What is Digg?88 Comments
- DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38I thought Democrats don't have any ideas, and no agenda. I thought Democrats were simply Bush obstructionists that don't want to do anything but hate Bush all the time. Here we have a story on yet another idea for tackling a major issue, and it'll fly right in the face of standard conservative talking points about Democrats and progressives having no core values.
Naturally, the Hannitys and the Limbaughs of the world will completely disregard this, because their talking points are more important than reality. - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I agree with the first three. The last two are just ridiculous.
And last time i checked Bush is the fear mongerer. - Archer1980, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@cliffzdude
I agree with you fundamentaly, however, i do believe in putting all evidence forward in a public forum for debate and examination. I think this is a bad idea coming from Mr. Bush blocking these things considering how big a vested interested him, his family, and his friends all have in Big Oil, which is being linked to the global warming phenominone. Bush is trying to block any bad press with regards to big oil because of his vested interest, and i don't think it includes just global warming.Global warming is just such a big issue that it's the one getting the attention. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"The president doesn't have the power to control freedom of speech."
Welcome to America...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone - foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13There is no double standard because there is no comparison.
Gore gets his facts from scientists. His solution to the problem of climate change is investing in alternative energy such as wind and solar, and stopping the billion dollar tax breaks to oil and coal corporations.
Bush gets his facts from... who knows? Maybe anti-Islam evangelicals? His solution to terrorism is to spend billions to invade countries which have no links to previous terrorist attacks, and to run up the deficit on unnecessary military operations.
How can you compare them? - sgreger1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16The day the truth gets old in america is a sad day GREYMAXCAT. Fearmongering is what Bush has been about since day one, I agree the far left can be pussys at times however regarding this issue, the fact that the president would block reports from top scientists regarding the condition of our planet is astounding and anyone who tunes out opposers to such an event are only tuning you out because if ignorance.
- Loki2896, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@cliffzdude
I am instantly struck by the hypocrisy of this action.
The conservative government spent enormous effort trying to justify publicly airing intelligent design debate whiling using the same influence to silence debate over global warming.
The government really has no right to interfere either for or against scientific theories, particularly when they do so only for their own political gain. - iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Woah greymaxcat, nice rebuttal.
- 3adkied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"we should see actual reports first."
Bingo. That's why we have a problem when they block the scientists from discussing it. - drog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6yes mykos, it's a communist plot to take your car away. We liberals have nothing better to do than obsess about how people drive, and we really hate the fact that someone might make money, so we hired scientists from around the world to fake their research in a conspiracy against America and apple pie. Now that your astute mind has caught us however, we will go back to burning bibles and pledging allegiance to France.
- mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love how there hasn't been a SINGLE rebuttle or even a "Stupid leftist lefty!" for the Free Speech Zone link. You know why? Cause its true!
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Is it better than "Weekend at Bernie's 2" ? Because that one really makes you think.
- mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In the interest of trying to bridge the "gap" between the "two parties" that the media has convinced must always oppose each other:
Global warming does exist. The earth is getting hotter. The evidence *suggests* that the current warming of the planet is unnatural due to it's accelerated rate of temperature increase. However, this is not gospel... as with any scientific theory, you can never prove your theory 100% right. No one knows for sure if human negligence is really the cause. While it is a good explanation, it isn't the only one. Therefore, people who say global warming is natural and unpreventable, so we don't have to do anything about it, have a legitimate claim. They err when they say that global warming is just cyclical because they omit the fact that this current cycle is accelerated, but I digress.
The point is, educate yourself about global warming before you discuss on either side. The amount of misinformation out there is staggering. Furthermore, don't reduce the argument to "fearmonger/alarmist vs. uneducated deniers". Seriously, it does nothing but further bolster the media claims of a polarized nation. - Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What I don't get about conservatives like BullyJack is this:
Say Global warming isn't caused by humans.... We know for a fact that pollution is caused by humans, and we know that pollution causes tons of health problems which cost the government and citizens and companies a significant amount of money. Whether you believe in global warming or not, pollution is PROVEN to be bad. Why not take initiative to reduce pollutants, regardless of whether global warming is real or not. - MixMastaKooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it a legitimate claim though? For this claim to be legitimate, it needs to be able to explain if it is a legitimate course of action to keep our current methods of energy production (in terms of environmental impact): have you seen any studies that say this? Conversely, of all of the variables that are under our control as citizens of this planet, is it not the behavior of humans the main controllable variable? If we remove our impact in this ecological equation: what will we have lost? Belching smokestacks, smoke spewing trucks, more rain forests to explore? That doesn't sound like a big loss to me.
