What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
175 Comments
- halavais, on 10/12/2007, -8/+47"used stupid tactics like asking "scientists" instead of "climatologists." The percent of all scientists that believe in global warming is much higher than the percentage of climatologists, the people who's job it is to study global warming."
Care to actually cite something there? See, the film does: it makes clear what methodology was used. And when the percentage of all scientists is approaching 100%, it doesn't really make a huge differences if the percentage of climatologists is 99.95%. The upshot is that there is a scientific consensus. - jblade, on 10/12/2007, -19/+44Ridiculous... this shows how corrupt our nation really is. It took digg to show me the light, Unfortunately, for the majority of people, they are still sucking in everything the big 8 media corporations send out.
- YouWinILose, on 10/12/2007, -19/+42Funny, I've yet to see convincing proof siding with your theory.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -27/+49I would, it was a damn good movie.
- CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -17/+39***** it, just sell them
- GeneralFailure0, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30I hate when people say there's no proof for a theory without explaining themselves or providing a counter-argument.
- Induane, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32---QUOTE---
thats the problem they wont sell...mostly because Al invented this "truth"
-----------------
Actually even fox news Bill O'Reily liked the movie and sided with it. He also said that while the movie probably had mistakes that they were most likely not intentional or intended to manipulate the truth.
I tend to agree - the movie seemed very credible. Sources were respectable, and the piece was well cut. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@grgt1994:
actualy your most credible link, national geographic supports al gore
He says the documentary handles the science well.
"I was looking for errors," he said.
"But nothing much struck me as overblown or wrong." " - Livinginx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Cloakandswagger "***** it, just sell them"
I don't really think it should be sold, it should be like Linux, free for download or charge for materials and shipping.
If something should be seen/heard/read by everybody, why charge for it? It won't make as much of an impact. - teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31saw this on Countdown with Olbermann tonight. Olbermann said it perfectly. "Hello mamn, I have Copernicus and Galileo on the phone. They think the earth is round and rotates the sun. What? I should hang up on them. Oh yes, we wouldn't want to jeopardize the donations we've been gettingt from the flat earth society!"
He named her todays worst person in the world as a matter of fact, and he's right.
What a *****. She doesn't desvere to be head of anything scientific if she's more worried about donations then reality and truth and ummm... science. - adampolselli, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22The NSTA said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film? Just because the film stars Al Gore and is concerned with the environment does not mean it is political. Honestly, can no topic today be considered apolitical and in the general interest of all peoples? It presents the facts, that's it. This is sad.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14What he said was, exactly, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Which, as it turns out, is absolutely true.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html
If you don't know Vinton G. Cerf is, well... do a Google search with the phrase "founding fathers of the Internet."
; ) - einsteinx2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Ya, if you google the quote (http://sethf.com/gore/ was the first of many sites that came up when I searched for "al gore invented the internet" without the quotes) then you would find out that he never said that he invented the internet. What he said was that he was responsible for and/or helped legislation that caused the internet to come to be. Which is true. Google is your friend.
- teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11hey *****. AL gore never said he invented the internet. Try reading for once in your life instead of repeating BS propoganda. He passed legislation that helped enable the internet to become a commercial success as we know it and a reality in our homes and offices. before that it was only used by academia and the government.
more can be found here, that is, if uyou have any interest in actually learning something
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html
Here is a more credible paper.remarking on how exxon mobile has given them 42 million dollars
remind me again how much the crazy super rich global warming moonbat scientists give our school system? - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11But science does. The Origin of Species was also dubbed atheist propaganda.
- breck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h.php#more
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris - teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ZekeSulastin
couple of things. AL Gore's film is not political. The fact that he is promoting it, that he has championed the cause of global warming does not make it political. What makes it political is when data and rsearch and facts are manipulated to suit a predetermined agenda, i.e what the bush admin has been proven to have done over the last 6 years.
second, if there is an alternate viewpoint, I completely support that viewpoint being given equal airtime EXCEPT THRER ISNT ONE. literally all (or within a small fraction of all) reputable scientists (and by reputable I mean those who research wasn't paid for by big oil or coal) are in agreement. Climate change/.global warming is happening. There is no debate on the subject. The only debate is how bad it is and how bad it's going to get, and what needs to be done to stop it from making pennsylvani a part of the eastern seaboard. - zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16"Um, After seeing how absolutely wrong Al Gore was about this years hurricane season, its no doubt they would reject his movie. Why is it mandatory to accept liberal propaganda for our schools? I doubt any of you digging my comment and almost all the other comments on here down wouldnt like it if Mel Gibson was offering 50,000 free copies of The Passion of the Christ to High schools to teach about that important scholar and religious figurehead."
