What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 Movie -- Anime view!
funimation.com - Available now on DVD. The rebuild of the ground breaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.
171 Comments
- tydas, on 10/11/2007, -1/+43Even if you do not agree with Global Warming don't people think its a good idea to reduce pollution and our dependence on foreign oil??
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -24/+60God forbid we do anything to slow production and reduce pollution. Our grandchildren may despise us for killing the earth, but at least they'll have fat trust funds. BUILD BUILD BUILD BUY BUY BUY CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Dexter77, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18"Wanna fight global warming at the expense of fighting terrorism"
How much IQ you need to understand how utterly unbelievable idiotic that clause is? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20the warming on other planets has been explained and posted on digg ad nauseum. I'm tired of posting the link so if you want to expand your mind go Google it. (Hint - look for bad astronomy)
- dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -18/+30"They are fighting the scientific truth of the climate crisis and are claiming it just isn’t so!"
Let's all be rational here. The purpose of science in to uncover not yet understood truths.I think that democrats need to admit that we don't know everything about climate change. Their models are full of uncertainties and assumptions. Even the IPCC reports will tell you that. It sounds like these people are so sure that CO2 is the sole cause of global climate change, they would scoff at even credible evidence that suggests otherwise. And even if we did understand everything about climate change, there is no plausible plan to curb the current stock or flow of CO2 in the atmosphere. (and don't spout that Kyoto nonsense, Kyoto is not enough to curb agw)
The fact is, we need to do everything we can as individuals to lighten the load. While still acknowledging that there is little that the government can do about agw without slowing the progress of developing countries or forcing us to live without the technology that we have grown accustomed to. We don't need the gov't to tax us into safety. - naio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10YOU R TEH SUX.
- Coven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Local weather phenomenon =/= global climate change
- wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Some of the most exciting emerging technologies are green technologies. And with that comes business and $$$. Green technology could be a huge financial boom in this country, possibly on the order of the 2000 internet boom, if you regressive ***** would just get out of the way.
- purdueAl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Very rigorous and well put argument... for a preschooler.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12the US still contributes more pollution per capita than any other country. we keep calling ourselves the leader of the free world, starting wars and pushing democracy. how about we be a leader on the environment?
- Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13Even if global warming is NOT man-made, the earth is still warming. So they are denying the fact that it is?
- dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12It's called "happy medium" people.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10because caring about the environment is for terrorist loving gay muslim abortion providers.
- Phatrician, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yes, you're correct. Their predictions have been blown away by actual data. Say they predict ice would recede by 10 inches a year, in actuality it is receding at 10 feet a year.
Thanks for the comment. - countmandible, on 11/15/2007, -5/+12Growing yes, but let's not forget that the U.S. held (and probably still holds) the title 'Most Voracious Consumer...Ever'.
- greenm1981, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Agreed. It's perfect: Clean energy and domestic job growth, that they can't outsource.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Again - weather is not climate. Weather is local. Climate is global. An increase in the global temperature can cause weather patterns to be disrupted leading to unseasonably hot or cold weather (or snow or severe storms in locations not known for them)
Try reading up on some basic science before shooting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself. - Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16True, but it is dishonest to target the US, when China and India are the two countries who could care less about the environment, and they are the two fastest growing and polluting countries on earth. Fighting for extra filters in the US, or maybe fight against using Coal in China? One will benefit the earth a lot more. Focusing on the US only shows their bias and shows that they are using the environment as a political tool.
- Phatrician, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9For some reason, this reminds me of the biblical story of Noah. You've got one guy that's trying to save earthbound creatures, and people, whoever would listen, and you've got the naysayers poo-pooing the whole thing as a myth...then the rains come, and you know what happens after that.
Seems like the right hasn't learned anything from one of the most famous stories in the bible, a book seemingly held dear to their hearts. - scrimaxinc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The only thing worse than calling someone out for spelling mistakes is having them in your comment TOO. I'd stick to pointing out how big of an ass he sounds like, or something along those lines.
- wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7It's not 1955 anymore. The cold war is over. You can come out of your bunker.
- bonerjams2k3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Let's see...hmmm... If we pay a short visit to reality, we see that it is much easier to get your own country to do something and, looking at America's track record with dictating behavior to other countries, it would be wisest to stick with setting a good example. The bottom line is that America is one of the largest polluters (China and whomever else notwithstanding), and if we can fix that mess it will be a buttload better than wasting time b!tching with another country that doesn't give a damn.
