What is Digg?246 Comments
- thebigkahuna, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45awesome, just awesome
next -CFC's they keep our air conditioners running. CFC's make ozone not destroy. freon is our friend - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+49"carbon dioxide, they call it pollution... we call it life"
i call you ***** morons. i don't even have to say why. - henrah, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42I'm having flashbacks to the last desperate spasms of the tobacco industry before their television advertising was banned.
- periwinkle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41There is overwhelming evidence for global warming, and you shouldn't base your beliefs on fiction from Crichton. Do look it up: particularly the rebuttals from knowledgeable people. Look for arguments and evidence Crichton ignores in order to tell a good story.
With complex issues such as these (also, evolution), the truth seems to be in the whole body of knowledge, not just a few minor papers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -24/+55The sad thing is that this goes hand and hand with the neocon war on science, education and intelligence.
Illiterate redneck repuglicans everywhere are going to eat this up, just like when ronnie raygun used to preach that trees were actually a bigger source of pollution than industry.
If they "call it life" then I invite them to all do the world a favor and suck on their tailpipes for about 5 minutes. - Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33It is kind of odd that the person most often referred to by opponents of climate change findings is not a scientist, but just a science fiction writer.
- vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33I'm pro-CO2...because I am a tree ;P
- DoctorShim, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34Same people who insisted cigarettes do no harm. Amazing what certain businessmen will do to protect their investment. Damn, in the software industry businesses have to switch to a new technology the moment it becomes hot. Yet corporations like Exxon insist on doing things the old way rather than switching to newer, more efficient technologies. The money they spent on that ad could have gone into research for experimental technology, which may then bring in more revenue and substantially increase their reputation.
Filthy meat sacks. - mattmeow, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34But isn't it ironic that George W. Bush "avidly read Michael Crichton's 2004 novel State of Fear" and that he also just happens to have owned an oil company? (this is not meant to be an anti bush statment)
Also I just took ecology in college "world ecological problems." There is very significant evidence that global warming is happening, and regardless of that fact, carbon dioxide is still never a good thing it is actually very poisonous (death at only 10% concentration.)
More like "we call it death" than "we call it life." - ocularsinister, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Seeing as you've read Michael Crichton's book, you should probably read this too http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
It is slightly alarming that the president is taking scientific advice from a novelist not scientists. - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15that movie's an insult to both sides of the argument
- Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Please, as a spokesman for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, allow me to answer everyone's questions.
Q. That's disgusting, how do you sleep at night?!
A. On a huge pile of cash.
Q. But... what about the future generations? Your children?
A. They will be protected by walls of money, both figurative and literal.
That is all. - blunted, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16bah .
The Greenland glaciers are accounted for in two of the more recent models of global warming. Global warming does not cause uniform warming across the planet - some places (surprise surprise) get colder first. The Arctic ice sheets are vanishing - the Antarctic ones thickening is subtle misinformation ( for gods sake look it up). Glaciers most other places are shrinking.
Godammed Andrew Bolt used the same argument here in the Herald Sun (local Melbourne tabloid) . The scientist's paper he quoted actually explained the Greenland glaciers increasing as part of the global warming model. Out of context and selective quoting - nothing but dishonesty. Fact checking this idiot is a hobby of mine - was no surprise to see he was up to his usual tricks. And this is the same BS.
Ice core samples going back (reliably) around 400k years show the highest atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases over this period is now.
The seawater temperature study last year upheld the two climate models that have human burning of hydrocarbons (and the subsequent increase of the CO2 as the carbon combines with oxygen) as the primary driver behind global warming.
This ad is crap - baseless manipulative crap. The jury may still be out on global warming (not the warming itself- that's a given - but the amount of influence we humans have on it) - but the skeptics case is weakening - not the other way round.
Let the scientists do their job and keep big money and politics out of it.
If its true then it is a serious challenge for us - if not (or not as bad as first thought) then we will realise this in good time. It is not looking good for the latter possibility though. And as someone else mentioned alternative energy is a worthy goal regardless.
Just have a google - it didn't take me very long at all to catch Mr Bolts ***** - you guys are all obviously savvy enough to do some fact checking for yourselves. - koldpizza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This is why Europeans think most americans are stupid..
Well, this and the christian fundamentalists (if there ever was an intelligent designer, he sure was drunk when he designed religion) - Wireddd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13As an American I have to say at this point that most Americans are stupid.
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Asbestos is your friend.
would you rather be burned alive? Huh? Would you? - kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12andyengle,
Al Gore flying halfway around the world to attend a Kyoto protocol conference is wasteful itself, but not if it's an investment in getting the US to comply with it in the future. The use of jet fuel would be more than compensated by the savings in CO2 emissions if he were successful in getting the US on board.
