights, only the ones that we, as a society, decide on giving each other." -- You're wrong, and the idea that society gets to decide what a person's rights are is the first step to tyranny. In fact, the only rights we really have are those that are inherent to the condition of being human: the right not to be harmed by others; the right to the integrity of your person and that which you produce or acquire legally; the right to make choices for yourself. Or, as a smarter man than I once put it: "all men are created equal...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
"We have to play nice together." -- I agree. To me, playing nice means that you don't make laws to take my stuff without my consent. To me, playing nice means we as a society agree to allow each other to free to pursue their own happiness, instead of making ourselves slaves through the government to the happiness of others.
- stanleyford, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1There is no form of socialism which does not involve handing over some measure of control over our lives and our money to a central authority such as the government. How can a person be free if the fruits of his labor are not his to spend as he will, but must be given to the government through taxation for the benefit of someone else?
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Medicare and social security are socialist success story?? LOL!! ahahahahaha dont make me laugh at you!! LOL!!
Medicare: A scam, doctors profit from taxpayers.
Social Security: Thank you, WW2 generation for saddling me with horrific bankruptcy and subsidizing your retirement.
- SiNN4R, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8We used to have health care and dignity in the US until the government took it away.
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3When?
- godseyeview, on 12/20/2007, -5/+2YOu are an idiot
- elrodge, on 12/20/2007, -3/+4Idiots? Please, Siszam! Talking about reading a book via a post on digg. Lame..... Why dont you keep supporting socialist agendas then, with your support of Jonny Edwards, the $400 dollar haircut guy. You can cry me a river over the bigmacs that could have gone to starving kids instead of this pompous douche paying for an extravagantly priced haircut with your/my tax dollars..... quit talking, let go of the keyboard. put down your makeup, and shoot yourself
- geoffg, on 12/20/2007, -25/+13Get a tissue and a job.
- snkscore, on 12/20/2007, -13/+14You are an idiot.
- crispee, on 12/20/2007, -11/+10You, sir, are an idiot.
- ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -5/+4Politely put despite him being an idiot.
- Namakemono, on 12/20/2007, -10/+9In case it hasn't been said already, you're an idiot.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -9/+7Just thought you should know, you appear to be an idiot.
- yelofnivek, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6idiot..
- matadata, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6Your ramblings strongly suggest you are clinically paranoid and delusional. These comments are so commonplace now on digg that I'm really beginning to wonder if this regressive, Red Scare-like mentality is reaching a level of mass hysteria. I guess they can only take so much Fox News and AM radio before they break down. Sad, really. (disregard comment if you were joking... )
- RecyleBin, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7Green is the new red
- hcl40u, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5You forgot 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!!!
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3I'm replying to my own comment to call out everyone who would call me an idiot.
Tell me, plainly, what would be the ultimate conclusion of a worldwide carbon-trading system?- mcduckov, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I think that you are correct to the extent that this will become a grab for power. However, that won't likely gain much traction until sea levels rise enough to be noticeable. Then the "ground work" being laid now will be used to blame humans and use fear/guilt to get people to give control of the economic systems to guys like Al Gore.
At that point it won't much matter if the human contribution is a fraction of a percent.
- mcduckov, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I think that you are correct to the extent that this will become a grab for power. However, that won't likely gain much traction until sea levels rise enough to be noticeable. Then the "ground work" being laid now will be used to blame humans and use fear/guilt to get people to give control of the economic systems to guys like Al Gore.
- dullly, on 12/20/2007, -41/+15you are correct
- 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?- 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.
- thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -21/+43And Al Gore does?
- pyronik, on 12/20/2007, -12/+7this has been my point all along, all the crusaders against GW have no idea what it consist of and the IPCC is just *****
- ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -10/+15Considering he's been a proponent for the monitoring of Global Climate change since the 1970's as a member of Congress, has done the research, and has the Nobel Prize, then yes.
