digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at worldnetdaily.com

Al Gore's Train Starts Coming off the Track

worldnetdaily.com — What's that? A few more thousand scientists are yelling, "Hooey!" at the Global Warming Farce? Doesn't matter what's said, though, some people are so invested in it they'll ignore anything that points to the truth - No Anthrogenic source for Global Warming.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rossnixon, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3231,000 scientists signing this is a good start. What I would really like to see is a poll of scientists by a reputable polling agency. Then if the poll was repeated, in a year or two, we could see if the climate realists or the climate alarmists were winning.
    • wilgeno, on 05/20/2008, -4/+26We don't have time to wait for two more years to shut down the Global Warming scam artists. By then they will have done even more damage to the United States Economy. This is all about delivering a economy death blow the the U.S. so we are no longer a Super Power.

      Vote Conservative
      http://www.wilgeno.com
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2I can't remember a time when we second-guessed the opinions of thousands of scientists who were the top of their field in the field in which they were experts. Should we be polling a few electrical engineers on this -- or should it stop at merely people involved in sciences related to the earth in general? We already have the POLL that matters. I can't put a thermometer outside my house and predict the weather -- so, I have to form my opinion based upon trusting other people with the training and resources.

      We've already waited 8 years of a big nothing in progress during the Bush years. If we were this cautious about spending money and taking risks on something that could go wrong -- we would never have invaded Iraq. That would be a good thing. But the downside of dealing with Global Warming just isn't there. Conservation, energy independence, getting people back in control of their resources -- all very healthy things for the people.

      I can't think of any GOOD reasons to listen to the skeptics. Even if you are right, following the same old status quo just doesn't appeal to me.
      • CertainTruths, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1VandA...
        You are correct that you need to trust others to do the forecasting. Why would you trust someone that cannot verify that their computer models are even close to correct. too much data is left out of the equation, the Sun, mixed distribution of water vapor, mixed distribution of Co2, ect...One of the largest problems on the fast rail to hell's side of the issue is that as soon as any one, let alone those with the knowledge, is that the closed minded argument of "the science is settled" comes up. If there was not the fear of having their hypothesis shown to be invalid one would believe that there would be a debate not the fanatical fear mongering that is happening now.
  • ryhmerock, on 05/20/2008, -6/+48Finally, an overwhelming rebuke to the Globalist Powermongers, Earth Worshipping Morons and the assorted leftwing lunitics and commies eager to use this contrived crisis to gain more and more control of our lives while destroying our nation.

    Now more than ever this fight needs to be carried forward, our freedom is still at stake !
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/20/2008, -31/+1Does your mom still wipe your ass too?
      • nippinawassee, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15What does this have to do with rhymerock's statement?
      • flip2trip, on 05/20/2008, -3/+15mool's just wanting someone to wipe his ass, he's a liberal--probably expects government to do it for him.
    • acrispy31, on 05/20/2008, -8/+0Tsk Tsk Tsk!! Sounds like someone may be pouting because, God forbid, there are people whose lives don't revolve around yours. Poor thing! Socially, this could ruin you!
  • grmeyers, on 05/20/2008, -6/+33i been telling you all along that al gore was doing this for profit, i also said there is no global warming as we know it. wake up people
    • zwolf7, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1You were right, and I'm a idiot for hitting thumbs-down instead of thumbs-up! I do that every so often, and I'm always amazed that I do it. Sorry!
  • nippinawassee, on 05/20/2008, -7/+35Does anyone know for sure just what degrees algore holds showing that he completed a college/ university course of studies? Has he even attended classes on the science he's so pathetically trying to prove his expertise? Loser, loser... yet all the greenies, all the liberals in charge of teaching your children all flock to his throne to worship his rank stupidity... pathetic situation for the entire world...
    • keltin, on 05/20/2008, -3/+22Well, he did flunk out of divinity school...
    • flip2trip, on 05/20/2008, -2/+22Al Gore
      EDUCATION: St. Alban's Episcopal School for Boys in Washington; Harvard University, B.A. 1969; Vanderbilt School of Religion, 1971-72; Vanderbilt Law School, 1974-76.
      I couldn't find out what his degree is from Harvard. However here is an interesting excerpt from an op-ed by Jennifer Braceras>>

