What is Digg?12 Comments
- DocLee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4goldylocks,
The Oregon Petition amounts to nothing more than fraud in the first degree. A) There are not 17800 scientists on the list, especially considering companies are listed. B) The "paper" that was sent along with the petition was printed in the same font, style, and format as a PNAS paper, leading many who signed the petition to believe the NAS had formed a consensus on the matter...which they didn't. C) The list includes names such as Redwine, Perry Mason, and Robert Byrd as well as duplicate names. D) My name as well as three of my close associates names appear on the list...we have neither signed the petition, received the mailing, and repeated attempts to have our names removed from the list have gone unanswered. Not only that but none of us hold a PhD in a field related to climatology.
There is no way to confirm the names listed on the list and they certainly are not removing names on the list that have appeared for absolutely no good reason. - space1nvaders, on 10/06/2008, -3/+5I have been studying the global warming plus other environmental problems. I am not a scientist. The articles, books, and videos all show a large problem and potential dangers. It doesn't matter if the Sun is warming or we are causing it. We are experiencing the short winters. The glaciers are melting.
Why attack or make fun of Al Gore instead of working with him. He doesn't have to try to help. He chose to because he can. We all should commend him and even follow his examples or the examples of others who spend their time helping the planet we all share. Consider that if Al Gore succeeds and does get the attention of the world to address the problems and the planet stops warming at the current rate, then Al Gore will be one of the greatest men to ever live. How many great men of the past were criticized? It's always so hard to do good.
When politically motivated articles are published to cause doubt that would in turn take to focus off the problem, we all pay the price in the end.
It's sad to say that the word consumer (materialist) is probably hear more favorably than the word environmentalist (radical) in our culture. News reporters have a responsibility to elevate our culture if they are responsible journalists. - bjkrautk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6He writes for the Weekly Standard. Of course he's a Republican.
Note: Party affiliation doesn't actually make someone wrong. If you want to dispute that 70's scientists were debating 'global cooling' instead of warming, or that the energy output of the sun varies historically, feel free to post some facts.
Personally, I think Al Gore should stick to issues where the science is indisputed: the dangers of ManBearPig. I'm Serial. - Surfer51, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Al is an opportunist. Anything to stay in the spotlight. Don't matter what... Inventing the net to the coming ice age...
Wait...that was the 70's...he has moved on to global warming these days. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're like a creationist bleating about Nebraska Man. Why don't you get a clue and realize that global cooling did not have the scientific support that global warming does today? Moreoever, your argument takes the form of "scientists were wrong about one thing, therefore they are absolutely wrong about everything," which is a pretty crappy argument itself.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just remember that everything you see in a documentary is not always true. Especially now that Al Gore and Michael Moore are making documentaries.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://digg.com/general_sciences/Bush_Administration_Edited_Scientific_Reports_To_Downplay_Global_Warming
Besides that the "conflicting science" is tiny when compared with the number of papers and scientists who support it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3goldy:
>They don't say they are all scientists, but most of them are:
Too bad Scientific American already studied the fake list and pretty much completely demolished the credibility of it.
Also, I enjoy the thought of polling doctors about global warming. Brilliant. I'm going to a climatologist for my next bunion, so why not? - space1nvaders, on 10/06/2008, -3/+3Let's put it this way...
So we should suck the oil that's millions of years old out of the earth and burn it just because global warming may not be an issue? How about air pollution? Deforestation? Over population? Drought? These things are happening now in recent times. Isn't is smarter to just do the right thing just in case??? - space1nvaders, on 10/06/2008, -7/+4The author of this article, Jonathan V. Last, is obviously a Republican. Just take a look at some of his other articles:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/855fbmpo.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/865uojtx.asp
http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day04/archive/2007/01/10/from-president-bush-on-down-2006-was-one-kooky-zany-year.aspx
Just remember that what you read is not always the truth, especially now when everyone can post anything online. - goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@ DocLee
"The list includes names such as Redwine, Perry Mason, and Robert Byrd"
From the Oregon Petition Website
One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
"There are not 17800 scientists on the list, especially considering companies are listed."
They don't say they are all scientists, but most of them are:
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
"The "paper" that was sent along with the petition was printed in the same font, style, and format as a PNAS paper, leading many who signed the petition to believe the NAS had formed a consensus on the matter...which they didn't."
Can you prove this?
"My name as well as three of my close associates names appear on the list...we have neither signed the petition, received the mailing, and repeated attempts to have our names removed from the list have gone unanswered. Not only that but none of us hold a PhD in a field related to climatology."
Again, can you prove it?
"There is no way to confirm the names listed on the list and they certainly are not removing names on the list that have appeared for absolutely no good reason."
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
They have a list of all the scientists that signed the petition on the website and as stated earlier "two-thirds with advanced degrees." - goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Your wrong about Global Warming. Snippets from Wikipedia talking about Greenland: Icelandic settlers led by Erik the Red found the land uninhabited when they arrived c. 982. Around 984 they established the Eastern and Western settlements in deep fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries, and then disappeared after over 450 years of habitation. The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost.
There was also the Little Ice Age when temperatures were much colder than now. Keep in mind that these were quite large temperature changes, and they were obviously not caused by man. Also CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. During the time of the dinosaurs CO2 levels were about 8 times what they are now. Maybe it was warmer back then but what's wrong with it being a little warmer. That reminds me of something else. When Gore gets out that chart and shows the strong relationship between CO2 and temperatures he leaves out an important detail; the temperature LEADS the CO2 by 800 years. The notion that greenhouse gas levels are the only determinant of temperature is silly. Factors like the sun energy output ( but for different reasons than you might think ) play a big role. When people try to say there is a consensus among scientists on Global Warming they are lying. 17,800 scientists signed the Oregon Petition which rejects the Global Warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
The only politically motivated people are Gore and government scientists who will make a killing on Global Warming hysteria. Scientists who speak out against it are shouted down, threatened and even fired. That is not how the correct side in a scientific debate has ever operated. The history of science is full of people who told the truth being persecuted. Finally, remember, this is a politician. Your very naive if you think you can trust a politician.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is