And would we lose jobs if we go towards energy efficiency? NO! Who is going to make those green products? Service them? Invent them? Look at the hybrid car market: it seems green is profitable (as a side note: look who broke the market as opposed to who didn't....and which country could have retained auto manufacturing jobs and who didn't.....hmmmm)
What do we have to gain by keeping our current energy producing methods? A slightly hazy sky? Less forests to play in? More illnesses caused by airborne carcinogens?
But to directly address your post: if we took our variable out of the equation, wouldn't we still be a better society, a healthier society better suited to adapt to climate changes if global warming wasn't actually caused by human activity? - isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Has anyone ever heard of the band Taproot? He screams like every 7th word or so, kinda reminds me of succesfulrealm.
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Oh no. That just means that Bush is causing global cooling. I wish I had the God-like power to control the weather like he does.
I'd put a glacier on San Francisco. - piznut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is perfectly legal for them do do this, afaik. Is it ethical? Probably not. But when did ethics ever have anything to do with politics? I'm not trying to draw any party distinctions here. I think politicians are mostly dishonest and I realize that the PACs that control the democratic party better represent my interests as an atheist, middle-class man than the PAC and corporate interests that control the republican party. If I were rich and / or fundamentalist christian, I expect that my typical voting habits would change. It's like corporate fascism, but nobody wants to actually acknowledge it. I don't like the system, but honestly there are more important things for me to worry about...things that more directly affect my life.
Politics are rarely about actually honest debate. While I would say that the situation has become noticeably worse in my lifetime it's all just the status quo, imo. - isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton then you'll never worry about Global Warming again.
- isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Back to the arguement. Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He does a great job presenting all the facts, backing up with evidence and cites all his resources. I assure you once you read it you will be convinced that you will never have to worry about global warming again.
..but I'm sure instead you'll just keep your ignorant point of view and bash me by calling me a "child" or something. - CamZak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Great...so the President is allowed to generate hyped up speeches about the war on terror. But if someone wants to discuss the possibility of gloabal warming causes hurricanes then it's a no-no? Bah.
- isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess it was every SIXTH word.
- isthisnametaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess you finally found the button to turn off Caps Lock. Or your shift key is broken.
- mgreenwald, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not every protester is going to fire bomb police and destroy property. Just punish the ones that do not all of them this is clearly complete disregard for our 1st amendment rights.
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Bush was doing the global warming scaremongers a favor.
Global warming has no link to hurricanes.
Or does this year's sharp decline in the number of hurricanes indicate that global warming is over? - mriegger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I just did, and I found this link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Kohath
Sharp decline in hurricanes? We're up to hurricane Helene in the Atlantic so far. That means we've had 8 hurricanes and the season is just getting warmed up. There are 2 hurricanes active right now.
Just because they haven't been making landfall people seem to think it's an easy hurricane season. Consider for a moment that hurricane Gordon is lining up to slap northern Spain right now. When was the last time Spain was hit by a hurricane?!?! Granted it will probably devolve into a tropical storm by the time it hits them, but it's still not a good sign.
Also throughout a large part of the hurricane season this year, there have been continuous storms along the equator. Simple luck of wind currents has been pushing the storms into a solid stream of intense bad weather, rather than forming strong fronts needed for hurricanes.
As our glaciers and ice caps melt it's only going to get worse. The fresh water slows down the oceanic heat pumps. One way or another the heat at the equator will push towards the poles. If the waters not moving, then the air will. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2got to love bill greys conviction
"But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.
“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”" - moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what happened to acid rain?
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone do something, we're all being squeezed between the totalitarians and the left-wingers!
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But its fact. Its gotta be! It doesn't matter that ThinkProgress is ultra liberal and are willing to stretch the truth a little bit, they're just life Fox News, right!?
- drog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5cliffzdude,
I know hurricanes are cyclical, and it is next to impossible to link a particular event like a hurricane to a global phenomenon. However hurricanes are powered by warm ocean waters, so obviously warmer oceans could create stronger hurricanes. I don't think this guy should be silenced for coming to that conclusion. - DocLee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The science doesn't say anything about frequencies of hurricanes being effected. A decline in hurricanes is quite a common talking point of anti-global warming crowd but it does nothing more than attempt to skew the point. The theory of frequency increases has already been shot down. The point is that global warming has the potential to increase the intensity of hurricanes. Frequency != intensity. From what scientists understand of intensities of hurricanes, shifts in water temperatures toward warmer waters would most likely cause an increase in intensity of hurricanes.
