digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share 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.
See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

White House Cover Up of Global Warming Dangers Must End Now

huffingtonpost.com — Senator Barbara Boxer: "Yesterday, I called on EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to release every document related to the threat global warming poses to the public -- including the endangerment e-mail left in cyberspace. If Mr. Johnson does not have the strength to stand up to the White House and take these steps, he should resign."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ethos101, on 07/09/2008, -28/+52I don't know about you but it's been colder than usual here in the Pacific Northwest. I'm in the mood to burn more fossil fuels to heat this place up... if only it weren't so dang expensive right now.
    • BECoole, on 07/10/2008, -7/+8It's been cooler in the Midwest too.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -4/+10And a lot warmer in the south. So?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5He's trying to explain that a local phenomenon is enough to explain that he is an idiot.
    • bruce86, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6Well if its cold in your area, it must be cold everywhere else. Also i have a bridge in London to sell you if you are interested.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -4/+6Gee, when I stick my finger in this glass of water -- it really is cooler.

      Ask yourself why the White House has to manipulate facts and cover up Global Warming if there isn't a problem? What would we know if they weren't lying?
      • buddypriefert, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3Gee - ask yourself what benefits those in office for just a few more months to "cover up" Global Warming. As if these guys really care about what you think? Come on, they have all the $ they need and have had a nice ride of power. Why would they waste their time on a cover up?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -4/+41) because they might be liable for criminal prosecution.
        2) They get money from these companies.
        3) They might want a consulting job later.
        4) They enjoy jerking idiots around.
    • Joejackal, on 07/10/2008, -3/+8That is part of the reason why the phenomenon is called climate change more accurately than global warming. I look upon it as something of a distraction when a denier like yourself pipes up and shares their experience with cooler temperatures in an isolated context. The temperatures globally won't uniformly increase everywhere. Weather anomalies however have become more commonplace globally.
      • ethos101, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3You call me a denier when I neither confirm nor deny anything about the subject at hand? I share my personal experiences and complain about the cost of energy and you call me names? Shame on you sir!

        I know you see the rest of the dems and reps calling each other names, so I ask you this: Do you replicate them and further broaden the divisiveness between the parties, or do you find ways they can both work together toward a common goal (civil responsibility perhaps)?
    • repins, on 07/10/2008, -8/+4someone better tell those glaciers that are growing to stop it!!!
    • pintomp3, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7global climate != local weather
      • ethos101, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Agreed, but it seems the global climate is a bit cooler this year doesn't it?
      • DelayedEraser, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4The global climate doesn't "seem" anything. Studying a changing climate requires specific expertise and huge amounts of data. Of course, such studies are done by the thousands of qualified scientists involved with the IPCC, among other governmental and non-governmental groups, but these are immediately branded as partisan and untrustworthy by global warming doubters. Thus we have a situation where all the people qualified to make statements on this matter are ignored, while ***** scientists (who couldn't get a job on a real, large-scale study if they tried) are constantly touted as knowing the "real" situation. Most of these scientists, of course, are employed by the U.S. government or by one of the large oil companies or car manufacturers, or BOTH.
      • ethos101, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Seems it to me. Yes it does. SEEM, look it up.

        While I agree with you, you're barking up the wrong tree.
      • DelayedEraser, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3fine, I'll rephrase if that will make you happy: What the global climate "seems like" to a layman is meaningless.

        That better?

        And if we are going to play the being-a-dick-about-usage game, I'll point out that I have no idea what you mean when you say "While I agree with you, you're barking up the wrong tree". Wouldn't I be barking up the wrong tree *because* you agree with me? I think you need to get your idioms straight.
      • ethos101, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2But you're still barking while I agree. Are we going to continue this?

        Here's a thought, maybe the "local" climate here is cooler BECAUSE we're burning more fossil fuels.
        Link: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
      • DelayedEraser, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3that's interesting stuff from New Scientist... I'm not sure the exact relation between Aerosols and fossil fuels though.

        and perhaps we shouldn't fight about minute details when we are on the same side, but frankly its a refreshing change from fighting with staunch doubters who don't have a rational bone in their body. It's just like all the real scientists in the world, who have known about climate change for decades and long ago gave up bothering with all the idiots who don't believe them so they could debate with each other about details and solutions.

        But you're right, we shouldn't be so harsh with each other. *shakes hand*
      • ethos101, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Well, we differ in the fact that I don't exclude any scientific evidence no matter what side of the debate it supports. If a scientist has an argument supported by his own research surely he deserves more respect than to be called an idiot. He did dedicate his life to being a scientist and I completely respect that. BUT, there is corruption everywhere so I take anything I see with a grain of salt. It is not my place to say what is or isn't true. That's why I sit back and watch the masters debate. ...pun intended. :D
      • BECoole, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1So now half of a continent is "local"? WTF!?
    • JettaMan, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Up in Canada we've had a pathetically cold spring and summer. When the hell is this promised global warming going to occur anyway? We need it like now.
      • paker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3We have another cold front pushing into Florida tomorrow. I can't remember that ever happening in July.
        It won't got cold, it will rain,
      • BECoole, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1C'mon! Continental America only represents ~1/8 of world landmass. You a being misled by this "local" phenomena.
  • n1eb, on 07/09/2008, -33/+66Man made global warming does not exist. It is a ploy to allow the Government to control every aspect of your life.
    • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -4/+12You need to clarify which part of "the government" you are talking about. The big complaint seems to be that the White House is leading a campaign to hide global warming. If they were out to control every aspect of your life by using global warming as an excuse, wouldn't they be saying it's all humanity's fault, blah blah blah?
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -7/+15Would this be the same government that's trying to bury information about global warming?
      • SonnyW, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5That's the most insidious part. They want to control your MIND too.
      • jroyale, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Good thing I ALWAYS wear my tin foil hat... and tin foil underwear.
    • BECoole, on 07/10/2008, -9/+13Don't forget Al gore's hedge fund. He's doing handsomely, but of course, wants more $$$.
      • marx2k, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4So Al Gore is trying to control your life?
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Document Gore making any money off of his green investments, and then let's compare it to if he had invested in Oil like Bush & Co.