Is the Kyoto protocol fair for the US? Not really, but neither is forcing third-world nations to skip the dirtier step in their economical development to go straight to clean, expensive and modern. It is a step in the right direction tho. Sure, India and China and developing African nations get a break, and that sucks for us by raising the cost of domestic industrial production and ultimately sending jobs to those nations that can use the cheaper nonconforming factories. Our representatives know this, and they wisely protect their own asses and those of their constituents. I don't know what the right course of action is, but it seems like this is where we're at so far.
What happened to the us here in the US leading the world by example? And could we impose tariffs on products from the nonconforming countries? I forget what the arguments in the WTO for/against US cotton and steel tariffs are... - timan72, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14> "There are statistics that show the United States has received a very minimal, if not zero, 'warming' effect that everyone believes is happening."
Even if the US would be in a strongly affected area, nobody would get fried. If a small percentage like the US is not affected is not important. Instead the effects on the whole system called "earth" are what will indirectly effect the fast majority of people on earth. Rich countries can protect themselves but the majority of earth's population is to poor. They will suffer from dryness and floods and resulting hunger and illnesses. - innate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@andyengle: Like you, my dad is always ranting on about “environmentalists” and referring to anyone who (he thinks) disagrees with him as “you people”. He gets furrrious about Al Gore, and don't even get him started about Hillary.
Like you, I hope that environmentalism isn't used as a way to control others. However, you can’t pretend the problem isn’t serious just because you don’t like the people who speak out about it.
US Conservatives are seen as not proactive about the issue, except in token ways. As long as that is the case, those who take it seriously (we liberals) will be in control of the debate. I encourage you, and other conservatives, to take the problem seriously by acknowledging that most of the world sees it as *the* *most* *important* *issue* of our time. As important as terrorism.
You’ll recall that one of the first things President Bush did upon taking office was to renege on the Kyoto Agreement. He despised it and couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. Since then he has not done much on the issue, other than talking about hydrogen and trying to convince us that cutting down more trees is actually good for the environment. Well maybe it is or maybe it isn’t, but he sure seems hostile to everyone who’s not a Republican. We have no reason to believe that he takes the issue seriously. You need to fix that perception (or reality?) problem before people will listen to you. - umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The Gore's use Carbon Emission as a currency. They invest their money into green companies and ventures to offset their personal CO2 emissions (including air travel). The most recent issue of WIRED has an article about it. It's a novel concept.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18DO NOT TAKE YOUR CLOTHES OFF FOR DOCTOR SHIM! HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR!!!!
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Intresting little tidbit of info, When you hear Exxon,Shell and so forth talkin about how they spend like $500 million a year on eco friendly things.. the budgeting for this is ad is included in that figure lol...
Typical they will spend millions to fund this ad, and yet still havent payed the fines for the Big alaska spill wich according to this commercial=life... - jkenneth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Isn't it funny how conservatives are really all for liberal use of resources, and liberals are all for conservative use of resources? Those terms seem only accurate when applied to the style of clothing each side might wear.
- scheper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10These videos are dangerous propaganda, and they are the source of why people think Americans are dumb.
- aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Oh good, so the earth will only get a little bit warmer then... a few degrees here and there?
"More to the point, even if we implemented something draconian as Kyoto, it wouldn't have much effect, since we've already emitted a load of CO2"
Yeah, you're right... it's already broken, so let's ***** it up some more!
Everyone knows the earth's climate has changed over the millennia, but the changes that caused were devastating - part of nature, but pretty horrific for anything alive at the time.... so is it really a good idea to just start fiddling around with the earth's thermostat to see what happens? - pap3rw8, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18yea...I hate exxon. That ad was the biggest load of crap i've heard all month!
And now there's going to be a bunch of stupid people trying to convince the rest of the country that global warming doesn't exist with their only proof being "but they said so on TV!" - dangsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8wow that commercial was awesomely stupid on so many levels.
- DoctorShim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Jeffy: "Is there another planet with the exact same conditions?"
Venus? - dementedcrabs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Dude, so this means carbon dioxide is good for me? O_O (Inhales a can of carbon dioxide...) *Dies*
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7it is.
notoriously so, the whole junkscience site. - Laika, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9After taking many courses for my biology major at UCLA, all of them have stressed the importance of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. I'm currently in a class that deals solely with air and water pollution, and there is a direct linear correlation between the average global temperature and the anthropogenic carbon emissions in the atmosphere. This video is total propaganda. If we don't address the issue and let big corporations persuade the masses that this is a scare tactic, we will destroy ourselves. In addition, didn't Michael Crichton write Jurassic Park? His writing cannot be used as a basis for an argument about this. That's like using Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code to analyze Leonardo Da Vinci's work. It might be a fun/easy read, but you really don't learn much.
