What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
215 Comments
- greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -46/+90Notice how all of the articles about climate change facts get posted under "Science", while the Denier crap get's posted under "Opinion."
Pretty much says it all right there. - inactive, on 02/27/2009, -23/+67The Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) the source George Will cited for his evidence sent a letter to the Washington Post stating:
"We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined." - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -73/+110Will standing by his original ***** by repeating the same ***** is really not very compelling.
His claims have been repeatedly shown to be scientific crap:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/16/will-global-wa ...
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/20/washington-p ...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-wi ...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/ ...
http://www.examiner.com/x-1172-Birmingham-Progress ...
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/fight-globa ...
http://madmikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/02/column ... - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -34/+67More debunking of this nonsense:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/washington ... - inactive, on 02/27/2009, -12/+37Ok guys, we got caught. It is time to tell the truth to Republicans. Global warming is as you suspected a giant hoax. It was all part of the plan to legalize marijuana. There, I just could not lie anymore about this.
- sarahlee, on 02/27/2009, -11/+36George Will and these deniers never allow facts (or the opinions of thousands of scientists without agendas) to get in the way of their screaming and hate for Al Gore. For example, they never want to admit that Gore didn't invent Global Warming - he just paid attention to what climate scientists were saying and helped them deliver that message to a larger audience.
- Alheithinn, on 02/27/2009, -28/+53Not very convincing, given the source, a proven liar who deliberately misrepresents facts and than refuses to recant when shown the factual data from the organizations he misquotes.
- LeftieLucy, on 02/27/2009, -0/+21"Environmental Studies" is classified as a social science at most universities. "Environmental Science" is science.
- shylove, on 02/27/2009, -15/+35While George is ducking the orthodoxies it might be good to note that pollution controls are a virtue unto themselves. George feels that no one should intrude on industry's right to intrude on us with mercury and lead. Poisoning the world we live on is the orthodoxy he believes in and that is suicide...
He believes in the individual's right to not be regulated so that they can poison our economy as we see now. He believes we can take our weapons and poison the lives of the Iraqi's whether our accusations are right or not. He believes he knows just exactly what is wrong with those unwed marriages in the ghettos and that everyone sent to prison is not a social failure of our society but an amazing feat of enforcement. And he probably also believes in not paying any taxes to do it either. Let's put them to work as slaves for the prison system!!! - Insightful, on 02/27/2009, -25/+43In what will most likely be further controversial pieces about a controversial topics, each of George Will's next columns will devote to how alchemy is actually more correct than chemistry, astrology > astronomy, and creationism > biology.
Will = FAIL - NinaOdell, on 02/27/2009, -20/+38Greenfyre is an actual scientist who has dedicated a significant chunk of time learning about Global climate change. Just who the ***** are you?
- eco57, on 02/27/2009, -39/+57Here are some more websites who PROVE George Will is full of *****:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/02/16/ ...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/25-13
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/27/in-a-journal ...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu ...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/ ...
Deniers are looking more and more like idiots each passing day...unfortunately. - monoa, on 02/27/2009, -11/+27@chriskzoo: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greenfyre&l=1 then click 'About'. And then you need to *read* it. I know, I know - it's painful, but stick with it.
That's the problem with you Deniers - you take pride in your ignorance. It protects you from doubt and evidence that your world view is badly wrong. Learning is anathema to you because it would expose how little you really know. - chipsngravy, on 02/27/2009, -19/+35Why do these idiots keep recycling the old "scientists predicted global cooling in the seventies" myth, when this has been shown to be false on countless occasions for years. Please deniers, get some new arguments and stop making fools of yourselves floggin the same few dead horses.
- greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -35/+50You heard it on all of the wingnut Denier blogs where they try to pretend a 1970s media story was wide spread among scientists, when the facts show that to be *****:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Th ... - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -12/+27RotFL
The only bogus fraud worse than Inhofe's Folly:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ...
http://650list.blogspot.com/2009/02/sketchy-analys ...
http://650list.blogspot.com/2009/02/classifying-ar ...
is that pathetic joke known as the Oregon Petition
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ...
You cannot possibly be serious referencing those two hoaxes. - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -10/+25Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11088-blame- ...