        The Deniers are right when they say "follow the money", but apparently they have no idea what money is.
    • shakbhaji, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5Even if that's not true, there's another huge problem related to excessive CO2 emissions that must be dealt with immediately. CO2 + H2O --> carbonic acid. There's a huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is mixing with the oceans and acidifying it. Even if our CO2 emissions were completely stopped today, ocean pH would continue to fall for at least 50 years, doing harm to ocean life around the world. Plankton especially, a major food source for marine animals, would suffer catastrophic population losses. So there's at least one other reason, and several others to be sure, for us to be concerned about our collective CO2 output regardless of if the earth is actually "getting warmer," or not.
      http://www.ocean-acidification.net/
    • ssn697, on 07/10/2008, -2/+10Just so I got this straight (including the 30 people who Dugg you up):

      The "Government" that is covering up global warming is the same "Government" that is going to use Global Warming to control you?

      So they are both hiding it, and using it to control you? That is some class A paranoia right there!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6Oh gee. Yeah, me getting some solar sells and better insulation is Government Control? Let's run and panic from yet another NeoCon bogey man while their leaders rob us blind.

      What, vs. paying 10 times more to Oil and Gas, and just handing a blank check to the Utilities when I need to turn on the AC?

      What kind of control do you have when you go broke with the current system, which has nothing to improve MPG in cars over the past years? What, you think Exxon just woke up and said; "Hey, we need to drill!" ?They have over 3 million acres of leased land they haven't bothered to drill yet. They haven't invested anything in equipment, or upgrading refineries either.

      We have NO CONTROL RIGHT NOW. I have to drive a gas guzzling car. Where are the trains to get to work? Not built, so that the government can repave the same old road with too many cars on it.

      So, I have to take a risk on taxes for pollution, vs. my ONE option right now? Gee, here is a conspiracy that the LEFT is trying to control us, vs. the actual Corporate control we already have.
      • macdady843, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2They haven't bothered to drill because the crazy activists at the EPA have congress in their pocket. There are plenty of resources at home in America to quench our energy needs. Now if only they weren't illegal to harvest...

        P.S. -- Global warming is a scam to harvest money from the masses, and a clever ploy for the re-distribution of wealth. It's pretty sad that more people don't realize that.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6Here is a few more culprits helping to bolster this "Global Warming Ploy"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature ...

      http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angel ...

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/polla ...

      http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

      http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinu ...

      http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo ...

      http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg187251 ...
    • silentboom, on 07/10/2008, -5/+2And the global government, everyone's sources are financed by this crap. None are independent. The only warming that occurs is from the sun, human play very very little of a role. Pollution is different, but they use the words interchangeably.
    • monoa, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Are you aware there are other countries outside of the USA?

      And are you aware that every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change?

      Please provide the conspiracy theory to explain that away. If you can't I'll assume you're a know-nothing tool (like almost everyone else in this thread) who is simply denying reality in order to fit in with your political ideology and sense of entitlement.
    • angryredplanet, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3Be careful n1eb, you already know they've got their eyes on you. I've seen them too, they drive around in their black vans... watching... waiting. The unsuspecting and unprepared get abducted and taken to their laboratory where they are administered doses of sodium pentathol. It's awful. They talk, for so long, about their deepest secrets. Things they were trained to withhold, even under torture, come bubbling to the surface in a mad and dreamlike counseling session chaired by the white-coats. You can never see their faces, but they're always calm. Make no mistake when they calmly say they'll take your finger off, they will without hesitation. You are in no position to argue. Just tell them what they want to hear... just tell them everything.

      Nobody is safe... nobody.
  • elxkid, on 07/09/2008, -19/+27Whenever I read this and countless other similar stories, I find myself wondering what is the long-term goal of these people suppresing this kind of information. What good is all the money, power and control over the world if there is NO world left to exert it on? If world domination is the goal here, at least they should aim for sustainable world domination...
    • linden01, on 07/09/2008, -12/+5Don't worry elxkid there is an iceage in our future! That will be much worse. But you and I have no control over it just like the global warming nonsense. Try the site Iceage for a more scientific look at this ALgore problem.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Why does everyone act like global warming didn't exist until Al Gore came along?
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Probably because he proclaimed the sea level would rise five times higher than any other reasonably creditable "scientist" would and instead of being called an idiot he was given a Nobel Peace Prize?
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1"Probably because he proclaimed the sea level would rise "

        Actually scientists are saying unchecked climate cange will lead to 200+ ft ... before citing scientists you should check what they actually say
    • sk11, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Burns: one dollar for eternal happiness? I'd be happier with the dollar.
    • executorzz, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2Don't you see the fallacy in your logic. Your disdain for Bush and republicans has clouded your judgement.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2"these are not the droids you are looking for... move along."

        Your BushCo mind tricks will not work on us anymore, young paduwan.
    • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2It's a good question, but it's predisposed to the idea that global warming is something that is happening and that we can impact. What if it isn't? What if we can't impact it?

      The real question you should be asking yourself is "Why should we destroy our economy, pay trillion's of dollars, when it has no impact and the rest of the world doesn't do it?" Kyoto? Farce. Last I recall, China's pumping out more CO2 than the US, etc.
      • bloomanchoo, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Why do you think it would destroy our economy?
        Seems certain energy sectors are doing fine with that already... no?

      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Well Bloomanchoo, what do you think is being proposed to reduce CO2 emissions? How do you think will that affect the economy? How many businesses will fold or move out of the US to avoid said proposals?
      • bloomanchoo, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2How many businesses do you think will be created by this?
        How many more businesses will be more local, less decentralized?