- jarjarjanks, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7i'm tired of idiots on the left and idiots on the right constantly making each other look stupid and ruining the entire debate.
global warming is about CLIMATE change.
CLIMATE is not the same as WEATHER.
this is something they teach you in 8th grade earth science.
every time there is an extra hot day does not mean there is global warming. when we have a really cold winter it does not mean there is no global warming.
go back to school and read a ***** book
regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by humans, we are on an unsustainable path of consumption.
you cannot keep polluting and killing every non-human thing on the planet and expect everything to be OK. Things have been ooook so far, but China is just getting started in terms of their global impact. Things are going to get a lot worse. What about when countries like Brazil want to modernize and develop the rainforest? - beaurich, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Whether or not you hate Fox news they are making a good point about alarmism. I read a blurb on the elevator that said "Food and water scarcities, resulting from global warming, could cause massive social upheaval and war in the future."
That doesn't sound like alarmism? This was on the captivate network screen. The same screen where jokes and anecdotes are generally displayed. Sounds alarmist to me. - sassip, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I am not a scientist, but just spent some time in Alaska near the Yukon Territory. I live in Florida. In Alaska, most, to a person, believe things are warming up. I know heat, living in a soup pot in the summer. Over the past 25 years, the weather pattern has changed. It used to rain every summer day around 3 or 4. It has done that this past week, that is the first time it has with the regularity it did 15 years ago. Why? Not absolutely sure.
A guy in Alaska probably said it best (most are not liberal-Dem's, BTW, guns are second only to flashlights) "We may not be causing it exclusively, but we're sure not doing anything to help it."
Let's all get sane on this. dbhaley said it almost well, "The purpose of science in (sic) (think he/she meant is) to uncover not yet understood truths." Why are some so afraid of finding out that humans can/do/have made mistakes?
Live and Let Die - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4that piece of trash has been debunked.
- krakhed, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12We cannot keep using resources wastefully. what happens when its too far gone to help?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9@ooloo your a total moron. shut up and win a darwin award so the rest of humanity can try to make this world a better place.
- MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I agree that the evidence is not complete, and that the government can't simply impose a solution without hurting a lot of people. Clearly, we need to do much more work to get to the root of the problem and determine how (or if) it can be fixed.
Where I disagree is that I think the government DOES need to ADMIT that there could be a serious problem, and they need to study it with intellectual honesty. This administration has done the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALA", while simultaneously silencing critics in their own administration who are just doing their job by pointing out that mounting evidence points to a growing crisis. This is simply unacceptable for a government that is supposed to look out for the interests of its citizens. - DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6just another excuse to waste time and run down the clock. you lead by example first. otherwise you'll get criticized like Al Gore.
- supernovasky, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7It's not about the warming itself, it's about the rate of warming, as I'm sure you've heard a thousand diggers say before this. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is skyrocketing at an alarming rate. This will, 100% without a doubt, cause warming to increase. This can be proven in a laboratory, that an increase of a few hundred PPM will raise the temperature significantly. Also, without a doubt, we are putting out more CO2 than any other source through fossil fuel burning.
The facts dont lie. - SonnyW, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yeah, that snow sure proved global warming wrong!!!1
Sigh. - Stratochief66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Exactly. The loud debating focuses on whether human CO2 production is heating the climate, but the real focus should be on how carbon consciousness will cause a reduction in other forms of pollution and reduced foreign energy dependence. If the energy demands continue to increase this way and efficiency does not then North American's will have to pull a 'China' and build a bunch of coal and natural gas power plants to meet the new demand. This will release not just CO2 but sulphur dioxide and other pollutants into the environment while causing further environmental damage caused by the overtapping of fossil fuels.
This is also good practice for a future water crisis. With experience curtailing air pollution and increases in energy efficiency we will be well prepared to improve the water efficiency of our industry and population. What is a state like California to do when it can no longer produce enough water to meet increasing demand when the rivers it currently diverts for human consumption are drying up? - disciple83, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4As far as I have seen, they are not denying that. All I have gathered is that they are using other explanations of it, which, some are credible, and some aren't. One of the more credible responses is that the earth is simply entering into a different weather cycle. It has happened in the past, look at the Ice Age.