Just because something is "more likely" to happen, doesn't mean it always will. Scientists make predictions, sometimes they are wrong. You have one data point, in a sea of . . . . how long have we been recording climate information? It's surely longer than two years.
I also fail to see how the movie is liberal propaganda. When science disagrees with your personal agenda it must be propaganda? - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Here's a great article on this story that's more than a blurb on some blog.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400789_pf.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+32Despicable
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18the claim that al gore claimed to have invented the net has a credibility problem.
But like most con gibberish, if you repeat a urban legend enough it become true.
He never claimed to have invented the net. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I dunno, FTA:
"In their e-mail rejection, they (NSTA) expressed concern that other "special interests" might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film"
That's the kicker for me... Ok, so they accept the movies and show them to their students. Now an industry side wants them to take some free copies of THEIR take on things... Do they accept them and also show them? Why not?
This keeps their hands clean on both sides. Alternately, they could present every free video they get, but then the propaganda wars begin.
I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just trying to stay out of it and trust their teachers to do a good job. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I'm still waiting for Al Gore to explain to us how Mars and Jupiter are experiencing the same global warming that we are."
They aren't.
It seems a lot of Digg users are allergic to science. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Some of the arguments attempting to invalidate the importance of this subject are ri-f'ing-diculous. They're basically the same arguments that people have always used when they can't morally or intelligently stand behind .
1. It's "political" or "propaganda"
2. Al Gore's an idiot
3. You can't prove so and so's involvement.
Every single time, you dodge the issue and attempt to change the argument. Come up with some real facts and debate the issue.
It's not political or propaganda if they're globally endorsed, well thought out scientific theories. If you think adding a few billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year at an exponential rate is a good thing, you must have an agenda. Who makes money from supporting green movements?
wake up. read a book. "ishmael" or "the story of b" are both excellent if you have the intelligence to read and comprehend them.
American values used to involve innovation - finding new markets. Now you guys bitch about foreign markets taking over all the time, first the Japanese, now the Chinese. Innovate again! Put money into new forms of technology. Then when the oil runs out, you got more ***** to sell!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This isn't about taking sides. There are no sides here. There is scientific evidence (which science teachers are supposed to teach) and there are corporations who stand to lose billions if people are made aware of the scientific evidence.
The NSTA has decided they care more about money from corporations than they care about educational tools for students and teachers. You can't say the NSTA is rejecting the DVD's because they don't want to take sides as they take money from Exxon/Mobil. They refused the DVD's because they already chose which side they're on.
This association has been bought. Nobody should be surprised since America is one of the worst countries in the entire world when it comes to math and science education, and is getting worse every year.
Global warming isn't a liberal issue, it's a human issue. An Inconvenient Truth isn't a liberal documentary, it's a science documentary. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Rikkochet:
They already do. They host and link to websites with content provided by the energy and paper industries, and provide corporate-made material and classroom lectures to teachers at conferences. - mikeman10001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The thing that makes me sick.. is that if it werent for bush fixing the election.. you guys might actually have a president who cares about your country and its people.
- PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -20/+28Copies of his "ManBearPig" documentary seem to be selling well.
- sigloiv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A few websites needed to posted...
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23climate.html?ex=1308715200&en=4a9eb334d3955e52&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/ (good videos on this one)
Just look 'em over... - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@sigloiv
Scientists do speak about global warming. But how many scientists do you know that have the connections to make a movie? I bet if a scientist had the resources to make a movie, he would. - halavais, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Moreover, as someone who really was responsible for providing the legislation that enabled the growth of the current internet, it seems to me that if Gore has suggestions as to how public policy might help to assuage global warming, he might be a good person to listen to.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I think this says a lot more about the sad state of educational funding than it does about environmental politics.