        I'm just saying, it could really be better for our economy than bad...
        Time to bring the solutions home... I agree.

        jpop - please, let's keep it civil, try posting your replies without the snark.
  • Burrito, on 07/09/2008, -21/+6Now there's a woman I'd vote for.
  • epublicus, on 07/09/2008, -15/+7Hey Babs. http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo ... Easy words and pictures too.
  • linden01, on 07/09/2008, -15/+48More political science from the left and no natural science. Babs is just the person I want analyzing this bull. Babs, don't worry the globe is cooling and will continue for the foreseeable future.
  • mustangmike53, on 07/10/2008, -16/+30Barbara Boxer. Spam. Buried.

    :)
  • MercedRocks, on 07/10/2008, -15/+52HuffingtonSpamPost......

    Lets take all the politics and global warming pseudoscience and just AGREE that:
    1)we consume too much natural resources (especially the US)
    2)we produce too much waste
    3)we need more fuel efficient transportation and methods for producing electricity...

    Global warming is a scientific theory, based on a hypotheses, so why do those who disagree become demonized? I hate all of the excesses that capitalism produces and the way our environment is being degraded, BUT I also think global warming is a sham based on faulty logic - remember how everyone warned of a pending ice age during the 1970s?

    We need to stop all this global warming jibba jabba and work together. Republicans like fuel efficient cars just as much as everybody else and its pretty retarded to suggest otherwise.
    • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -9/+24Opponents of Global Warming are demonized, not because Global Warming is a scientific theory, but because it is a religion. I'm just waiting for the believers to start lopping off the heads of the non-believers...
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -9/+8No, they're demonized because the opposition, which would be the government and the oil industries, have better PR ... and people like you are falling for it.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5The "opposition" also contains scientists that are attacked because their research doesn't coincide with the mainstream "the earth is warming and it's all mankind's fault" religion.
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1What research do Deniers do?
    • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -13/+10deniers become demonized because your arguments against a "scientific theory, based on a hypothesis" are not scientific arguments based on a contrary hypothesis. They are analogous to Creationist attacks on the "scientific theory" of evolution.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I think that a lot of people "believe" in Global Warming. At least till this year when the earth started cooling... The main dispute is what is causing it. ie. is it all Mankind's fault, or is it a natural cycle. You've got the "The Earth would be great if Mankind all died off" crowd vs the "Hey now, don't blame me for your psychological issues" crowd.
      • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3This is an example of an argument not being based on a contrary hypothesis.

        If the warming is a "natural cycle," WHAT natural cycle is it? You can't just say its a "cycle" and not point to any precedent - "cycles" don't just start randomly for no reason.

        The fact is, there is no contrary hypothesis. All deniers have is the kneejerk statement "no, you're wrong." No discussion of what is causing the appearance of a warming trend, no alternative hypothesis. Just blanket denial.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5Actually there is. We know that "natural cycles" occur due to the geologic and plant record. There have been hot times and cold times (ice ages). Do we definitively know what caused them? Probably not. But we DO know that it wasn't Mankind that did it.

        The questions for global warming are: 1) Is it getting hotter on Earth (Yes, at least till this year). 2) Is it something that Mankind's doing? (Unknown). 3) Is it something with the Sun outputting more or less energy? (Jury's out) 4) Is there something we can do about it? (Unknown).





      • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4For *****'s sake. The natural cycle of ice ages you are referring to occurs regularly (the definition of a cycle) over 100,000 year periods. We don't "know definitively" what causes it, but there are some pretty good scientific hypothesis explaining it, which are supported by evidence. Therefore, the observed change over a 100 year period can not be attributed to that cycle.

        Can it be attributed to a different cycle? Sure, IF you identify the "different cycle" that is causing it, and provide evidence. Deniers so far have refused to do this.

        Just saying "it's a cycle," again, is not an alternative hypothesis, it is a kneejerk denial.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2So you admit that there are natural cycles now? We know there are natural warming and cooling cycles. We don't know what causes them, but suddenly I need to prove that we're not in one? You know there was a "little ice age" (outside of the usual 100k cycles) during the dark ages, right? What caused that? It wasn't Mankind.

        We don't know for sure that man's CO2 is causing this warming period (it could be the Sun's input). We do know as of right now that the Earth is cooling and the Sun's on a funky no-sunspot cycle right now. Sunspots = brighter sun = hotter temperatures.

      • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Where did I deny there are natural cycles? Never happened.

        If deniers want to contend that the current warming trend is caused by some natural cycle of the suns input, they need to point to data supporting this. Deniers refuse to do this, because data on the sun's activity actually disproves this "theory."
    • Rudegar, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5well the current administration does have rather strong ties with oil company's which make a lot of money in these high oil prices being that they follow the market price without having inc in their expenses

      but that of cause don't necessarily represent all republicans
    • technogenius, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I want to say I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but you actually came at it from the right angle. I dugg you up.

      So many times when people say stuff like this on digg it all becomes a finger pointing game between liberals and conservatives, it's refreshing to see an intelligent comment.
    • MrBussi, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10"remember how everyone warned of a pending ice age during the 1970s?
      "

      First of all climate science was far more primitive back in the seventies. Second of all global cooling was suggested by a few, and far from a consensus

      http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
      • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -5/+5Yeah, its funny...the hacks who suggested an ice age in the 70s are probably the same hacks who deny global warming today.
      • SonnyW, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Third of all, they were right - sort of. For a while the temperatures were going down. Looking back at that period now, with much better methods, shows that this period was actually a decrease in an existing trend of global warming, which started picking up again later.
    • Nosferotu, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6I don't agree with your idea that global warming is a sham, and anyone who has spent some time in the scientific community realizes that even if something is based on a hypothesis, if it has a LOT of proof behind it, it's something you should probably listen to - at least, it's got more proof than the alternative.

      I think people who claim global warming is a sham are demonized because people who believe it isn't (which is the majority of the scientific community) also believe that ignoring it is going to lead to the ultimate demise of our planet - while most of the people providing research dollars to fund the research saying it's a sham have a MONETARY stake in it. Oil companies and whatnot. And really, it's hard for me to trust that they have the best interests of the people in mind - what are they trying to prove, that we should NOT try to be more efficient and less wasteful?