Humans causing it:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wa ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
That FoS list is pure *****, debunked:
http://digg.com/world_news/AP_fear_mongering_Obama ...
and here http://digg.com/environment/Global_Warming_is_over ... - monoa, on 02/27/2009, -35/+50And isn't this actually the best that the Deniers have? A right wing, scientifically illiterate talking head who cherry picks, distorts and lies.
It's almost enough to make me pity them - almost, but the feeling of contempt wins out. - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -14/+28In other words you cannot find a single error in any of the material I link to so you try juvenile dismissal without any evidence or facts to back you up ... thank you for admitting that.
- Newswiseguy, on 02/27/2009, -7/+20i'm almost afraid that to debunk it would give George Will's column more credit than what's due.
- greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -12/+25@chriskzoo
In other words you have no actual facts or evidence to contradict the overwhelming evidence, so you retreat into paranoid conspiracy delusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspi ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/denier-c ...
http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184
How about you address the actual science instead of indulging in fantasies?
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.ht ...
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/open-source/
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ - Trent1492, on 02/27/2009, -5/+17So what is the best "global warming is a scam" argument you got? Co I also ask that you provide primary evidence of fraud
- MacLiberal, on 02/27/2009, -6/+17GW's next article... Darwin Deniers! Global warming is a scientific fact, the evidence is overwhelming. Why are we even debating this subject? By the way, the earth is round, not flat, that too is a scientific fact.
- brodimus, on 02/27/2009, -3/+14you again.
Conflating some of the most famous people supporting climate science with those doing the science. no wonder you're so confused. - MacEnvy, on 02/27/2009, -4/+15I really can't overstate how stupid your comment is. The reason they replied is that it's their job to measure this. We pay them to measure it. IT'S THEY'RE JOB TO MEASURE IT.
That's why their data is relevant while your comment is ridiculous. - elliotys, on 02/27/2009, -20/+30Hey Will you aren't a scientist, and Im not a journalist. So how bout I stick to my science and you stick to your journalism, because you haven't a clue about science.
- monoa, on 02/27/2009, -16/+26Argument from personal ignorance: not persuasive.
There's a vast gulf between what you know and what climate scientists know. If you made the effort to read from credible sources and not the sideshow Denial blog you linked to, you'd be aware of that. - sultanknish, on 02/27/2009, -39/+48The politics of crisis can't be allowed to influence or take over sane and rational decision making
the same people who want us to rush ahead and trash the economy in order to fund global warming schemes don't want to take the time to ask the real questions and do the hard science on it - chipsngravy, on 02/27/2009, -7/+16>>>If the hysteria goes away, the grant money dries.
Citation? - terminal157, on 02/27/2009, -2/+11That an issue is popular doesn't make it wrong anymore than it makes it right, and you could create a suitably ridiculous list for literally ANY popular issue. It adds nothing but confusion to a conversation that is already confused all to hell.
- jhbarr, on 02/27/2009, -5/+14Hmmm, who do I trust. A political writer who has an obvious agenda or a scientist who would be lauded as a hero if he were to prove the opposite of current findings. I'll take science for $1000 Alec.
And here is one more debunking of Will.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/exper ... - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -8/+17"Here are some websites"
Pushing the same Denier fables long since shown to be *****:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ... - Leviathan84, on 02/28/2009, -0/+8What an intellectually bankrupt statement.
Cant beat his logic so one must result to the bribery angle?
Desperate actions .
Do you think the Al Gore is paying the AAAS and the top peer reviewed papers also? - goodinohio, on 02/28/2009, -1/+9Earth is around 4 1/2 billion years old, what 50 or 100 year period is the correct climate for earth and why?
Every climate change or global warming article ever written only deals with 10, 50, or 100 years. - realeiger, on 02/27/2009, -5/+13God. I hope this is satire. ANyone with half a brain knows that the vast majority of economic interests would be in favor of global warming not be true. Any scientist able to credibly debunk global warm (or have a credible proposal that they might) would be showered with grants by industry.
- greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -1/+9The plan was
1) Claim climate change is not real
2) Avoid talking about all of the science by pretending there is a conspiracy
3) Say "profits" as if the oil industry and the whole Bush Oil clan weren't making a ***** of it, far more than the greenies could ever dream of
4) Get a bunch of Rubes to actually believe there is a green conspiracy so they go out and post lame comments on forums and news sharing sites - ShavedBusch, on 02/27/2009, -4/+12It's easy to prove the Earth isn't flat. Would you like to prove that climate change does not exist? Go ahead.