If you're going to discuss the science, at least try to keep up with the topic and discuss what's actually being said. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
This page is from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm - rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11"Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.. Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame... 'I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations...'"
http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894
I think that it is reasonable to assume that the "jury" is still out... - Conundrum28, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Lukey, I concur. People read too much into politics to realize that by standing by one party or another, or one narrow frame of mind over another narrow frame of mind (for those unaware, neither party tackles what every individual American wants, and instead, tell you what you want, and then tell you they've told you what you want to hear), that they're crippling what makes our country a true democracy. Number one problem in America right now is that we've got a two party system who're grappling for power while an interest in the world, culture, politics, and freedom takes a decline. I don't think people understand that both sides aren't all that drastically different, and that one or the other is going to make that big of a difference.
In relevance to the subject at hand - this is really a misconstrued read, implying things based on very moderately suggestive information. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@successrealm
If you do not see where the other posts were applicable to the subject of the starting post, then you don't see it. I believe you believe what you believe. Have a nice day. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was and am saying exactly what I meant. People were/are free to comment about anything I've posted. I'm not telling them they're changing the subject. You are. By the way, read my last reply again, then read your last reply. You totally missed the point. I'm hoping you missed it on purpose.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeh, I'm glad we put on our tinfoil hats for what was supposed to be the worst hurricane season in recorded history. 6 named storms later, I think the only damage in this country was a few flapping shingles.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Okay. Or....Whatever.
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, I've heard that hair-splitting. "It's the intensity of the storms, not the number of intense storms." As if those two things are completely unrelated.
This year's hurricanes have also been less intense than last year's. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Since you don't seem to grasp the reasons for the posts from people you call "Bush Apologists", I'll explain it to you in small words that you can understand. The point was, there may be a VERY GOOD REASON that this person was blocked from discussing a point that has no concrete evidence to back it up. Also, the article in question isn't exactly from a non-biased source. I know what fascism means. It's a a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Good thing our presidents are elected and no one gets shot for voicing opposition, isn't it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe you should take your meds. I was trying to give you the last word, but you just had to prove my point. I always have a nice day, but thanks for the thought.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good grief. Are you thick? I've explained in plain english that what you try to describe as a "shift" are relevant to the points being made about the article posted in the posters minds. All you've done is throw posts that I've submitted into the fray (isn't that "shifting"?) and crying about me not telling you that you're right. You also gave me "clear and concise examples" of my opinion, which I was already aware of before you gave me the examples. I can't tell you you're right because, well, you're not. I will tell you you're right about one thing though. The comment I made about the meds was absolutely adolescent, and I shouldn't have done that, but hey, I was tired of explaining. There's no need in me calling you a lib. Why point out the obvious?
- mykos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49939.html
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Last time a presidential aide blocked a government climatologist for promoting global warming positions at odds with the administration...the aide was fired.
So who knows what will happen this time around.
"the fact that the president would block reports"
I'm fairly certain Bush hasn't even heard of this scientist or these emails yet. Bush isn't omnipotent. I mean, this is the idiotic monkey-looking Bush here. Unless he's an all-knowing monkey god... wait... a.... minute... That explains everything! - successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This all you got kid? Cmon' you're not this weak, are you?
Look at you....Nothing left but childish preteen cutdowns. - LukeyMI, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I love how propaganda sites like this pump up stories into something they aren't. BOTH sides do this all the time. Did anybody actually read the email messages? How can any SANE person conclude that there's a conspiracy behind this? Come on!
The Internet is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong, but there are far too many people who read into blogs as as gospel truth. Major news media gets alot of flack about their news being untrustworthy, but you usually don't see those people question the nutjobs that create sites like this one. Anybody who reads websites like this (liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, etc - and the sites those groups create) and believes every word of it seriously needs to get their head examined. How about waiting for some facts before throwing accusations around for a change? Quit being mindless sheep! - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"NOAA responded to Mr. Fuqua that Dr. Knutson projected a “very small increase in hurricane intensity” due to increased greenhouse gas pollution. Mr. Fuqua responded, “why can’t we have one of the other guys then?”"
Numerical computer models are not scientific proof. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is