      That said, I respect your major points that we should ALL agree that moving toward more efficient, less wasteful ways of doing things are good, and we should all be working toward that goal - whether or not we believe the planet is going to die if we don't do it. I think the idea of global warming at least does a good job of putting a fire under people's asses to get the ball rolling, because let's face it, if we don't HAVE to strive to overcome the wasteful American lifestyle, why would people try? The disembodied idea of running out of resources sometime in the future doesn't scare people anymore, because it's not an IMMEDIATE threat, and the numbers are so large that it's hard for a single person to really comprehend the weight of it.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I'd add that BOTH sides have tremendous monetary stakes in Global Warming. Pro-Status quo and Anti-Status quo (carbon offsets anyone?)
      • Nosferotu, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3@jpop: There's money passing hands on both sides, but the ultimate goal on the global warming side is to keep us going. The goal on the anti-global warming side is to keep business going and make as much money as possible, damn the consequences. I'm not saying everyone who is anti-global warming is just out to make money, and doesn't want to have to deal with stricter, more expensive environmental regulation... I'm just saying if you trace the money back to it's source on both sides, you're going to get a lot more of those supporting anti-global warming than you will supporting the idea that global warming is real.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Well yeah, there's more of a current establishment that's invested in the status quo. That's why you'll see big bucks not wanting to change the way things are. Sort of like tobacco. Tobacco companies want people to keep smoking. Anti-tobacco wants people to quit smoking, but doesn't really want everyone to stop (because it would end their existence).
      • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@Jpop "Anti-tobacco" propaganda is produced by Big Tobacco. They want people to keep smoking because they get taxpayer kickbacks for producing the antismoking propaganda. It's how they got off paying settlements when it was proven that smoking causes cancer.

        I fully support an environmentalist propaganda campaign built along the same model, where oil companies get kickbacks to encourage green living. Hey, it works!
    • biogears, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0If you think capitalism destroys the environment, compare the US to Russia and let us know which one is cleaner, plants more trees than it consumes, manages resources better.
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1or compare capitalist India to socialst Finland, or Mexico to Costa Rica, or ...
  • bumcheekcity, on 07/10/2008, -26/+33***** you, Obama.
  • frostbyt, on 07/10/2008, -20/+47Global warming? Oh you mean natural cycle of the earth. You were confusing us there for a minute.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -7/+7Prove it. Come on, trot out the evidence you've got, which apparently all of the evil climatologists are burying, which demonstrates that the remarkably rapid climate change we're going through (and which happens to coincidentally coincide with the CO2 we're producing) is a "natural cycle of the earth".
      • Muyoso, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3T-Rex didn't drive a Ford Explorer. Win.
      • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5you guys should stop opposing your science to their beliefs, didn't work yesterday, does not work today, will not work tomorrow.
        The only chance you get the message to fit in their oilwhore brain is when it'll be 35 celsius in north pole. Of course by then it'll be too late and we'll be long dead. So again, quit bothering, it's unhealthy hitting walls head first.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Muyoso- "T-Rex didn't drive a Ford Explorer. Win."


        (not sure why this got posted elsewhere. stupid Digg.)
        The Tyrannosaurus Rex "was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist prior to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event." During that period, oxygen levels were higher than current levels, which may have led to the larger size of animals at that time, by the way. The warmer period during that time was apparently due to a "tectonic super plume", which dumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere- in other words, lots and lots of volcanoes.

        Um... I'm looking out the window right now. I don't see any active volcanoes, do you? I do see a lot of SUVs, however.

        Fail.
    • macweirdo42, on 07/10/2008, -5/+7Natural, man-made, what's the difference, I keep asking? Apparently you come from magical fairy world where everything natural is good for us. Ice ages are natural, guess that means they're good for us. Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, asteroids from outer space... all perfectly natural phenomenon, so I guess that means we don't have to worry about any of them, right?
      • dupems, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6No, but it means we can't do anything to prevent it, you ***** dolt.
      • bloomanchoo, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5straw man
      • macweirdo42, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1@dupems
        Look, whether or not we can prevent it is an entirely separate issue. The way I see it, with our energy dependency, what the ***** makes you think we can necessarily prevent it even if it is man-made? What, are we gonna stop driving cars and read by candlelight? We can't just completely overturn our lifestyle in the next several years. Realistically, it seems to me that either way, we're up ***** creek without a paddle - arguing about whether it's man-made isn't gonna change a damn thing at this point.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5The earth changes temperatures -- over eons.

      Let's ignore all the other times the Reich-Wingnuts have lied to us.
    • monoa, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Get a clue, doofus:
      http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/ ...
    • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1"You were confusing us there for a minute."

      Apparently it doesn't take much.
  • MoralThreat, on 07/10/2008, -6/+28It shouldn't matter if global warming exists or not. We should be more environmentally conscious because it's the right thing to do.
    • ho0ber, on 07/10/2008, -6/+5Yes, but unlike what a lot of these nuts will tell you, there is a lot less to be conscious of.
    • pjpark, on 07/10/2008, -9/+4It shouldn't matter whether Hussein had WMD. We should invade Iraq and free it from that tyrant because it is the right thing to do.
      It shouldn't matter whether Xenu exists or not. We should pay for auditing because it is the right thing to do.
    • datastorageguy, on 07/10/2008, -5/+1So basically, if it doesn't exists, it doesn't matter. Sounds like the Dan Rather story on Bush being AWOL from service. The facts were wrong, but liberals claimed it didn't matter.