- GYMarshy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"the changes that caused were devastating - part of nature"
We are part of the natural world too so you could see the current warming as part of a natural process. Maybe we were supposed to discover and abuse poisonous fuels as a way of wiping ourselves out.
Bill Hicks said that we're 'a virus with shoes'. In that case maybe fossil fuels are the Earth's antibodies. And like the rest of us it'll, just get a little hot and sweaty whilst it fights off the infection. :) - LtJimDangle2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13For: The Competitve Enterprise Institute
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_speak - hughns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Michael Crichton is a sensationalist fiction-writer. In contrast, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that all point to global warming being man-made and the fact that it's going to have catastrophic consequences.
- Davoucci13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You may call it WMD's... we call it toys for adults.
Seriously, i thought that the idea of brainwashing people might include some sort of intelligent thought processes behind it...i was wrong. Then again...I don't really like questioning stupidity, it always seems to bring me down to its level and beat me with experience. - brilliantshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think tgelston makes a good point. I do also "believe" that global warming is a serious problem, but to be honest, the amount of personal research that *I* have personally done on the matter is pretty much zero. My opinion has been formed over the years from a random peppering of info from different media sources. (and yes, that video was another piece of info/dis-info added to that pile)
Is there global warming? Maybe. Are we responsible (at least partially) for it? Maybe. Do I really know? No. Can I? Probably not. BUT.
When I start my car in the morning, and I sit on the freeway in traffic and when I see the layer of smog in the air, and the smoke stacks belching their products, do I feel that the billions of people on this planet are making the world a cleaner/better place to live? Ummm no.
There are too many people, dumping way too much crap, and we are making our backyard(planet) quite a mess.
Whether or not we have global warming aside, I personally think we are mucking up the planet, And yes, I am just a guilty as the next guy. - tintub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Also see the "energy" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA&search=energy%20competitive%20enterprise
- drewmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Personally, I conserve energy (especially oil) not because Greenpeace, or anyone else, tells me I should, but because it makes financial sense. Use less, pay less. So, following that logic, what do you think this ad is trying to convey. "Global warming is bs. Buy more oil........from exxon:)"
- whiskeybravo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+20mattmeow says..."carbon dioxide is still never a good thing it is actually very poisonous (death at only 10% concentration.) "
" More like "we call it death" than "we call it life." "
More like, "you're a moron". CO2 is not poisonous, the only way to die from it is asphyxiation, due to lack of oxygen, not presence of CO2. In your fervor to bash the ad for stating an obvious truth, you probably confused CO2 with CO. It's easy to do when your blinded by the science of the media.
The only truly idiotic premise of the add is that somehow reducing energy useage is not a good thing. This was unnecessary and they could have made their point very well without it. - tgelston, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I believe global warming is a serious problem - but lets say for a minute that it wasn't a problem. There are still a HUGE host of reasons why it would be great to cut back on the burning of fossil fuels. Anyone in the MD/DC/VA area notice how dirty the air is? Are we in a ridiculous war right now because of oil? Anyone want to add to the list?
- drewmeister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Methane is a greenhouse gas. Closer to CO2 than CFCs. So no, it is not "destroying" the ozone layer. However it may be adding to the greenhouse effect.
- ubertroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This looks like a website setup by pro-industry lobbyists.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5""I've read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton""--
Yeah, and I've read "CONGO" also written by best-selling-schlock-scifi author Michael Crichton, and let me tell ya, it was a bunch of ***** too.
On the upside, "State of Fear" has given him a lifetime's worth of petrolium-industry sponsored speaking fees. - kazem, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Those ads were stomach-turning.
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12whoops, make that 15%
http://www.therhondda.co.uk/gases/carbon_dioxide.html - meatstack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I, for one, am looking forward to the next installment in this series:
"Asbestos, Because Cancer is only an Astrological sign" - TheBowerbird, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Crichton is not trained as a scientist, and shows an overwhelming lack of knowledge about his subject matter.
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6there are christians on your shore of the ocean too, buddy.
OK, so they don't speak in tongues as much, or handle venomous snakes, or start wars and protect israel in order to jumpstart the apocalypse...
but, i mean... um... shut up! - m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I can't believe anyone is still arguing that Global Warming isn't happening....f'ers...
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10This group has a long history of cranking out *****:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q2/fearnotfacts.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 243 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