      >>Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).
      • MrDuke77, on 05/20/2008, -2/+20Dang, the truth sure does sting...can just imagine green libs reading these FACTS about Algore's pathetic academic performance compared to GWB's and having a nuclear-size hissy fit!
        • Kaffir, on 05/20/2008, -3/+16And they ridicule Bush for supposedly being "dumb"!!! Al Gore's grades are scandalously BAD. ...and, unlike so many think, seminary (Divinity School) is not for wimps. When I attended a christian college (4 year degree), a student who transfered in from the University of Southern California told me that Bible college was MUCH, MUCH harder than USC ever thought of being! (He actually had to attend classes -they took attendance each day!; professors actually taught -no junior teaching assistants, and ALL majors are required a minimum of one year of biblical (Koine) Greek in order to graduate.
          No, Al Gore didn't make the cut for Sunday School... But, he was elected as Vice President of the most powerful country on earth!
    • ihateusernames3, on 05/20/2008, -16/+7did nobody else notice that out of the claimed 31,000 'scientists,' only 9000 have phDs, without even specifying in what? 31000 numnuts versus how many scientists (actual climatologists, unlike this group) that acknowledge climate change? I guess WND didnt see fit to do all the research.
      • JimmySpaza, on 05/20/2008, -5/+8"31000 numnuts versus how many scientists (actual climatologists, unlike this group) that acknowledge climate change?"

        Well, how many scientists actually support the theory of global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it?

        None of you global hysteria liars have ever presented a big list with credentials...certainly nowhere near 31,000.

        Back up your bullcrap with evidence, liberal.
        • ihateusernames3, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4So because other scientists are too busy actually researching the issue to create a petition proves that a majority of scientists disbelieve climate change? There are only 3697 of the 31000 that have degrees in fields related to climate. Everyone else works in other fields: http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qua ... .

          There are a lot more than 3697 climatologists in the world, and a hell of a lot more than 31000 scientists who ackowledge climate change. Why dont you back up your arguments with credentials, MR Reactionary? Or better yet, how about some common sense.
        • Fordi, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4@ihateusernames3:
          No use asking Mr. Spaza to make any sense, man.
    • soofan, on 05/20/2008, -4/+14To assume that only PHD's from today's universities is the determining factor of WISDOM is not wise. Our educator's are bias in global warming by the popularity of the "craze". Thirty years ago it was "global cooling" that was the craze. Our climate is affected by the activity of the sun more then the inhabitants of the earth.
      • ihateusernames3, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2of the 31000, how many are climatologists, or of any other field that would actually study the phenomenon of climate change? You wont see that from WND, because the number is very low. From the petition's website: "Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment." That means that only 12% (at best) of the petitioners actually have a scientific basis to understand the entire issue.
      • ihateusernames3, on 05/20/2008, -9/+3Oh, yeah, I almost forgot - there are only 40 climatologists who signed the petition. I guess when you actually research climate, the answer becomes obvious.
        • michael4lsu, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11Yes, and those 40 climatologists say that man-made global warming is a fraud. But that's not the obvious answer you were looking for, was it?
        • ihateusernames3, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3no, because all the other climatologists in the world say otherwise. If you look at the CO2 levels and the temperatures over the last 100-200 yrs, the correlation is exact. 99% of reputable scientists agrees with the assesment that humans are causing climate change, but when a bunch of scientists who havent studies the phenomenon sign a petition (19000 of the signatures are from 1998 and before, btw), somehow you see it as proof. Try again,
  • grmeyers, on 05/20/2008, -8/+6rossnixion you must be a democrat, always wanting more prof.
    • rossnixon, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10No way. I don't need more proof. I *know* that the climate change alarmism is completely without foundation. I just meant it would be interesting to have some comparative figures. My favourite site on the subject is http://www.iceage.us
  • BionicWhippet, on 05/20/2008, -24/+6The "peer-reviewed research" cited on the petition project website is from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Why did the authors not see fit to publish in a more relevant journal? The reviewers of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons are not only completely unqualified to review an article on climatology but if you actually check out some of the other articles in the journal (it's open access so articles are free to download) it becomes clear that this is not even a very good medical journal. Among the junk science it has published are articles proclaiming that HIV does not cause AIDS. The journal is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a politically conservative association of medics.
    I cannot comment yet on the qualifications of the signers of the petition but the fact that this review article is what they are using to promote their "science" is a bad sign. The website makes a big deal of the fact that the review article "underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal". Yes, a climatology paper was reviewed by conservative M.D.s. What a joke.
  • Jeff82, on 05/20/2008, -4/+34Anyone with a lick of common sense (degreed or not) knew this all along. The only ones that fell for this garbage are the "sheeple."
  • KCLorelei39, on 05/20/2008, -4/+26"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result."

    "The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

    yup.
    • ihateusernames3, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4not drilling for oil in protected wilderness is not related to the issue of climate change. Neither is nuclear energy, seeing as how it produces much less CO2 than oil or coal. Some people like the Earth, and that has nothing to do with how it would affect humans, nor does it have to do with climate change

      BTW, the trade deficit is a free trade issue, not an environmental one
  • scubajack, on 05/20/2008, -4/+19catbert was right. we need to find a way to use enviro-Mentalists as fuel. if we could get moore and gore lit, they would burn for weeks, generating enough energy to power a large city. if we fed the power plant with hollywood greenies, we could power the country. if we went on to use all the liberal idiots, we would turn the earth into a star...
  • MrDuke77, on 05/20/2008, -4/+24What would've happened had we enacted draconian measures detrimental to our economy a few decades ago when these same "brilliant" environmental whacked-out libs were warning us all about the coming ice age??? I guess they would've claimed their interventions were TOO effective!