      Typical *****.
    • DelayedEraser, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Let's face it, all most people care about is their daily life, and for most that involves driving to and from work and keeping a nice house and having access to a variety of creature comforts whenever they desire them. They don't give a damn about the future, only about not disturbing their routine for the handful of decades they plan on living. Sure, they probably want their kids to have a good life too, but apparently all that means to them is earning more money and ferreting away a decent family nest-egg. The notion that the whole world might start changing, and that the small advantages they leave to their offspring might mean nothing in the face of a global tragedy, is too frightening so they choose to ignore it or, worse, vehemently deny it. It's a combination of comfort and cowardice, and it's astounding.
  • busybrain, on 07/10/2008, -12/+10OMFG, Not the "endangerment e-mail left in cyberspace"

    WE ARE DOOMED!
  • zmigliozzi, on 07/10/2008, -15/+25Coming from Huffington, go figure. Read a middle school science book. Is that seriously a picture of Karl Rove? He was out of the administration before the global warming scare.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2No he wasn't.

      God you folks don't even bother with anything but blather.

      What middle school science book is the definitive source on whether BushCo falsified information on climate change? Is that in Science or the Home Economics class?
  • TalenGTP, on 07/10/2008, -14/+27Let's just call it balancing out the over exaggerated claims by Al Gore and Co. about man made global warming. Ying and Yang. Man made global warming will go down as the biggest scam in history.
    • dupems, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Nah, religion definitely holds that title.
      • biogears, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0uh...global warming is a religion...
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1What I don't get is why so many people seem eager to parade the obvious fact that they have never so much as glanced at the science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.

        My Dad told me that in the old days ignorance was something you weren't proud of.
  • Chorney, on 07/10/2008, -11/+9Global Warming is a very important issue to me and alot of other people in North America. But has anyone wondered if the planet is just going through a cycle? I mean I'll be the first one to admit that we are not helping with the releasing of CFC's into the atmosphere, but maybe we are only speeding the global warming process up? Maybe global warming is just part of the cycles of the earth.
    • BECoole, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3I've got nothing against a reasonable effort to be clean, but the GW movement is totally out of bounds. I agree that any changes are more a result of normal, cyclical changes than anything else.
    • MrBussi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2hmm, i think so, er maybe these scientist thingies
    • dracflamloc, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Global warming is theory for a reason. The problem is those who don't like it aren't coming up with a countrary hypothesis with facts to support it.
    • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Weren't CFC's banned and reduced way back when? There was demonstrable effect on the Ozone layer, and a demonstrable impact when it was stopped.
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Note, CFC's are a bit different from CO2 in that we could measure the CFC's in the atmosphere and there was a solid model (cause and effect) according to the science that we have that shows that Ozone is destroyed by CFC's.

        CO2 is a bit more loose in that we know it is a greenhouse gas. We know that we can produce a lot of it. However, it's just one of many components of the atmosphere (and out of the atmosphere) that can heat up the Earth.
  • slayernine, on 07/10/2008, -13/+15Pfft show some real evidence that global warming is happening and I might care.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -4/+8Here you go:
      http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

      Have fun reading.
    • Arcesius, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7And what would constitute real evidence, in your mind?
      • macweirdo42, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4Nothing would constitute real evidence, because global warming isn't real. These people use the same logic that creationists do - they start from the view that they're right, and then they force the data to match their conclusions.

        Besides, it's all political - if you're worried about the government using global warming to control you, you're never going to say that global warming is real, even if you know it is. Which I'll admit, I understand, because I think that fear of government control via global warming is a legitimate concern. However, I disapprove of the notion of manipulating science for political reasons. Let's be perfectly honest, those with a vested political interest in the problem of global warming generally aren't too terribly interested in the actual study of climatology, they just want to know the implications.

        So I guess what I'm saying is,by all means, argue the wrongness of the government using global warming to control us, but leave the actual science of global warming to those with a legitimate interest in climatology.
      • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6A real evidence is a exxon funded blog showing funny drawings that say "there is no link between our CO2 emission and the temperature warming". Now that's rock solid to them
    • monoa, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3What do you want? NASA to come 'round your house and explain it all to you?

      Do what the rest of us did and do your own research. Here's an easy starter with lots of references to follow:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
    • Math, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2How about:

      1) Find any graph of temperature vs time for around the last hundred or so years (Hint: try the Wikipedia link that someone provided above).
      2) Learn how to read a graph - See how that wiggly line is headed up to to top right corner of the graph? That means that the average temperature is increasing.
  • Tantrum, on 07/10/2008, -4/+11lol, what cover up? The cat is out of the bag regardless of washington wanting to try and put the cat back in the bag.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1And by the cat you mean... marginal temperature differences that fall within the margin of error and show no real long term trend for the past century? Gosh, there's a cat we need to rush right back into that bag!
  • CoreyHalliwell, on 07/10/2008, -12/+6Man Bear Pig comment thread anyone?
  • whytheam, on 07/10/2008, -16/+13I thought that whole Global Warming fad was over, guess not. DAMN YOU AL GORE!
  • scot333, on 07/10/2008, -13/+9huffington post! OMG!!!!!! BLARRRRRRAAAGAGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!
  • asw0210, on 07/10/2008, -7/+5I wish the people in New Jersey were as educated and un-sheep-like as the people that are leaving these comments. I'm going crazy.
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10Earth will shake us off like fleas.

    George Carlin was the man.
    • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1pretty much certain we'll shake ourselves off before
  • tpearl, on 07/10/2008, -17/+11More spewing sewage from the lefts noise hole.
  • joe122370, on 07/10/2008, -14/+15here are hundreds of links to articles debunking the "global warming" scam

    http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde ...
    • stonewall123, on 07/10/2008, -5/+8Articles and blogs are not the same as peer review science and should not be treated as fact! Please provide links to real scientific publications.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/10/2008, -5/+3Read the UN's actual supporting science - vs the political "reports" they have published to date.

        You'll be amazed just how unsubstantiated "man-made" global warming really is.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6I'm confused, Treo... on the one hand, we've got scientists worldwide (and apparently the UN) saying that humans are causing global warming. On the other hand, we've got the US government and the oil industry saying we aren't, and actively burying reports to the contrary.