- monoa, on 02/27/2009, -7/+15You should really go for a less obvious moniker - 'spindig' as in spin a.k.a. lie to Digg.
Not that your idiocy would be any less compelling with a different name.... - Samueul, on 02/28/2009, -4/+11This guy ain't the only one.. http://www.examiner.com/x-3420-Cleveland-Weather-E ...
I guess he's full of ***** too? - greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -0/+6How arrogant do you have to be to think scientists do not know about historic climate change and didn't factor it in?
How dumb do you have to be not to realize that the only reason you know about past climates and ice ages is because scientists told you? - greenfyre, on 02/28/2009, -4/+11"that you apply to everybody who doesn't agree with you,"
And who has done that? pray tell?
As is well documented Will tries to pass off as credible science a pile of crap that is documented as BS, all the while trying to lend it credibility by pretending that the scientific rejection of the crap is somehow politically motivated.
If and when he deals with the facts honestly and in good faith I will call him a skeptic.
Until then, to call him a skeptic would be a gross insult to real skeptics who are honourable intellectuals seeking truth. - greenfyre, on 02/28/2009, -1/+8Spindiggs drivel has already been addressed:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Doubts_on_Global ...
"Seriously, dude, you've become an Internet meme. "
and yet you never manage to refute anything I post with anything resembling a credible source (ie science) ... why is that?
Maybe it's easier to try and make me the issue rather than talking about the facts? - MacEnvy, on 02/28/2009, -0/+7Oh crap, did I confuse "their" and "they're", and do it in all caps? I suck.
- birdlessnoon, on 02/27/2009, -4/+11here is some background on the highly credible "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and Fredrick Seitz president of NAS from 62-64. Presumably Dr Seitz used the same scientific rigor in studying climate change as he did in his work for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_ ... - muffcakes, on 02/27/2009, -3/+9CaptCarrot standing by his original ***** by repeating the same ***** is really not very compelling.
His claims have been repeatedly shown to be scientific crap
(Wow that was easy - and I feel like I've contributed so much to an intelligent and productive conversation) - steeltormentor, on 02/28/2009, -4/+10One of the first things I learned is that theory and speculation precede actual knowledge. I am amazed that any scientist would claim/insist/assert that they are 'positive' or 'sure' about anything related to global warming. To say that more information is needed seems to be a massive understatement. Extrapolating trends when we have so little data....probably not the best tactic.
- Leviathan84, on 02/28/2009, -0/+6Keep psychotic opinions like that to yourself.
- greenfyre, on 02/27/2009, -3/+9Who cares??
Here is science - deal with that
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O ...
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.ht ...
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/open-source/
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/
and your phony Oregon Petition is a laughably pathetic hoax
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ... - brodimus, on 02/27/2009, -4/+10Because you read it does not make it Peer Reviewed.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/ ...
"Widespread efforts are being made to discount the scientific evidence, as illustrated by the following example. In early 1998, a senior scientist at The Woods Hole Research Center received a letter sent by an organization identified only as GWPP. Enclosed were several documents: a short note signed by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences; a photocopied article that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 1997 entitled "Science has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth;" a scientific paper entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide;" and a petition to be signed and returned. The note, which was conspicuously lacking any sort of header or organizational letterhead, urged the reader to sign the enclosed petition and proclaimed that: "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." The petition went on to state:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December of 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."
The "scientific" paper looks like any other reprint from a scientific journal. However, what the authors fail to mention is that this article was neither peer-reviewed nor previously published in any shape or form. To anyone not intimately familiar with scientific papers, this article would probably help to perpetuate the myth that there is still uncertainty about the warming of the earth. This paper, was in part, produced by employees of the George C. Marshall Institute. This organization, founded in 1980 to issue reports promoting President Reagan's "star wars" defense program, conducts no original research. Most recently, it has focused on issuing reports dismissing climate change (Gelbspan, 1997)." - angryredplanet, on 02/28/2009, -0/+6Monoa is backed by science. You and George (etc) are not.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 228 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is