- 0zzy, on 12/21/2007, -3/+5The Nobel Prize lost credibility when they did that (and Ghandi still doesn't have one)
- cyrax04, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1He was to receive the award the year he died. Nobel's can't be given to the dead.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Your post is Fallacy after fallacy. The nobel peace prize has been given to career terrorists in the past. Why would I give any more attention to what a politician says because they won it?
- Troika37, on 12/20/2007, -13/+4Don't forget, he said he 'created the internet.'
- ubitendo, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7prove that he said this.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -9/+2"prove that he said this" It's called Google, bitch. Use it.
- Troika37, on 12/21/2007, -5/+2Since you seem to be slow:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/ ...
Eat it. - Troika37, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2Weird... Irrefutable facts get dug down here... It's amazing :)
I normally love little children, but you guys really should have your mom change your diapers.
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -9/+13Yeah, stop denying climatology and stuff. And accept the scientists that the politicians tell me are right and buy the products and continue government profitable recycling programs and vote for the politicians that they and the unbiased media tell you to.
Just dont believe them when they tell you smoking pot is bad for you because that is part of a bigger conspiricy to make you conform so they can sell you non-green products and rob you of happiness to increase suicides and alcohol related deaths so they dont have to pay as much social security because they've spent all the social security money on black ops operations in south america.
But stop deny global warming scientist.- ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6You mean trust the scientists that the politicians tell me are right, keep buying oil and drilling into the national park reserves and buying cars that get 25 mpg on average, the same mpg since 1977?
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -3/+3keep drilling in national parks? maybe we should drill more oil and we could pipeline the oil from alaska creating zero polution rather than shipping it from some arab country and hoping the captain isnt drunk. Oh, not we cant the enviromentalist made us cut it down drasticly. Just like the told us not to drill in international waters to close to Florida where the Cubans found one of the biggest oil reserves. Could have used that but the enviromentalist were afraid if there was a hurricane oil may get spilled in the gulf... I'm sure Castro and his pal Chavez will be much more careful to avoid a disaster. Communists are always more careful, like at Chernobal.
- ZenMojo, on 12/20/2007, -5/+6You mean trust the scientists that the politicians tell me are right, keep buying oil and drilling into the national park reserves and buying cars that get 25 mpg on average, the same mpg since 1977?
- tinfins, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2So defensive....
- superkendall, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6And you're more intelligent because you believe a smaller group of "experts"?
Since I'm not an "expert" myself, I haven't really settled either way and am willing to have an open mind. - BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I have a degree in physics, and I'm about to get an advanced degree in physics.
I think I have a nose for what is and is not well-researched science.
- thcobbs, on 12/20/2007, -21/+43And Al Gore does?
- Rich711, on 12/20/2007, -18/+12Because you are DENYING them their right to say they are correct and feel good about the goofy looking hybrid car with no truck space they paid $25,000 for. Damn you!!!!
- xGORDOx, on 12/20/2007, -22/+11I live in Boston and today I am shoveling out of my third snow storm in two weeks.
Al Gore and his Global Warming can suck it.
Why did they have a summit on Global warming in Bali? Why not Boston or New York?
Oh, right, they needed it to be warm rather than frigging snowing!- comrade693, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand climate change at all!
- yelofnivek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11seriously. i live south of boston and our snowy weather pattern is linked to the la nina that has set itself up in the equatorial pacific. you can't use individual storms to argue in support or against climate change. that's like using individual people as examples to argue for the entire country's opinion..
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Then why does the media act like a couple of hurricanes hitting land means we're all about to die from calamity?
- GhostMom, on 12/22/2007, -1/+0La Nina is in the south Atlantic not the Pacific.
- yelofnivek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+11seriously. i live south of boston and our snowy weather pattern is linked to the la nina that has set itself up in the equatorial pacific. you can't use individual storms to argue in support or against climate change. that's like using individual people as examples to argue for the entire country's opinion..