        Why, exactly, should we believe the industry that stands to make money by denying global warming?
      • jpop, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3Or the industry that stands to make money by embracing global warming?
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Which industry stands to make MORE money, jpop? Which industry has already been caught trying to pay researchers to publish papers denying global warming? Which industry has hired the same PR guys who used to help the tobacco industry deny the link between smoking and cancer? Which industry advertises oil derricks on news channels so that they have the threat of pulling their ad dollars if the news runs a story they don't like? Which industry has used spurious petitions signed by "scientists"- who were later shown to be mostly non-scientists and/or non-climatologists?

        That would be the oil industry.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1WASABIBOMB

        Actually, if you read the statements of the individual scientists (those who have actually spoken on the UN report) you will find there is quite a lot of hedging, equivocation and outright disagreement on the base assertions of the UN report. More importantly the data itself (that in the appendices, links etc.) is not conclusive.

        What you have is observation. Its hotter than it used to be. Followed by other observation. There is more CO2. Followed by It must be man. That is a supposition.

        Again and again this mantra is repeated but it doesn't make it true. Now I'm no blind idiot who says "IMPOSSIBLE!" to the idea that we may have a role in this but I want proof before you start picking my pocket for dubious solutions that are guesswork at best.

        I will also grant that we can - and should do a lot more to take care of our planet. I believe we should do everything we can to develop real...REAL...alternatives to petroleum wherever possible. But it is sheer ignorance to believe without market forces involved this will happen. Currently, gas prices are accelerating innovation and the world seems ready to adopt it. It most certainly will if industry can provide us with relative cost/performance to what we have now.

        I have read through volumes of the UN report supporting data and have seen for myself the tinkering with charts and casual linkages that the summary report defines as ironclad.

        You must remember that the UN is a political body that survives upon the donations of its member nations. It looks and acts as a political machine whose goal is to preserve itself, reward its friends, punish its enemies and consolidate its power.

        The UN reports published to date have been the executive summaries, written by politicians and rubber stamped by select scientists who - lets be frank - depend upon their standing with the UN for their income, prestige and lifestyle.

        All organizations have agenda's and endeavor to expand them. The UN is no different and the "Global Warming as Caused by Man" scenario is the single largest income generator they have.

        It is healthy to require proof of any organizations pronouncements. It is responsible to be critical and ask questions.

        Too few have read the supporting information or more would come to the conclusion that "it SOUNDS logical alright but you REALLY haven't proven this have you?"
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -6/+7And here's a link debunking that debunking:
      http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I've seen and read gristmill before. The uncomfortable truth lies in actually reading the UN report's supporting data, reviewing the charts, links, etc. and most importantly COMPARING them to the previous reports from 1996 from the same body.

        Contradictions and manipulations abound.

        HAVE YOUR READ THEM YOURSELF?
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1"if you read the statements of the individual scientists"

        One long unsubstantiated, unreferenced claim.

        That and 50 cents still won't get you coffee. Citation or recognize this carries all of the credibility of msgs from Elvis and the Andromedans
    • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1dude, there is a link on this page to Carlin's video "the planet is fine". Have you seen it?
      • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2You're quoting a comedian? Carlin's POINT was that we are killing ourselves with our actions, not the planet. The planet will survive long after we have killed off our race. It has survived much worse. But 90% of the species that have come before us have not. So the end of his routine makes his REAL point crystal clear, but I guessed you missed that...
      • Kanele, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0that's what i was stressing ¬.¬
    • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1and even more thousands swearing they were visited by Elvis ... which is why we prefer science http://digg.com/environment/How_we_know_we_re_not_ ...
  • oracle202, on 07/10/2008, -15/+17Can't we ban the idiots who digg this kind of bullsh*t up? This article is completely ridiculous.
  • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -9/+10Thank Jesus that the people actually in a position to change US policy aren't as retarded and incapable of understanding science as the idiots leaving comments in this article.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3Really? Do you really think the cream of the intellectual crop exists in Government?
      • swrostmore, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4Did I say "cream of the intellectual crop?"

        No.

        I said "not retarded and incapable of understanding science."
      • Treoinmypocket, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3SWROSTMORE

        I did make an assumption there...allow me to rephrase:

        DO you REALLY think that the people in a position to change US policy (I am referring to our elected officials as I believe you are) are truly capable of understanding science or that were they that they would be inclined to read it?

        I think it much more likely they can't and/or wouldn't bother as they are much more preoccupied with attaining and retaining power.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Based on the author, I'd say the people in position to change US policy are more retarded and incapable than your run of the mill digg user.
  • pudds, on 07/10/2008, -17/+15Bury, bury, bury. 1000x bury.
  • BECoole, on 07/10/2008, -9/+4Huffingtonpost has been covering up the dangers of DHMO. It is just shameful. HufPo must be in bed with big DHMO.
  • EEdesigner, on 07/10/2008, -10/+10"...If Mr. Johnson does not have the strength to stand up to the White House and take these steps, he should resign."

    And since Ms Boxer is the definition if BIMBO and couldn't pass a high school algebra course, and since she has NEVER held a real job in her life, she also should resign.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Close.

      Since Ms Boxer has bent over every time the administration asked her to she should resign. She's got a lot of nerve to call out an administration official given her own record as of late.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -8/+9No one is "covering up" anything !! Warming has occurred and may or may not continue....At any rate, these isn't a dam thing we can do about it to any great extent
  • AppleJacks364, on 07/10/2008, -8/+7Any blog that has previously used the National Enquirer as a source is ***** worthless. The people submitting this crap need to be banned from the internet. Perhaps a common sense test should be required when you sign up for Digg.
    • ProUSADigger, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2The 5 people who would be left would not make this site very entertaining.
  • wardy12, on 07/10/2008, -12/+6I'm new to digg and these comments are much better than the one's on this huffington post article itself. You all rock.

