Most people don't even think climate change is a big deal. Those of us who do think it's a big deal believe that the solution to the problem may very well be political. How are we going to force energy companies to switch to renewables? How are we going to get developing nations (and us) to stop relying on fossil fuels? These are huge political problems only a strong government can work on. In this case the government must act as the conscience of its citizens.State funded scientists are developing new green energy technologies all the time. These will make private energy companies make the switch with less pain.Scientists do not get into the field to make lots of money. Most disbelievers of climate change think scientists stifle dissent and ignore contrary data. For the vast majority of scientists, this is simply false. It directly violates the scientific method, something they have built their careers on.Americans simply will not make major changes to their way of life unless they can see the meteor in the sky.
Because pumping sulfer dioxide into the sky IS insane and dangerous? Seriously, why the f**k would you think that's a good idea? There are too many variables that make the consequences unknown.
Bu..But If Rush said it it has to be true.?! Once again facts have no palce in the conservative mindset. As Al franken so aptly put it "you are not entitled to your own facts Sir"
@bobojonesDo a quick search on the internet and look for it. It exists in many places. I'm not falling for a fools errand, you can do it. But to help you out.SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. @AngrosturaIt is a sham...period. If you can't prove your hypothesis it is not science. And the man made global warming issue has been fed to the public as a scientific fact. Hell...even the scientists pushing this data don't like other scientists questioning their data.....doesn't that say something???
True enough about the other non-oil businesses. Oil and auto companies hold incredible sway though and are some of the most powerful industries out there. I really doubt businesses look for long term solutions though. Whenever a new product or process is found to be harmful, the businesses affected always fight tooth and nail against it. They hide data, they lobby politicians, etc. They know this stuff will eventually get out and change but they try their best to prevent the change (and short term costs) until they're not involved anymore. Should watch the documentary The Corporation. Short term profits to please stockholders is basically the only motivation of big companies. Obviously there are tons of long term benefits to being "green", I'm just saying its hard to get companies to care about that.
Just heard an AP report that global warming was in a ten year repose but now they are saying that the time frame may be as long as thirty years. Funny how the global cataclisms they promise seem to be on a schedual that never comes to pass. Rather then saying they are wrong about something they say it is an "unexpected change" or some such thing.
1sammyJan 7, 2010
Most people don't even think climate change is a big deal. Those of us who do think it's a big deal believe that the solution to the problem may very well be political. How are we going to force energy companies to switch to renewables? How are we going to get developing nations (and us) to stop relying on fossil fuels? These are huge political problems only a strong government can work on. In this case the government must act as the conscience of its citizens.State funded scientists are developing new green energy technologies all the time. These will make private energy companies make the switch with less pain.Scientists do not get into the field to make lots of money. Most disbelievers of climate change think scientists stifle dissent and ignore contrary data. For the vast majority of scientists, this is simply false. It directly violates the scientific method, something they have built their careers on.Americans simply will not make major changes to their way of life unless they can see the meteor in the sky.
bobbi21Jan 7, 2010
@eleetsrelyt:errors bars happy? Oh look it shows basically the exact same thing
crimalucaJan 8, 2010
Sure. Give me ur address dumbass. I'll fly out to wherever the hell you are and call you a dumbass to your face.
crunchdiggJan 8, 2010
add <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/environment/Life_in_extreme_cold_around_the_world" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/environment/Life_in_extreme_cold_a ...</a>to the list. 4 of the first 5 comments on an article about places where it's really cold refer to global warming and how a place being cold somehow refutes global warming. The seventh notes that many idiots make this mistake and that's as many comments as I could stand.People are stupid.
Closed AccountJan 8, 2010
Go Fox News!!! f**k these libtards up!
Closed AccountJan 8, 2010
Because pumping sulfer dioxide into the sky IS insane and dangerous? Seriously, why the f**k would you think that's a good idea? There are too many variables that make the consequences unknown.
clergJan 8, 2010
Bu..But If Rush said it it has to be true.?! Once again facts have no palce in the conservative mindset. As Al franken so aptly put it "you are not entitled to your own facts Sir"
mweatherJan 8, 2010
The irony is that global warming is hurting Alaska more than any other state. Just ask any Alaskan with a house built on permafrost.
phydeaux70Jan 8, 2010
@bobojonesDo a quick search on the internet and look for it. It exists in many places. I'm not falling for a fools errand, you can do it. But to help you out.SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. @AngrosturaIt is a sham...period. If you can't prove your hypothesis it is not science. And the man made global warming issue has been fed to the public as a scientific fact. Hell...even the scientists pushing this data don't like other scientists questioning their data.....doesn't that say something???
bobbi21Jan 9, 2010
True enough about the other non-oil businesses. Oil and auto companies hold incredible sway though and are some of the most powerful industries out there. I really doubt businesses look for long term solutions though. Whenever a new product or process is found to be harmful, the businesses affected always fight tooth and nail against it. They hide data, they lobby politicians, etc. They know this stuff will eventually get out and change but they try their best to prevent the change (and short term costs) until they're not involved anymore. Should watch the documentary The Corporation. Short term profits to please stockholders is basically the only motivation of big companies. Obviously there are tons of long term benefits to being "green", I'm just saying its hard to get companies to care about that.
Closed AccountJan 11, 2010
Just heard an AP report that global warming was in a ten year repose but now they are saying that the time frame may be as long as thirty years. Funny how the global cataclisms they promise seem to be on a schedual that never comes to pass. Rather then saying they are wrong about something they say it is an "unexpected change" or some such thing.