    The problem is that these "scientists" face NO consequences when their predictions turn out to be false. No malpractice law suits, no tax refund to the taxpayers. Not even an "oops, our bad!"
  • DesertDad, on 05/20/2008, -4/+23Yo Bionic Whippet -
    I hope you have read the comments regarding Gore's academic qualifications. I have always wondered how someone who failed theology could then presume to lecture the world on geology. His grasp of the scientific method extends only insofar as political science. Now that global warming and biofuels hysteria have disrupted food pricing and delivery to the point of shortages and riots in the poorest of nations, I think the wording on the petition has taken on a significant poignancy.
    Oh, and if global warming is not a function of geologic processes, then it is truly not global. Biotic processes alone won't do it, simply not enough mass and energy to sustain any changes vis a vis the geologic mass and energy of the entire planet. Show me where and when we can control tectonism and vulcanism, and I'll begin to believe we could impact the planet on a scale sufficient to materially affect planetary climate. Micro climates, yeah - we pave things, we grow things.
    And the only other credible mechanisms - well, control the solar wind and flares, and then you'll have my attention. My signature is going in on this petition - B.A. (geology), M.S., (engineering).
  • andreegal, on 05/20/2008, -0/+16The solution to the "problem" is not too complicated; take care of the forests and let them handle the CO2 "problem" ; )
    • RSandman, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Yes, by
      managing them,
      cutting clear access logging trails through them,
      mandating that all undergrowth and remainder brush is burned (to fertilize)
      or mulched (same)
      or harvested for bio-fuel, etc.
      all of which will help prevent million-acre forest fires, saving all that lumber for further harvesting, ad infinitum.

      OH...and did we mention that CO2 is HEALTHY for plants, helps lush vegetation, etc.?
  • rossnixon, on 05/20/2008, -5/+14To take care of "the problem", someone would have to nuke the UN for starters. Not that this would be an acceptable action though.
  • yaridanjo, on 05/20/2008, -6/+14There is (was) global warming. It was caused by the rapid rotation of the Earth's core circa 1970 (about 60 degrees) which has since slowed to 5 degrees (1995) and now 0.5 degrees (2005).

    The thermal energy so generated seems to have reached and passed through the thin parts of the Earth's crust in 2005 warming the oceans and creating a big hurricane season during that year (Rita, Katrina etc.). The heat pulse may now be fading away.

    . W. Su, A. M. Dziewonski, R. Jeanloz; PLANET WITHIN A PLANET: ROTATION OF THE INNER CORE OF THE EARTH; and G. A. Glatzmier and P. H. Roberts; ROTATION AND MAGNETISM OF THE EARTH'S INNER CORE; Science, Vol. 274, 13 Dec. 1996, pp.1883 - 1891.

    EARTH'S CORE RUNS AHEAD OF CRUST
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4184358.stm
    US scientists claim to have confirmed that the Earth's core is spinning faster than its outer layers.
    The results show that the inner core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet by about 0.009 seconds per year.
    Earth has a solid inner core made of iron and nickel that is about 2,400km in diameter and a fluid outer core about 7,000km in diameter.
    This so-called "superrotation" of the inner core is of the order of 0.3 degrees to 0.5 degrees each year. This means that in 900 years, the inner core would gain one full rotation on the rest of the planet.
    The research could help test simulations of how the outer, fluid core generates the Earth's magnetic field, which shields our planet and the teeming life on it from harmful cosmic rays.

    EARTH'S CORE ROTATES FASTER THAN SURFACE, STUDY CONFIRMS
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050825_eart ...
    The surface movement is called plate tectonics. It involves the shifting of about a dozen major plates and is what causes most earthquakes.
    "We're talking about 50,000 times that of plate tectonic motion," Song told LiveScience.
    Circulating magma in the molten outer core generates a weak magnetic field, which the researchers suspect may be leaking into the inner core and generating an electric current. The twisting force generated by this electromagnetic interaction may be what drives the inner core's rotation.



    • Ramble, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1And what caused that?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I'd heard that the core was slowing down.
      Be that as it may, the Earth's magnetic field reduces the effects of solar winds, and the interaction with it probably generates much of the lightning. That in turn creates ozone, that helps to reduce the Ultraviolet light that hits the earth. This is probably why we have an atmosphere and are not like Mars, which lost its atmosphere.

      I would have to say that whatever energy output the core gives, would come out as very stable. It may be causing vulcanism -- or more likely, just keeping it going with the radiation and inherent heat the earth has from forming. Perhaps there is some interaction with the Sun we don't know about that keeps energizing planet tectonics.