    Where did common sence go? If these global warming people were smart they should try changing the temp of a small town in texas during the summer. See how much money it costs to do that and see how much it cost and what the long term effects are. I want to drink clean water like everbody else but we cannot change the temperature of the globe. sorry
  • executorzz, on 07/10/2008, -7/+4If the current administration were as evil as some think then they would have ran with this global warming hysteria not oppose it. Think of the control that can come from it.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4With Oil Men in the White House? Are you kidding?
    • sk11, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2It would make their friends lose money.
  • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1global warning?
  • sk11, on 07/10/2008, -1/+15This might help explain the comments here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/ ...

    Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

    In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

    In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.
    • epublicus, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1"In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change."

      And the 39 groups would be those groups that dare disagree with the position taken by the Royal Society? Amazing.
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2"Dare"???

        What's the Royal Society going to do? Send around it's goons?

        Like you haven't experienced pain until some partical physicists do a number on your balls, never mind what the molecular biologists do to your home. And if you still won't cooperate, they send Sir Edmond Blaithwaight ... and the paleontologists ...
      • epublicus, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Greenfyre:

        Get a dictionary. Read it cover to cover. You may notice there is very little plot, but a tremendous cast of characters, Most of whom, like "dare", have multiple roles to play.
      • greenfyre, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2OK, screw the humour, let's talk about logical fallacies.

        Your post tries to turn pushing bogus propaganda into some sort of heroic act by characterizing those being pimped by Exxon as standing up to the iron lab boot of the RS.

        The RS is a very reputable scientific organisation and in accord with the rest of rational science, so instead of praising the peerless heroism of these poor downtrodden corporate shills, why don't you offer some defence of their science?

        From Patrick Michaels to the CEI none of these groups produce anything that has not already been debunked as frauds and distortions ... so how about showing us something from them that actually qualifies as other than the best slander money can buy?



      • sk11, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2@epublicus:

        Ah, the semantics run around, so I see you're a lawyer. Tell me, just how much do the neo-cons pay their pawns?

        Perhaps it's slowly dawning on you that the Royal Society is one of the foremost scientific organisations in the world, running since the 1600s. It's members have been at the forefront of scientific endeavour for hundreds of years, reputable to say the least.

        Now tell me, why would a private company, one with a long list of questionable motives and actions, be a more reliable source on science than the Royal Society? It's a bit like saying advice on health and diet from the British Medical Association is less reliable than from McDonalds. Sounds insanely ludicrous doesn't it?
    • sk11, on 07/12/2008, -0/+3Yeah, one of the most prominent scientific organisations in the world, representing many, many scientists, must be more biased than one oil company and it's minions, when it comes to an alternative to fossil fuels. After all, don't you know the billions of dollars those scientists make in warning people about global warming? It's why they all drive around in ferraris. All exxon mobil care about are children and making the world a happy place, just look at how all their profits go to charity.

      /sarc

      Just for interests sake, how much does it pay to be a neo-con lobbyist?
  • BOFH2, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3My question is this: The entire world that has access to radio, tv, newspaper or the internet hears about climate change through other sources. The scientists go to the media when they get any flack from the white house anyway. So what is the white house blocking that the public is not already hearing?
  • grantmoore3d, on 07/10/2008, -10/+4Okay, if "Global Warming" is such a disaster, then why is it that life seems to be going about it's normal business without any problem?
    • DavidYeah, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Because the media isn't pointing to the much more violent climate that's occuring around the world and saying "this is because of global warming, and scientists predicted this, thanks for ignoring," kind of like how the scientists are.
    • Wakkyweed, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Ummmm... maybe it's because it's just begun, so we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg?
  • WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -7/+5The Tyrannosaurus Rex "was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist prior to the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event." During that period, oxygen levels were higher than current levels, which may have led to the larger size of animals at that time, by the way. The warmer period during that time was apparently due to a "tectonic super plume", which dumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere- in other words, lots and lots of volcanoes.

    Um... I'm looking out the window right now. I don't see any active volcanoes, do you? I do see a lot of SUVs, however.

    Fail.
    • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3they don't understand science, they interpret it to justify their oil appetite, and if it cannot justify it (100% occurence), they call shenanigans.
  • DavidYeah, on 07/10/2008, -5/+11When did everyone on digg turn into a bunch of science denialists? It's seems the last hubbub over Al Gore's house really turned you folks into cynics.
  • Wakkyweed, on 07/10/2008, -6/+16Has this Digg page somehow been hacked by the Global Warming deniers? I can't think of any other reason why the inane comments posted here are getting so many diggs up.

    The facts are simple - the vast majority of climatologists all agree that global warming is happening, and this warming could have disastrous effects on our civilization. How much of that warming is caused by man is still up for debate, but the consensus in the scientific community is that man is responsible for a large part of it.

    Deny it all you want, but it's happening. You guys are starting to sound like the fruitcakes who deny that the Holocaust happened.
    • DavidYeah, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6I'm guessing these guys are going after the major liberal/progressive blogs as they're upcoming and piling on comments in order to hijack digger opinions.
      • Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -0/+8Yes i'm pretty amazed. Evolution denied, Global warming denied, soon, earth will be flat again ^^
    • calon9, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6I need a summer job. Where can I sign up and join the throng posting on forums denying climate change? There must be good money in it.
      • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Not one misspelling or grammatical error - sorry, you're over qualified
  • defwheezer, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6Everyone here seems to miss the point- an "endangerment" finding means there would have to be ACTION taken to mitigate the effects of what is very clearly happening; climate change (whether man made via CO2, or just due to "sun spots", or cow farts, or whatever). The memo came from the CDC (yeh, they do, like, science and stuff there, public health, etc... NON partisan). What the monkey balls is so hard to except here- a White house suppression of science (clearly, and for the umpteenth time), or the notion that cigarettes are addictive, er, I mean, that carbon emissions are changing the climate patterns?
  • repairman2003, on 07/10/2008, -6/+8An article from the huffington post does not need to show up under the Science section. This section is reserved for real science articles, not political ***** news
    • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Oh man, there goes every Denier post at Digg - frees up a lot of disk space though, do it!
  • Groovydoo, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4I hate to say this but I am more worried about the Constitution and the Magna Carta right now. They both seem to be circling the drain and the 108th United States Congress is right on board despite a Democratically controlled congress. BTW, circling the drain is not hyperbole!
  • DeFex, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Russian study says there is going to be a cold 50 years due to low solar activity.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Doesn't matter. Self hate and blame is more in vogue right now.
  • DavidYeah, on 07/10/2008, -2/+10Science denialists drive me crazy.