As for snow in Southern Africa and Buenos Aires, hoserjoe, you are aware that it is winter this time of year in the southern hemisphere, snow tends to happen in winter. - wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If we're going with more nuclear, we should push for some of the reclamation technologies that they use in Europe, otherwise we're going to have an assload of spent fuel rods to store.....somewhere.
- mcelreb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Logic is your friend. Use some.
- Coven, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Where are these new trees and plants going to grow if we continue to destroy the lands they need to grow on? Michael Savage made the same argument a few months ago on his radio show. He failed to take into account deforestation and urbanization when presenting that case. Without the plant life to process the CO2 it will continue to accumulate in our atmosphere.
- Stratochief66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Over what period of time is this .2 degree reduction? Who came up with this statistic? Cite your sources and quite embarrassing yourself. Perhaps over the next year or 5 it would only have a .2 degree effect but you need to look long term. Reduction in current carbon output will similarly effect how efficient our future technology is and continues to get. The hope is that by trying to meet a short term goal on carbon reduction we are spurring developments that will have a far reaching effect decades down the road.
- hmmmok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Much rather be a Yankee than a Butternut.
- bradtacs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3wow that is some kind of insane comment...
- usercc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Environmentalists are human watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
- kgool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Did you just call NRP "Non-biased"? Wow, just WOW.
- MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No. Unless it's clearly meant as a joke ... which you apparently don't understand.
Idiot. - biotch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2While I think nuclear power is a great way to reduce our dependence on oil, we have to remember that part of our problem with the oil industry is that it is an oligopoly. Nuclear power would be disseminated by an oligopoly as well. Price fixing is too easy for oligopolies. We need to invest in more renewable resources like solar power. There are tons of solar power companies, and even more companies that supply components for private solar power systems. That promotes a more competetive price market.
On a clear day, every square meter of sun supplies 1 kilowatt of energy. Panels today are up to 40% efficient in converting that energy into electricity. That means that the average home with open roof space has the capacity to power three average homes with plenty of power to spare. The cost for solar panels can be offset a great deal by mass production as they are produced with the same technology used to produce CPUs. Why we dont use our government to jumpstart this industry is just beyond me.
The entire state of California, the fifth largest economy in the world, could use solar power to completely eliminate its need for oil, coal, or nuclear power. That would take a good chunk out of US dependence on oil, while helping the environment, and creating a productive industry all at the same time. - Coven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Otto, I do tell the same thing to people who complain about a heatwave and point at global warming.
- biotch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2what the hell? The Chinese gov. doesnt give a flying rats ass about what an American tells them to do. They dont even care what the Chinese tell them to do.
At least here in America WE CAN VOTE to change things like environmental law. Fighting for change in America is a more viable option with a much higher likelyhood of results.
If we are able to produce an industry that creates cheaper and cleaner energy, the Chinese and Indians would be sure to follow suit. - DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3your digg history suggest you are serious. I pray for you.
- 4degrees, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3i hope you use the term "free world" loosely...
- wendelgee2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Cuz we're no longer an agrarian society, so money is how we eat. Or maybe it's greed.
- stormofswords, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What exactly is Gore using to his advantage? Not running for President? Is he running for any office at all? Seems somewhat counter-productive for such a "political opportunist" if he really isnt doing anything.
Your first argument really bugs me too. Your "why are you all so arrogant" attitude is nothing but pure distortion. Its not about "importance" or "worth", its simply about the fact that we have, without looking back, pumped CO2 into the air for the past 150 years. Hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 throughout history. It has nothing to do with pride, it is merely common sense that there would be a negative backlash from this. True, climate change has occurred in history. How many times in earths history though has an organism pumped millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere daily?
Lastly, I just want to point out the irony of you telling us to not follow something blindly and then walking off with "oh we are adaptable, if there is a crisis we will survive it". Maybe you should take some of your own medicine and be proactive about this and not sit back and wait for someone to fix the problem for you. This is also what is so damn frustrating. If lots of people too lots of little steps towards reducing our individual output of CO2, this problem wouldnt be such a potentially big one. But if people still kling to the idea that it wont matter one way or the other so there isnt any reason to take measures against it, then we are just ***** ourselves in the ass before the earth does it for us. -
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is