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -2/+5As soon as you say "Global Warming" you let everyone know you don't have a ***** clue what you're talking about. How are you stupid? Let me count the ways:
- it's global climate change, not global warming; that means maybe warmer, maybe colder, different precip patterns
- are you aware of the difference between weather and climate? Do you grasp why these are two different words?
- do you understand that much of the risk of GCC comes from extreme events like, say, massive unexpected snowfalls?
- why not Boston or New York? Gee, I don't know know...outside of those two, I don't really see any other options...uh...except maybe THE ENTIRE ***** PLANET.- nixfu, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2>- it's global climate change, not global warming; that means maybe warmer, maybe colder, different precip patterns
then shut the ***** up about "temperature increases"...since the temp has nothing to do with it.... gw people will believe anything.- pp7k, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Why shut up about temperature increases? Part of GCC appears to involve large temperature increases at the poles, which is bad news when a lot of sea ice melts.
But yeah, obviously all the science is lies and crap because scientists haven't been able to put forward a consistent "message". Perhaps they start distributing talking points.
This isn't politics, dickead. Facts are not negotiable.
- pp7k, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Why shut up about temperature increases? Part of GCC appears to involve large temperature increases at the poles, which is bad news when a lot of sea ice melts.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Nixfu, honestly what are you talking about? Temperature increase has everything to do with it, as on a global scale there will be an average increase of temperature.
As for PP7k, well said. - BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1That's a fantastic line of bullcrap you've got going there. Now it is not longer global warming, it's "whatever happens next is caused by man". You guys are brilliant, you are distancing yourselves from global WARMING so that you can say whatever the hell you feel like and claim that it is what you predicted. If the earth suddenly goes into an ice age in the next 5 years, you can be there and say "I told you so!"... likewise if we get very very warm in the next 5 years, you can also say, "I told you so!".... what a complete crock and totally vacuous stance to take. The environment and climate will always be changing just as they have always been changing, now you're simply claiming that all changes are caused by mankind.
utter *****.- pp7k, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Not my bullcrap, that is what the experts are saying. Call it whatever you want. But yeah, all these scientists are really interested in is saying "I told you so". That really gets their rocks off. Oh, that and wasting government money.
The experts are not claiming all changes are made by mankind. But you'd know that if you really looked into it. I guess it's easier to just read headlines and make simplistic suppositions based on media misinterpretations. Obviously I am the one full of crap. - BigManOnCampus, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Clarification: If you are claiming that manmade carbon dioxide emissions will cause either global warming or global cooling (as experts are claiming). You are essentially saying that any change to the climate is man's fault and you are performing a sleight-of-hand that crooked gypsies would be proud of. If you can't see how that follows, then our conversation is over.
- pp7k, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Not my bullcrap, that is what the experts are saying. Call it whatever you want. But yeah, all these scientists are really interested in is saying "I told you so". That really gets their rocks off. Oh, that and wasting government money.
- nixfu, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2>- it's global climate change, not global warming; that means maybe warmer, maybe colder, different precip patterns
- comrade693, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand climate change at all!
- johnso68, on 12/20/2007, -15/+6That is exactly what I was trying to say when I was attacked in this other post http://digg.com/environment/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Re_Free ...
Here are 400 Scientists stating that they do not go along with the man made global warming. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Al Gore.
Granted I do believe that it is our responsibility to try to do what we can to make the world a better place for our children, and I do what I believe is right, ie. recycling, I have a tankless hot water heater (saves money too), radient heat flooring (saves money again) these things save on the electricity that I use and thus my "carbon footprint" But I do not believe that Humans are the only reason the earth is warming. The earth has gone through these cycles without humans here, we just happen to be hear during this one.- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Well, if you don't think people cause global warming then clearly there is nothing to worry about. If you can't trust an anonymous poster on Digg, then where do you go? I assume you have an advanced degree and have worked all the numbers yourself. You just seem so sure.
Nah, you can just feel it in your gut, can't you? And that can't be wrong.