    I'm waiting for the day someone tries to prove that the earth is the center of the universe because, well, since the universe is infinite, that must mean that any point can potentially be the center of infinity. Therefore, the earth is one of an infinite number of universe centers!

    It's totally plausible given the BS we have to deal with now.
    • eurodele, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2As every cosmologist knows, the center of the universe is, in fact, everywhere. As is the boundary. The metaphysical implications of that fact are somewhat inobvious, but they begin with the simple observation that geometric centrality is a trivial property (because possessed by every object in the universe). But this doesn't rule out other kinds of centrality, and the earth could easily instantiate one or more of them. So it may be proper to say that the earth is the center of the universe after all.

      Similarly, don't be so quick to complain that "denialists" are necessarily the ones who are misinterpreting climatological data. Interpretative ambiguity is unavoidable in science, and manmade global warming fearmongers are just as likely as anyone else to run afoul of it. In fact, recent trends in the data seem to indicate that their causal hypothesis is overly simplistic or just plain wrong. Don't be a sucker for morons who self-righteously squawk about "Science!" without understanding its limitations. It's usually easy to make fools of them.
      • ProUSADigger, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Rock on, eurodele!! That kicked ass!
  • dansvan, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3If you really think that the government is going to do anything about the problems going on, you need to realize that's not true. Stop waiting for an "official confirmation" of global warming, there is absolutely no harm in reducing the impact we have on this planet due to our massive, polluting factories and the transportation we use. It's not up the government to "fix" it, it's up to YOU.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -2/+10The Deniers are trying to say, that thousands of Climatologists, spent 8 years or more in college, to become scientists and make a fraction of what they could with the same degree in business, so that they could all get together and make up stories about impending doom, because that would fund their ability to do MORE bad science.

    THIS group of "unfounded" science -- you know, people with degrees, is the bogey man, while BushCo falsified the science at NASA. The same guys who marketed the war on bogus data and pretended to be fooled by it -- making Exxon $40,000,000,000 more a year -- but hey, it's not about huge profits. Yeah, there is conspiracy to defraud the public -- we caught them red-handed. And their little Blogger Brigade is telling you to worry about the Sierra Club.

    Either America is full of terminally stupid nit-wits, who drool when a corporate shill rings a bell, or there are a lot of paid bloggers for Exxon. Who can say which is worse.
    • radiofrequency, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Well, maybe if these assholes went out and actually got a business degree they'd know how to sell a supposedly superior product without lobbying the government to subsidize it or pass laws making competing products illegal.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Dude, they are climatologists. Why don't YOU go make a superior product and see how easy it is to create the infrastructure and get it to market.

        If they were in business, nobody would be tracking hurricanes. And they don't fricken' lobby congress -- Exxon does. The real threats in this world are no match for the ones you imagine.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4"Jason Burnett's letter provides new evidence of what we have long suspected -- that this cover-up is part of a master plan being directed from the White House and the Office of the Vice President."
    >> Yeah guys. We completely believe the BushCo Bloggers that this is a conspiracy of Climatologists, and not the same evil, corporate sell-outs who sold us the Iraq war.

    I mean, the ONLY people you are fooling is other NeoCons and paid bloggers. Who is dumb enough to believe you guys? Oh, Al Gore is a con man, because a bunch of crooks told me so! HuffingtonPost is garbage because a hundred lying punks on the Right who listen to Rush Limbaugh think so.

    Keep repeating your opinions. You are missing a vital component; A track record of having been right. And Credibility.
  • robbielaney, on 07/10/2008, -9/+10I remember the days when I made a comment about why I though Global Warming was fake and I got dugg down tremendously. I am happy to see that many diggers have come to actually do some research!
    • ProUSADigger, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5This trend has actually given me some respect for the average digger. Now that
      many of them realize that Obama is a fake, they are coming around and actually
      calling that spade a spade.

      This gives me hope that, as The Great Global Warming Hoax is uncovered, they
      will also name that spade.

      Or maybe it is b/c many of them are just aging. With age comes more sense, usually.
      Hence, the usual trend toward conservatism and away from *****-crazy liberalism.

      It is promising.
      • datdamonfoo, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Do you really believe what you say or do you just throw ***** at a wall to see if it sticks?
      • triphop, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Actually its a sad reflection on the failings of the public education system that unwillingness to accept the findings of a majority of experts in the field. Its also a reflection on the locked in mentality that somehow equates US hegemony to sustained consumption of a non-sustainable set of fossil resources.
      • epublicus, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Triphop.

        Were not those "experts in the field" also educated by the same schools that you lament as failures?
  • eurodele, on 07/10/2008, -3/+0Come on now. There is no army of climatologists willing to risk their professional reputations on the "certainty" of catastrophic manmade global warming. That claim has been shown to be hogwash time and time again. In contrast, there are thosands of globalists who would love to see a central regulating authority with the power to tax breathing, as long as they're on the receiving end of all that money. If their plan goes through, they get richer, they get to tell the peons what to do, and they get credit and adulation for being "saviors of the earth". Beware of plans that are 100% advantageous to their proponents and promise to cost everyone else huge amounts of money and freedom. They're virtually always the creations of crooks.
    • greenfyre, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Source your claim that "shown to be hogwash time and time again"

      because no one told the scientists
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.