      IN terms of electromagnetism; I'd say, that the core is either creating energy or consuming -- not BOTH. The outer core is molten metal, and the inner core is moving at a different rate. Either it is gravity, or it is generated from the magnetic field. But one of the assumptions you stated above HAS TO BE WRONG. Otherwise, we have the long-sought after perpetual motion machine right in our planet, wherein you create energy from nothing.

      Now, I'm assuming that the energy produced by the core and magnetic interaction, could only ever reduce over time -- by a slight amount. Historically, we do know that over time the poles switch, so the magnetic field of the earth is generated by the rotating magnetic core -- the metallic outer core, is then moving through this field, which would create resistance, probably retrograde eddies in the magma and the difference between the normal motion of gravity on these structures and field would be its output in energy. You need two different systems for this to occur. Something to create the magnetic field, and something conductive to pass through it.
      Spin motion is being traded for electricity and magnetism, most likely.

      >> Getting back to climate; Venus is hotter than Mercury. The energy added by the earth is a tiny, tiny fraction of what keeps us warm at night. Mars is frozen. The difference between Mars and the Earth is an Atmosphere, and even though we are closer than to the Sun, we can look at Mercury and Venus again and know that trapping heat, has a lot do do with raising the temperature.
  • DrJen, on 05/20/2008, -3/+25To rossnixon, and any other who doubt the people on the signature list. My name is among the 31,072 on the current list. This was not an opinion poll - it is not about politics, it is about science and statistics. I hold a PhD. in mathematical physics and have gone through the U.N. technical report and the vital comments that were submitted and completely ignored by the U.N. committee. The primary factor here is that yellow disk in a clear sky, i.e. the Sun. The Sun's magnetic field influences that of the earth. That in turn may cause the effects that yaridanj points to above.
    • Rikety, on 05/21/2008, -1/+0But I can't find 'DrJen' anyplace on the list. I know my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but...

      Thanks for the lucid thought, Doc.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Yes, the sun's magnetic field MAY influence the earth -- if it reached the earth.
      Now there are solar winds that flow from the sun, and hit the magnetosphere of the earth. If they increase, we get maybe a little more heating, but that generates more storms, and that generates more O2. More Ozone means heat from incoming radiation, occurs at an altitude where it gets reflected back into space.

      Since the Solar Observer satellite was sent up, it has measured Mean Solar Output. Actually, the Sun's output is really stable, and only fluctuates in a fraction of a percent. Good news. Right now, it's output is actually slightly down from average. So, properties of Green House Gases are likely trapping more of the heat.