Welcome to idiot America.- johnso68, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0Obviously you did not read my whole post or understand my point. I never claimed to be an expert, I am just obviously stating my opinion like everyone else. I love how when you are an "anonymous" poster as you say on Digg you get really big balls and can call people idiots. Grow up, and try to make a rational argument to prove you actually have intelligence.
- pp7k, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1No, you didn't claim to be an expert, but that didn't stop you from stating your opinion, did it. How did you come to this opinion? GCC is way, way too complex for a non-expert to analyze. So what it comes down to is who you believe. You have to assess credibility. Have you checked on the credibility of this article? It's nearly non-existent. But that doesn't stop you from telling Al Gore to "put that in his pipe and smoke it". So you are an idiot.
You are actually trying to put forward an argument "earth has gone through these cycles...etc" and appeal to logic. So you're not an expert, but you're still trying to argue facts that are way over your head. Again, you are an idiot.
And seriously, you're trolling on Digg comments and expecting rational argument in response to your nonsense. A third time I call you idiot.
Damn, my balls are huge.
- pp7k, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1No, you didn't claim to be an expert, but that didn't stop you from stating your opinion, did it. How did you come to this opinion? GCC is way, way too complex for a non-expert to analyze. So what it comes down to is who you believe. You have to assess credibility. Have you checked on the credibility of this article? It's nearly non-existent. But that doesn't stop you from telling Al Gore to "put that in his pipe and smoke it". So you are an idiot.
- johnso68, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0Obviously you did not read my whole post or understand my point. I never claimed to be an expert, I am just obviously stating my opinion like everyone else. I love how when you are an "anonymous" poster as you say on Digg you get really big balls and can call people idiots. Grow up, and try to make a rational argument to prove you actually have intelligence.
- pp7k, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Well, if you don't think people cause global warming then clearly there is nothing to worry about. If you can't trust an anonymous poster on Digg, then where do you go? I assume you have an advanced degree and have worked all the numbers yourself. You just seem so sure.
- bratpack8, on 12/20/2007, -10/+4Don't you know BigMan, if you deny this, you also deny the holocaust as well.
- DivisibleByZero, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5I think he just meant we're eating more
- Logicexe, on 12/20/2007, -12/+10People call you a denier because the large majority of climate scientists claim that the evidence that we are causing global warming is at least very very compelling. Now if there truly is a growing amount of scientists who are global warming skeptics than I say good for them. Lets see their data, lets see their research. 400 climatologists isn't a very large number compared to the total amount of climatologists in the world, but if their research is better and their evidence is better then they will get more on their side and eventually the consensus will change.
Right now the consensus is still that global warming exists and is likely caused by human activity.- hexydes, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2I'm pretty sure the point of this article was to show that scientists who believe in man-made global warming are NOT necessarily the majority...and since that was the basis of your comment, I think you know owe everyone some time back.
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Because 400 scientists are a majority...
The point of the article was to say that there isn't a complete consensus, and that the skeptics are speaking out. - Logicexe, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1The point of the article was that not all scientists agree with the consensus. The majority is still firmly on the side that we play significant role in climate change.
You voluntarily put up your own time to read my comment, nobody forced you to read it. I owe you nothing :P
- OreosRgood4me, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Because 400 scientists are a majority...
- hexydes, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2I'm pretty sure the point of this article was to show that scientists who believe in man-made global warming are NOT necessarily the majority...and since that was the basis of your comment, I think you know owe everyone some time back.
- jsd8cc, on 12/20/2007, -4/+6Do "climate skeptics" believe climates don't exist?
- MrSteamTank, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antartica#_note-35
Check this out. So apparantly Antarctica is...growing in regards to the amount of ice it contains. But I thought Al Gore told us that Antarctica is melting and global warming is occuring?
- 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.
- 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.- 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)
- boogievan, on 12/20/2007, -8/+18Yes, 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 feat
- 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)
