What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
161 Comments
- elliotys, on 01/05/2009, -2/+119Science ftw.
- AndrewDB, on 01/05/2009, -6/+72It's so nice to have a smart president for a change.
- Zervaman, on 01/05/2009, -0/+50Sweet, someone in charge who doesn't sideline scientific research due to religious dogma (I'm looking at you, Bush, and your pathetic stance on stem cell research)
- ForeverBegins, on 01/05/2009, -4/+40It'd be nice to see what we can get done when smart people are making decisions.
- hawkspur, on 01/05/2009, -3/+31Where is this "real" scientific community you speak of? Oh yeah, the droves of scientists that deny global warming only exists in your head.
- flossdaily, on 01/05/2009, -2/+23Neocons were the ones that decided to politicize science- something that we hadn't seen since the Spanish Inquisition.
Democrats never crossed that sacred line, so you can take your skepticism and shove it up your ass. - anxcaptain, on 01/05/2009, -15/+35yay.. educate the red states! :) ....
wait... don't teach them chemistry cause then they'll make bombs. - studdenfadden, on 01/05/2009, -2/+20Bush successfully stalled research into space travel, genetics, psychiatric treatments, stem cell research, physics, chemistry, green energy, any basic science, and anything else that was counter to his creationist ideals.
Those are the areas where the big changes will happen in the next few years. - BoomShake007, on 01/05/2009, -3/+21Praise Science!
- DigitalisAkujin, on 01/05/2009, -2/+20You don't have to look far to see the benefits of Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff
- hawkspur, on 01/05/2009, -3/+19Did a little extra digging and found this article as well:
http://infohack.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/21/1502 ...
The people who signed that petition basically are just random people who have no idea wtf they are doing. - AndrewDB, on 01/05/2009, -6/+22So how much do they pay you to be a dumb ass .. or does it just come naturally?
- hawkspur, on 01/05/2009, -4/+19Getting 31,000 random PhDs to sign a petition exceptionally difficult and a significant portion of the signatories didn't have a PhD at all. It doesn't even specify what they hold a PhD in, so for all I know it's a bunch of psychologists signing it. Give me the signatures of 31,000 climatologists who are know wtf they are talking about and maybe I'll consider the alternatives.
Yes, the climate warms and cools in a natural cycle over the aeons. However, the concern that people are generating is because the data is showing that our rate of warming is FAR exceeding the levels of warming that are shown in the geologic record. That's why so many scientists have come to the man-made global warming conclusion, burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the data is folly. - BlaqReaper, on 01/05/2009, -3/+17Sure things have changed, but compared to the 90's I feel from 2000-2008, there hasn't been much technological innovation. The 90's gave birth to the internet, LCD, cell phones, DVD players, modern PCs, etc. The last 8 years has simply been improving those inventions by making them smaller, multifunctional, or fitting them with a bigger hard drive/better upgrades.
Just my 2 cents. - flossdaily, on 01/05/2009, -0/+13And to think... I would have been excited just to have an average president at this point!
- minuslars, on 01/05/2009, -6/+19I hate headlines like this. I mean, I voted for Obama, and I am a scientist, and I hope that science funding goes way up under his presidency, but this type of headline and article just reads like propaganda. I hate it.
- hawkspur, on 01/05/2009, -5/+17The coal industry should go bankrupt. It's been one big environmental disaster.
- ParanoydAndroid, on 01/05/2009, -2/+14Science.
It works, Bitches.
http://xkcd.com/54/ - hawkspur, on 01/05/2009, -0/+11Educate America in general. The recent Digg story about how 20 percent of Americans don't know where we are on an atlas comes to mind.
- scrotumbrau, on 01/05/2009, -1/+11Dude, I heard it!!! I didn't know what the hell it was until now, but I definitely heard the scientific community exhale!
- JQP123, on 01/05/2009, -2/+11Bush taught us that a "religulous" president is more likely to be "flawed" rather then "infallible". Personally, I believe the number of times a politician utters "God bless America" bears an inverse relationship to his/her leadership skills.
But at the same time, Clinton also taught us that "smart" does not necessarily equate to "infallible" either. - Murdats, on 01/05/2009, -1/+9thats because there is no valid evidence
- hawkspur, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8Fail. Just fail. You don't even deserve a structured response because almost everything you imply is false.
- ummagummas08, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8Wow. You failed so hard that you had to delete your fail. Failey McFailster.
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7I'm not sure America had as big of a part as China or Japan did in making those devices better, cheaper, smaller and faster in those 8 years.
Don't quote me on that though. - flossdaily, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6I wish you had separated that asinine rant into several different comments so I could bury you point by point.
- Swivelstick, on 01/05/2009, -2/+8The logic does not compute, the article basically states that many findings where manipulated by the Bush administration and that this appointment will hopefully lead to a more open administration in relation to science and importantly funding. I don't see the "propaganda" I did see it in the past however.
- Trent1492, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7"Global warming is a religion."
I do not think that word means what you think it means. - ChildeRoland420, on 01/05/2009, -1/+6More than half of the nations energy is produced my coal. If he were to bankrupt the industry it would entail nearly quadrupling the cost of power for every American.
- ozroy, on 01/05/2009, -2/+7I really hate it when people start saying Y2K was non-event and a lot of panic about nothing.
Did it ever occur to you that it was a non-event because billions of dollars was spent fixing the problem?
Non-event is not the same as non-issue. It was a Major issue, it was just fixed before it could become a Major event. - yoderizer, on 01/05/2009, -3/+7It depends on your branch of science. In my field (physics) for example, republicans tend to push the most money towards science. No sighs of relief from where I'm standing. Of course, scientists still mostly wanted Obama to win.