      If you actually are one of the scientists who signed this, then I'd that it is really a great idea, to just go with the scientists who are in the particular field in question, and put up peer reviewed studies. If we need some Math done, then I think they should definitely put you on that poll.
      • wrongonce, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1The magnetic field "blocks" cosmic rays. Cosmic rays (muons) generate low level clouds. Low level clouds cool the earth's atmosphere (more complex than that, but accurate).
        So, less solar wind, more cosmic rays, cooler earth. More solar wind, less cosmic rays, hotter earth.
        The solar wind doesn't have to enter earth's atmosphere to do this.
        There's a lot of math involved. Totally justified taking part in the discussion.
  • seala, on 05/20/2008, -13/+7I, as only one person, know of at least 5 people on the list who have demanded their names be taken off it. I wonder how many others are fraudulently on it.The five scientists concerned are Associate Professor Chris Hendy (University of Waikato), Dr Matt McGlone (Science Team Leader, Landcare Research), Dr Neville Moar (retired DSIR,), Dr Jim Salinger (Principal Scientist, NIWA) and Dr Peter Wardle (retired DSIR, FRSNZ). Fake list by those most concerned about money - the greedy and unscrupulous - those who would sell their own grandchildren for 30 pieces of silver
    • JimmySpaza, on 05/20/2008, -5/+13Prove it.
      • seala, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Prove What? That those 5 people demanded they take their names off the list? Go to www.stuff.co.nz or contact the organisations and check. Or that those who are most active in denying global warming
        are most concerned about money? Research those people.See who they receive money from and and the organisations they belong to. Sell their own grandchildren?
        " I dont think we should care about future generations. They can take care of themselves. It is immoral to care for someone who hasn't been born yet" Owen Mc Shane -National Business Review discussing Global Warming.
    • danielttt, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Who are they? Such valuable information must be aired....Or, are you just coming up with nonsense to "prove" your point. Sorry to see the truth peeing on your alter.
      • BionicWhippet, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2"Who are they?" Did you even read her post after the first sentence? She listed the five people on the list she says have demanded their names be taken off.
        To quote seala:
        "The five scientists concerned are Associate Professor Chris Hendy (University of Waikato), Dr Matt McGlone (Science Team Leader, Landcare Research), Dr Neville Moar (retired DSIR,), Dr Jim Salinger (Principal Scientist, NIWA) and Dr Peter Wardle (retired DSIR, FRSNZ)."
        Please read posts fully before replying to them.
      • seala, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Who are they? I listed their names and the organisations they work for:
        DSIR -Department of Science and Industrial Research
        NIWA - National Institute of Weather and Atmospheric Research
        What else do you want to know about who they are?
        Their demand was available at www.stuff.co.nz and as my job entails contact with both NIWA and Landcare Research I know Stuff News have got it right
      • danielttt, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1OOPS....I hate looking stupid....sometimes though, It just happens. thx
  • BionicWhippet, on 05/20/2008, -10/+4I see that a lot of people have dug my earlier comment down! Would any one care to discuss whether the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a credible journal to publish climatology? The reason I bring it up is because this is the peer-reviewed article they cite on the petition project website. To respond to DesertDad, I agree with you regarding Al Gore's lack of academic qualifications. He is, however, a figurehead and not the one who does the science. Anyone care to respond to my comments or you can just did me down.
    • CertainTruths, on 05/21/2008, -4/+1Well Whippet, seeing as the Goreacle and his fellow travelers seem happy with a paltry 2500 "scientists" and other political hacks at the IPCC work anyone over that dares to question the consensus it is not surprising that an outside route would have to be taken to get the rest of the story out. Upon close examination of the people populating the "scientific" knowledge base, a paltry 5% actually have anything to do with the physical sciences. Look it up fuzzball.
    • wrongonce, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4"Peer review" was given as the Imprematur for global warming science. This was the test of authenticity demanded by AGW proponents. It was met. Now to say "but that peer review doesn't count" is rather childish.
      Would you put it ahead of the IPCC report now? Seeing as how the IPCC report is not a peer reviewed document.
      At a high level, methinks this petition is a way of demonstrating that there is no case for "overwhelming majority of scientists agree with IPCC/AGW".
      • BionicWhippet, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Peer review is the process of subjecting the work to authors who are experts in the same field. Since when were physicians and surgeons experts in climatology? Since this journal has a record of publishing politically motivated articles I can only assume that is the reason it was chosen.
      • wrongonce, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1What I'm left with, to offer you, is two options.
        1. Peer review is the seal of scientific approval, and there is no need to doubt something that has been peer reviewed.
        2. Peer review can be a result of political motivations and is not necessarily scientifically sound or robust.
        If 1, then your argument is moot.
        If 2, then I call into question every AGW paper in existence, based on political motivation of the reviewers.
  • mdoc619, on 05/20/2008, -5/+20The time has come for all the enviromnmentalist's to get out if the way -and allow this country to become energy independent. We have the resources and the ability to do exploration for oil and gas without severe damage to the environment. The environmentalist's could be a part of the solution, and become involved in the exploration process. We all have to become involved in this problem. We will soon see food, as well as energy shortages if we do not become proactive. THERE IS NO VIABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR OIL IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. DO YOU ALL GET IT!!
    We can be working on alternative energy plans as we provide for our present needs.
    Are there any politicians willing to do the right thing, and work on an aggressive but realistic energy policy?
    IS THERE ANYONE IN THE BELTWAY WITH ANY COMMON SENSE?

    I somehow doubt that there is a single politician willing to look out for the interest of the American people. Professional politicians have got to go.
    We as voters need to begin to look for candidates willing to make the tough, but right decisions,
    and not be concerned about their professional careers.






    +
    It is time to tell the middle east to keep their damn oil.
    This is the United States of America- the Greatest nation on this present earth. It is time we begin to act like the courageous people that most American's are
  • Ruler4you, on 05/20/2008, -3/+15Being faced with the truth means nothing to people today because they haven't the intelligence to understand the data (thank you public schools), that's why it's so important that people believe what they are told with out them thinking about it too much or at all.
  • Libertarian, on 05/20/2008, -3/+14This is one of those rare occassions when I feel like standing up and cheering! HURRAY!!!!
    • mak747, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9You've got THAT right! I want to celebrate this as well. Unfortunately, the same thing will happen to this story that happens to pretty much all assertions of true scientific origin which appear on WND and other likewise-oriented news sources- it will get spiked by the MSM, and Owlgore's garbage will continue to be used to scare the daylights out of our kids and the sheeple.
      This crap is the globalist's bread and butter. "Global warming" is the most sacred of all the sacred cows of the world's communist movement.
      Don't think for a second that they'll roll over on this one. Science means nothing to these people, power does.
      See if this story shows up in the New Dork Slimes without a savage rebuttal added by the editors. WHEN it doesn't, you can bet your fur on how likely it'll show up unrebuked on the alphabet networks.
      The message has to get out, though- the MSM will fight it every step of the way.
      The sheeple will "baa" at their televisions, the ostriches will poke their heads in deeper, and the lemmings will wait until the report is over before switching back to American Idol.
      • Slugo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10Yep...Global Warming makes it possible for politicians to earmark billions of dollars for their personal pork projects...most of them are going to make millions off of this ***** scam. That being said... the globe will warm and cool in it's own cycle and man has no effect on it....not saying we shouldn't try to clean the air, water and other resources but we need to do that without the alarmists bilking billions from the world economy.
  • jesusis1, on 05/20/2008, -4/+16Typical politician. Al Gr (pronounced Al Ger) has just found a way to line his pockets with more green. I've said this before. The earth is cyclic. The sun rises in the east every 24 hrs. The earth completes it's orbit around the sun every 365 days. The earth isn't doing anything that it hasn't done before.

