My problem with the article is that it is very one-sided and very unscientific. The writer of the article cites scientific sources but then derives conclusions that are entirely his and go far beyond the source material Case in point : where did he get the calculation for Greenland? He cited one calculation and then derived his own, but how can we tell his derived calculation is accurate. There's nothing explaining how he came up with the calculation. He also makes ridiculous claims like how 'sampling' or computer modelling is not valid. And yet it is used by every corporation including the ones that fund his organization.
But I thought the science was "settled" and all arguments and skepticism were deemed blasphemy and were to cease immediately under pain of grant removal.
There was no damning evidence against them there whatsoever. And that's from Wikipedia, where you yourself could have gone in and made stuff up to support your Digg persona's argument.
"No one turns a blind eye to China's contribution to global warming"The Kyoto treaty did. You know, the one BUSH WOULDN'T SIGN!!! (And Clinton wouldn't either.. And Congress unanimously disapproved of... but forget those other details. They're unimporant!!11one!)
cointelproagentJul 1, 2007
He was wrong, but it got pulled from the front page in less than 5 minutes.
magnusdopusJul 1, 2007
My problem with the article is that it is very one-sided and very unscientific. The writer of the article cites scientific sources but then derives conclusions that are entirely his and go far beyond the source material Case in point : where did he get the calculation for Greenland? He cited one calculation and then derived his own, but how can we tell his derived calculation is accurate. There's nothing explaining how he came up with the calculation. He also makes ridiculous claims like how 'sampling' or computer modelling is not valid. And yet it is used by every corporation including the ones that fund his organization.
johngalt01Jul 2, 2007
But I thought the science was "settled" and all arguments and skepticism were deemed blasphemy and were to cease immediately under pain of grant removal.
10001Jul 3, 2007
"I haven't yet checked those sources because [its inconvenient to my position]"
glynthJul 4, 2007
There was no damning evidence against them there whatsoever. And that's from Wikipedia, where you yourself could have gone in and made stuff up to support your Digg persona's argument.
glynthJul 4, 2007
"No one turns a blind eye to China's contribution to global warming"The Kyoto treaty did. You know, the one BUSH WOULDN'T SIGN!!! (And Clinton wouldn't either.. And Congress unanimously disapproved of... but forget those other details. They're unimporant!!11one!)
glynthJul 4, 2007
Global warming research and hyping is an industry. They are literally making billions of dollars to sell you the idea that global warming is man-made. And yet in all that research, not a drop of it has credibly suggested that even if it is man-made that we can do anything significant to stop it. In the mean time, the attempts to stop it can be extremely bad for the economy, and ironically, the environment.Yes, that's right. For example, some nutjob environmentalists actually want to dump IRON into the ocean in order to grow plankton to get rid of CO2 in the air. Sounds about as intelligent as the environmentalists that wanted to dump soot all over the north pole so it would melt in order to prevent global cooling just a few decades ago. Another stupid thing that was done was building a "tire reef" - a reef made of old tires!<a class="user" href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/070627_wwf_planktos.html">http://www.livescience.com/environment/070627_wwf_planktos.html</a><a class="user" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070611tires-story,1,3478325.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070611tires-story,1,3478325.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</a>