What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.270 Comments
- MercedRocks, on 07/10/2008, -15/+51HuffingtonSpamPost......
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. - linden01, on 07/09/2008, -15/+47More 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.
- n1eb, on 07/09/2008, -33/+65Man made global warming does not exist. It is a ploy to allow the Government to control every aspect of your life.
- frostbyt, on 07/10/2008, -20/+46Global warming? Oh you mean natural cycle of the earth. You were confusing us there for a minute.
- ethos101, on 07/09/2008, -28/+51I 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.
- MoralThreat, on 07/10/2008, -6/+27It shouldn't matter if global warming exists or not. We should be more environmentally conscious because it's the right thing to do.
- 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...
- 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. - mustangmike53, on 07/10/2008, -16/+29Barbara Boxer. Spam. Buried.
:) - TalenGTP, on 07/10/2008, -14/+26Let'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.
- Nosferotu, on 07/10/2008, -2/+12FYI - global warming and all that wot wot refers to large multi-year/decade trends. A single year of cooling does not suggest the trend toward getting warmer is over, at all. Notice how there are a lot of other points on the graph where there are spikes up or down that suggest massive cooling or heating in a single year? Let's see what the next 5 years bring, then make a judgement, yeah?
In the meantime, it's PROBABLY best to play 'better safe than sorry' with the pollution of our environment by large corporations, right? I mean, this is our only planet. If 50 years from now we look back and go, "Well... the 'enviro-nazis' were right.", we're just gonna be ***** outta luck, aren't we?
I would LOVE to believe global warming is just a hype, and it's not really happening. I really, really would. EVERYONE would. No one WANTS to think our planet is going to crash and burn - we're just trying to advocate a safe approach, rather than running amok all over our only living space without consideration for the potential consequences. I realize the issue has been politicized an awful lot, and chances are you're less interested in hearing reason and trying to empathize with the other position than you are in just throwing around exciting buzzwords like enviro-nazis, but just hear me out here, okay?
The point is, we are just trying to look out for what's best for the future of our planet and our species. It's fun to think we can continue to just live in the American way, using up all the resources we want without regard to the future, and that things will never change... but that's probably not going to actually happen. So let's just try to work together to prolong our livelihood on this planet, yeah? - 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. - elxkid, on 07/09/2008, -18/+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...
- zmigliozzi, on 07/10/2008, -15/+24Coming 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.
- jpop, on 07/10/2008, -3/+12No you know why the catch phrase is "climate change" or "climate disturbance" now. I guess Boxer didn't get the memo.
- 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. - WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -6/+14Psst... you know, the fact that the White House is covering up information on AGW might make you want to reconsider just who's got an agenda.
- inactive, 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! - WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -7/+15Would this be the same government that's trying to bury information about global warming?
- 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. - Kanele, on 07/10/2008, -0/+8Yes i'm pretty amazed. Evolution denied, Global warming denied, soon, earth will be flat again ^^
- 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?
- marx2k, on 07/10/2008, -0/+8The problem is you have an incredible amount of people that simply refuse to believe anything _they_ do can affect the environment. This, of course, works out very conveniently since they don't have to do anything different because nothing's wrong. Must be awesome.
- 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.
- FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10Earth will shake us off like fleas.
George Carlin was the man. - 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 - WasabiBomb, on 07/10/2008, -4/+10And a lot warmer in the south. So?
- 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.
- TheUnlearn, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6i believe you meant fascist, confuse*s*, make*s* lose and using. how's that for confuse people?
- 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. - pintomp3, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7global climate != local weather
- 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? - 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.
- 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.
- bumcheekcity, on 07/10/2008, -26/+32***** you, Obama.
- Arcesius, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7And what would constitute real evidence, in your mind?
- 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
- pintomp3, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6i see the armchair climatologists have come out in full force to dispute the finding of NASA and IPCC. i suppose evolution is a big scam too.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6You are right that the sun is slightly cooler this year.
Also, smog in China is actually damping down temperatures.
But this is why you have to listen to Climatologists, who think about things in terms of trends and do research, and probably are very much aware that the sun fluctuates slightly in output.
The average temperature is slightly down the past two years. But we've had some 15 record-breaking hot years in the last 20. The other issue is the poles and night-time temperatures. So "Climate Change" is much more accurate. The general trend will heat things up, but the changing of locations on temperature and the times is going to severely impact crops and plants and the ecology.
The problem is that major polluters have spent their money, to turn this into a political shouting match. It's more complicated than just "world heats up/world cools down." The atmosphere is changing. The oceans are getting more acidic. People are influencing these changes.
It isn't some conspiracy by environmentalists -- but they've made a mistake on trying to make it sound too easy, to pitch how important this is. Nobody became an environmentalist 10 years ago to find a way to make a fast buck by getting thousands of scientists to agree to scam the world. That is pretty ridiculous, when you can look at the sources of anti-climate change rhetoric and the money they make every day.
Again, corrupt BushCo is supporting your position vs. thousands of Climatologists. It's the Big Tobacco scam all over again. - 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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. - Arramol, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4He didn't say "liberal" was a negative term, he said it's an overused reference term, which it is. I'm not a liberal, but I've been called one on a number of occasions by extreme conservatives because many of them seem to think that you're either of the Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter school of thought, or you're an eeeeeevil liberal. It's indicative of the "us vs. them" mentality that's poisoning this country.
- 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. - 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?
- 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 ... - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Wow, you invoke these sources of information and don't even check;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
The graph seems to go both up and down all the time -- but the trend line is sharply up. The temperature is only relatively down from record-breaking levels. But, saying the temperature is down this year, is enough to trick a drooling neocon.
Liar. I find it hard to believe you know where this information sits and never actually looked at it. - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4With Oil Men in the White House? Are you kidding?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 272 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is