    I suppose the lefties and the liberals will blame global warming for the earth quakes. Wrong answer. Plate tectonics is responsible for 99% of the earth quakes. The other 1% happens when Al Gr doesn't get his way and jumps up and down in a temper tantrum!
  • 10QGZus, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1235 years ago it was fear of a coming Ice Age. The only Ice Age that came was 2 animated movies.

    People just need to chill - ha! Didn't even plan that pun but it works!
  • farmerjohn48pan, on 05/20/2008, -3/+15Al Gore says carbon offsets can be purchased so as to make me feel better about my role in the destruction of civilization. Oh where oh where can I buy some offsets to make me feel better? Oh yeah........Al Gore owns the carbon offset company! Good thing he's trustworthy or I would almost think it was a scam!
  • papipablo, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1Global warming is caused by abortions.
  • mak747, on 05/20/2008, -4/+14I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but the same thing will happen to this story that happens to pretty much all assertions of true scientific origin which appear on WND and other likewise-oriented news sources- it will get spiked by the MSM, and Owlgore's garbage will continue to be used to scare the daylights out of our kids and the sheeple.
    This crap is the globalist's bread and butter. "Global warming" is the most sacred of all the sacred cows of the world's communist movement.
    Don't think for a second that they'll roll over on this one. Science means nothing to these people, power does.
    See if this story shows up in the New Dork Slimes without a savage rebuttal added by the editors. WHEN it doesn't, you can bet your fur on how likely it'll show up unrebuked on the alphabet networks.
    The message has to get out, though- the MSM will fight it every step of the way.
    The sheeple will "baa" at their televisions, the ostriches will poke their heads in deeper, and the lemmings will wait until the report is over before switching back to American Idol.
  • Lutrasimilis, on 05/20/2008, -8/+9Just think of all the scientists who concluded that smoking didn't cause cancer. They had a lot of those too. Dr. Clarence C. Little, who was scientific director of the Tobacco Industry Committee, had a whole cadre of scientists to prove that smoking didn't cause lung cancer. That debate started in 1953, and it took decades of continuous battle before the cigarette companies relented (very recently), and finally admitted that they had proof of the link...since 1963.

    Take a look at who's sponsoring those scientists on the petition. Exxon Mobil is there, big surprise. I don't know if that's evidence either way, the jury's still out, but I know that many big companies with a lot of money are very, very eager to see it 'disproved'. For as long as possible.