- zacharytelschow, on 01/05/2009, -6/+10Al Gore didn't politicize science? That statement is patently absurd.
- archiesteel, on 01/05/2009, -3/+7aletoledo: you can't compare y2k with AGW. For starters, one of the reasons y2k was a non-event is that tons of COBOL programmers were hired to make sure critical systems were updated in time.
As for Stossel's opinion piece, it doesn't debunk *any* myth at all. It makes vague suggestions that we might not know enough about AGW to make dire predictions. Well, guess what: Stossel is not a scientist; he's not much of a journalist in the first place.
Contrary to what you claim, the current consensus on AGW is not based on a single source of information, but on a variety of them: the IPCC, NASA, oceanic observations, climatologists around the world, etc. - TheMoniker, on 01/05/2009, -1/+5Your definition is far too loose, laughably so. "[O]utside of mention of the superhuman in definition one" the following would qualify as religions: the practise of anaesthesiology, orthopaedics, radiology, every medical profession which requires an MD, dentistry, civil engineering, existential philosophy, the field of ethics, public policy administration, politics...
Each of these people are members of a group who hold "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe ... containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Each has "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons." Each is a field with a, "body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." Each is, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." - Trent1492, on 01/05/2009, -2/+6"Since when does fact equate to urgency?"
Their is a fire in you house.
Your child is choking.
You need to put money in your checking account or you will bounce.
CO2 is a green house gas that stays aloft for centuries. Humans have increased the amount of CO2 by 35% and we are still pumping still more of it into the atmosphere. And since inertia is a real bitch we better do something quick. - bubbadigg, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4Al Gore didn't politicize science.... true.. There was no science involved in anything he did.
- logandurand, on 01/05/2009, -0/+4Most of our foreign aid doesn't work, and often ends up in the hands of oppressive local governments, warlords, etc. People in Africa need property rights and freedom, not our money, and even if they did, it's not our government's job to play robin hood and give it to them.
- protodon, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3I would've picked Bill Nye but to each his own. Science Rules!
- burningmanstan, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4I would definitely take that with a grain of salt. Adult stem cells from many different tissue types can be used for medical treatments. However, there has not been enough research on embryonic stem cells to definitively prove what they can and cannot do. Therefore, I fail to see how someone can say "[adult] stem cells are just as versatile as embryonic stem cells" considering they have different characteristics. The only way to prove that adult stem cells do the same thing as embryonic stem cells would be to conduct more research on embryonic stem cells. So far adult stem cells can only develop into a limited range of cell types depending on their origin. Embryonic stem cells are not as restricted. Therefore, further research in embryonic stem cells may improve or create better ADULT stem cell therapies. This is not an either/or issue, we need BOTH.
Embryonic stem cell research has generated some findings that you might agree with. For example: one study recently found a way to extract embryonic stem cells WITHOUT DESTROYING THE EMBRYO. They are working on ways to make adult stem cells act like embryonic stem cells, however it is a bit difficult to do this when our understanding of embryonic stem cells is limited.
I really fail to see how this can generate so much controversy considering there are thousands of unused embryos in fertility clinics that will be destroyed anyway. This is just another non-issue that savage nation uses to generate better ratings. - aletoledo, on 01/05/2009, -4/+7Yeah more money for science funding, what happened to national heathcare? Does this mean we simply raise funding levels on everything? Where is all that money coming from?
- logandurand, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3As I commented above, I don't want "trickle-down innovation" - I want direct investment from voluntary association. Also, the fact that government-funded research organizations invented the first packet-based network protocols does not by any stretch of the imagination translate to "inventing the internet". Private enterprises have created almost all of the technologies and infrastructure that make the internet what it is today.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/05/2009, -3/+6That's funny, according to the article: "No administration since World War II has been able to resist the temptation to politicize science in some way"
- inactive, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4Listen global warming deniers; we have satellites now. Satellites with cameras. They take pictures of Earth, see? Yes, well, those pictures show marked polar ice melt-offs and show glaciers that are thousands of years old melting away for the first time.
The only debate going on in the scientific community is whether or not this is caused solely by humans. We know that at least part of it is because of the correlation of temperature to methane release.
Let me reiterate: THERE IS NO SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING!
Even Dubya had to admit it was real, which makes Dubya smarter than you. Ponder that for a little while. - mikbunn, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3There is no such thing as an infallible person, let alone president.
...Teddy Roosevelt notwithstanding. - KegBol, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4Here's that cookie, now STFU.
- ch4os1337, on 01/05/2009, -0/+3"Science help us"... You know what, I actually hope the world becomes how it was in south park... so it will be like real life star wars with giant funny talking otters.
- KegBol, on 01/05/2009, -4/+7And your qualification to dispute him comes from your many, many years of working on which particular branch of environmental science?
/***** - gubatron2, on 01/05/2009, -1/+4Can't imagine how ***** would hit the fan if Obama would publicly acknowledge that he's either agnostic or atheist. You can't be a smart man like him and believe on those scary tales.
- ChildeRoland420, on 01/05/2009, -2/+4Straight from the printer. If the government controls the creation of money, then it is quite easy for them to pay for whatever they want. Besides, pretty soon they will own the banks anyways, and can just borrow(rape) the money from them.
- SFJoe, on 01/05/2009, -4/+6Chemistry isn't in the Bible so it's not a real science, like intelligent design, anyway.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is