    Do you trust their science more than the tens of thousands of scientists who DO agree with global warming? For scientific reasons?
    • Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8I'd like to see a very public debate on the issue over the course of several evenings on all the TV stations. Cut out the emotional garbage that has surrounded this thing and just debate it dispassionately. Let's separate truth from fiction once and for all.
    • shanson13, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6I agree there is global warming going on right now...its called Spring!
      • BionicWhippet, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2It may be Spring wherever you are but in Houston it's very much Summer right now! And it's Fall in the southern hemisphere.
        • shanson13, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Well it only got up to 106 this week...once it hits 115-118 then I know summer is really here lol.
      • Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4It's hot here too, but there are millions of flowers. (Maybe not millions... but it feels like it.) Lovely !
    • JustDino, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3I think anything we breath can cause cancer if it irritates your lungs--some people have different capacity for breathing substances that irritate the lungs. But as a American citizen i should be afforded the freedom to chose
      if I smoke or not--but Government and the global warming crowd think they know what is best for all of us. If I choose to smoke with the risk I may get lung cancer ---it is not the governments job to tax me to death before I kill myself with tobacco. As far as the cost to tax payers for my smoking I have paid about 300% for any medical expense I may cause by smoking.
      I value my freedom a lot more than a bunch of sheep who would impose their will on others to fit their feelings.
      I have smoked for over 60 years and if it kills me so be it,but that is still my choice---not the governments or any body else who think they know best what is and isn't good for me.
    • CertainTruths, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4JD,
      look at who is paying for the warming crowd...they all suck off of the public teat. Oh by the way where are the lists of the "tens of thousands" you speak of? Again I mention the IPCC which lists +/- 2500 "scientists" of which far too many are government hacks and have no place adding to a supposed scientific report.
      • Argentian, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3And a decent number of the 'scientists' are grad students, and not very experienced or educated into the realm of being a scientist...at least not yet. That's where all that youthful exuberance comes from...and not yet tempered by intelligence.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Apparently smoking cigarettes is good for you.
      At least we should wait another few decades to make sure.
  • DocAntiprop, on 05/20/2008, -1/+13Bad analogy. Our knowledge of the human body is encyclopedic compared to knowledge of earth's climate in all its complexity. It doesn't take a genius to see that inhaling burning vegetation isn't a good idea. But it takes a non-scientist to believe that man's tiny contribution to the world's plant food supply will lead to our doom, while overlooking the obvious warming culprits of solar and orbital cycles. Ignorance and guilt are what the ideologues count on.
  • BionicWhippet, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1The WND article states that the letter sent to scientists included a 12 page summary and review of research on global warming. The review can be downloaded from the petition project website. I'll ask the question again. Does anyone here believe that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a credible journal to publish climatology? Is the review included on the petition project website really the best article the global warming deniers could come up with to present their case? The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not even a very good medical journal. This is a journal that continuously publishes articles questioning the link between HIV and AIDS (see their winter 2007 issue for an example) . On the basis of the cited review alone I cannot take this organization (the global warming petition project) seriously.
    • wilgeno, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6It's just one of many relevant publications that this needs contain this report. Just this past week it was reported (falsely IMO) that fat people are causing Global Warming. So a medical journal is relevant because these doctors are trying to gin up another reason to control our lives. My argument to these doctors is that being fat cannot cause global warming since man can not affect the planet enough to cause the temperature to alter up or down in any significant manor for any significant period of time.

      Vote Conservative
      http://ww.wilgeno.com

    • Rikety, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2No, this group doesn't meet the highest standards required when determined who can be a 'peer reviewer' for an article or study. They just wanted a sycophantish group to do it for them.
  • sexydarin, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5How many actual climatologists are actually on the global warming side? I heard most ot their supporters were politicians.
    • BionicWhippet, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3For one thing, the International Panel on Climate Change was a working group containing the world's leading climatology experts. So you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

      In addition, the following societies, which together represent tens of thousands of actual climatologists have released statements to say that they agree with the findings of the IPCC report that man-made climate change is real and action should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.:

      American Geophysical Union
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      American Meteorological Society
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      American Chemical Society
      American Association of State Climatologists
      US Geological Survey
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
      World Meteorological Organization
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

      This is just a small subset of organizations and individual scientists who conclude that global warming is a real problem. See also the petition from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
      • CertainTruths, on 05/21/2008, -2/+0Again whippett, the majority of your backers all suck from the same PUBLIC TAX DOLLAR teat. It has been and will remain their mission to push the CRISIS or they would get no money. Just ask the most holy James Hansen who has admitted in recent writings that he has been blowing things out of proportion since 1088 due to the fact that no one would listen otherwise.
      • wrongonce, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4I'm a member of one of those organizations, and here's what I believe:
        CO2 raises temperature in atmosphere at approximately 1 degree with every doubling of concentration. That puts CO2 firmly in the arena of "non-threatening". Another thing is that the greatest boon to human civilization is a warming earth, always has been and will continue to be the case.
        Just because the people on the board of my society agreed with IPCC, doesn't mean the constituency is behind it.
    • DesertDad, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6sexydarin and bionicwhippet,
      A caution about the IPCC and the listing of concurring groups is that these orgnizations all are grant-writing and/or taxpayer-funded. Thus, if you can whip the taxpayers into a froth, or their politicians, you have more grants and more funding. Thus, this group is very self-serving, kind of like ambulance- or class-action-chasing attorneys, or big pharma for that matter. Which gets us back to the perception that climate science has become a lucrative discipline within political science. Admittedly not too many millionaires, but all the grad students and seminar trips you can ask for, along with government health benefits and such. Not bad for the academic priesthood, huh?
      Oh, and how come the Antarctic ice sheets have been getting larger these last few years? Damn, don't ya hate it when that happens?
  • nippinawassee, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8For all the input this still pretty much indicates a very high percentage of stupid people in this and other countries - all looking for someone to 'lead them out of the darkness'... come along with a good song/dance and presto - a parade of idiots!
  • shanson13, on 05/20/2008, -4/+8Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

    "This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful,"

    IMO global warming is happening right now! It's called Spring...and its going to get hotter yet before global cooling takes over in the Fall!
  • jjustice, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Did everyone forget how to use the "reply" feature with the new comment system? Here's a hint: if you type "to ____" at the start of your comment, you should probably be replying to that person instead.
  • Stevanoski, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4And Al's Daddy got him that cushy job in Vietnam so he never had to go out in the bush. Just had to worry about getting a hangnail so he could keep typing. Hey, maybe he got Agent Orange and that explains his derangement.
  • osko2052, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7The disgusting thing is the guy got a Nobel Peace Prize.
  • JustDino, on 05/20/2008, -4/+10Scare is a good tool if you like to be scared . Lets see now man has been on earth how long?
    Do you really think a few suv driving around can have any real climate change? When I was in school they said carbon dioxide was used by plants and plants produced oxygen--sounds like a good thing to have a lot of CO2 for the plants. Of course we can use all the oxygen we can find to keep those SUV running well. This is POLITICAL not about climate change--the U.N. needs a world tax to be imposed.
  • notbysight, on 05/21/2008, -4/+3Indeed this news is a relief
    Will Mr Gore need to return the Nobull peace award?
    Also was tinking to make large styrofoam icebergs and water slides for the penguins and bears.
    I think all the school children will sleep better at nites now.
    As 4 me , I still hold to the truth bout methane gas from cow flatulence as the main source of the melting. I had gone over to beans as a source of protein, but now realizng i'm contributing to the methane, I was also wondering if there is a methane footprint and was truly worried how large mine is, I try never to release any gas outdoors. I've gone back to consuming more beef so there will be less cows.
    Started back driving to work again and have removed the diaper from my tail pipe.
    I want to responsibly do my part to save the world.
  • Myahon, on 05/21/2008, -3/+6now watch a bunch of political armchair wannabe scientists criticize this.

    I'm very much against pollution but that movie was FULL of flaws and even outright lies.
  • vikingcoder, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5An opinion poll does not refute independently validated scientific research, neither does ignorance, willful or not, of said research.

    This is nothing more than a rehashing of the duplicitous OISM petition, complete with the exact same paper.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3It is really sad, that this has to be pointed out.

      Some like the post above, are even going to give you a hard time for pointing out the obvious.

      But since this story is here on digg, apparently, obvious does not smack people in the face quite enough. You can get 300,000 car mechanics to vote their opinion on Global Warming. Hey -- someone might even pay me to do that.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3I wonder if this is just bringing up the same group of scientists who were on the previous list -- and many of them sent angry letters asking to be taken OFF the list -- having never known about it in the first place.

    Maybe if we just skip this Poll of people who aren't Scientists who are actual Climatologists, then we could just ask the man on the street. I'm sure you could find a lot more than 300,000 for that one. Just put the poll in the Limbaugh letter. Hell, take a vote. Use Diebold to tabulate it, and I'm sure you can come to this very same, brilliant conclusion.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Damn, all the people who used to defend the Bush administration, and yell tin-foil-hat when we called the Iraq war a scam, now have set up their 101st Blogger Battalion on this subject. Bush has done his job to bankrupt America and destroy the professional class in our bureaucracy, and I guess job #1 is going to be putting the nails in the coffin.

    Please, I want all of you to sign your real names, so that history can look back and remember, the colossal Douche Bags, who help misinform us while we could have done something.

    I cannot know for myself if Global Warming is true or not -- it is an incredibly complex topic. I just see who sits on either side of the debate; Peer reviewed Climatologists, who spent years getting a PhD to be paid less than someone who got a BA in Business and is now in sales, versus the corporate robber barons, apologists for BushCo, and the same damn parrots who have been wrong about everything else, seem to hold a "wait for a second opinion" or "the sun is causing it" point of view today. Why the hell would ANYONE, listen to this bunch of idiots? You are either permanently wrong, or you are getting paid to hold a wrong opinion. I can't say which is worse.

    Digg me down, you army of fools.
  • greenfyre, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2How many times have the Deniers posted this thing? 20? 30? presumably trying to sneak through one version that isn't immediately labeled for the utter nonsense that it is. Well, not this one

    This petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ... ...

    It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulant earlier attempts, the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ...
    A scientist is someone who has a PhD or equivalent, not some minor degree (so much for 2/3rds of the alleged scientists)
    Of Frederick Seitz see http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2863 (enough said)
    Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren't many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age - like there's been no updates in the science recently?
    If I may quote http://www.desmogblog.com/node/2863
    "The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:

    The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

    Notice how Climate Change proponents never cite or source Gore? it is only the Deniers who do so. Proponents refer to climate scientists, climate science, scientific journals and blogs. Deniers do not wish to deal with the actual science (or more likely, cannot) so they ignore this and always return to attacking Gore. As if that proved anything? Totally irrelevant.

    And on and on; it's a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone's time.
  • sexydarin, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1i know for a fact that most of their supporters are commies and socialists. That should tell you something right there. it's an agenda that is politically driven to seize more power for the government over its citizens.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.