- PureRED, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So in an essence, you're suggesting you think global warming is a sham? How do you feel about the Holocaust? Is that all a fallacy too?
- passive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16No, the scientific consensus is hugely behind Al Gore.
There are occasional abberances, but many of them are funded by the petroleum industry. Some aren't, but that's all right too.
The planet is getting warmer, and the obvious effects of that are simply not good for humanity. We are contributing to the planet getting warmer.
These are all facts. Even the naysayers tend to play on the semantics, admitting that these are true, but questioning how much is human involvement, and how much is nature.
The problem is that if Al Gore, and 99.7% of the climate scientists are wrong, and we spend tons of money and effort on the problem, only to find out it really was a hoax, all we've lost is money, much of which will have been pumped into our industry anyway. On the other hand, if the oil executives (who, time and again, have proven that they will almost literally kill their grandmothers tomorrow for a dollar today) and the 0.3% of climate scientists are wrong, and we don't give this problem the attention it deserves, then our kids are severely %^%$ed.
We already made the mistake of underestimating the threat of terrorism, and 9/11 will be a walk in the park compared to 50 years of the current warming trend. - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8wow crapi, you are one angry person.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10First of all, he never really said that.
And just because he was wrong about one thing doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. - YouWinILose, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13It seems that most of those articles are picking nits, if you will. Granted, he's showing worst-case scenarios to garner support, but even the best-case scenarios that a few of your articles pointed out don't seem all that pleasant.
Also, one of your three sources is a blog, and as such I'm not sure I can as willingly accept the validity of the arguments presented. Not to disregard it entirely, though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Here's how to get in touch with the NSTA.
http://www.nsta.org/feedback - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@spece1818 -
you've obviously never heard what he said
it's like if a govenor said they created a highway system, nobody thinks they mean they were literally out there with a shovel - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11If you're attempting to argue that the nsta's actions are justified, then how do you rationalize the current bias in education towards the oil companies?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13it is a biased movie in the climate debate. it's as easy as that. while yes many support it, there are just as many who oppose it who rank just as high in the science community.
BS
out of the 100's of scientists in the industry that the ipcc interviewed only 2 didnt support the claims.
Seriously people, even luntz doesnt believe his own memo anymore.. the science has closed.. preaching the controversy isnt going to work.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Schools are very finiky about what they accept. The Gay & Lesbian folks can't even get most districts to put a book in their library or show a film that suggests that its wrong to kick the gay kids in the head or set them on fire.
- passive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11fir3ball:
That's because there isn't any such information. In it, they specifically address every argument against global warming, and show, based on as much scientific certainty as is possible with the current research, that the consesus is global warming is occurring, and humans are a part of it.
It doesn't sound like you know all that much about the movie. Have you seen it? - BenSerwa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The movie is great. It's not propoganda, it's not a politically slanted thing, it's a very real concern backed by very real scientific data and study.
I plan on copying the movie onto DVDs and handing them out in my city for free. As many people should see this movie as possible, then they can draw their own conclusions. - PureRED, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I feel that they should send them to the schools that request them, or the organizations that request time.
And before you call something "political propaganda," I suggest you actually WATCH the movie. - halavais, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The point here is not just that global warming is a significant threat to our country, our economy, and humanity. It is also that it can be changed through public policy. Obviously, someone who has devoted his life to public policy--and this issue in particular--makes a good spokesperson.
- tkloppel, on 10/12/2007, -20/+25Well, the burden of proof is on the side of those who proposed the idea to start...
- mitrovarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ishmael? Oh, yes, the book that suggested that we abandon technology and start living as hunter-gatherers. Well, that's just dandy, except that without technology or agriculture we can't possibly feed 6 billion people, or even 60 million. You willing to volunteer to be in the 99% that has to die?
Anyways, if you tear civilization down, all that'll happen is that it'll arise again once history is forgotten. And of course, if you only pull it off in part of the world, the rest of it will just take it over.
Look, I'm all for environmentalism and ecology, but that kind of insanity is what pushes people away from those movements. - Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Who is digging breck down? Digging down critical thinking? His links are very good ones. Everyone should have sourcewatch bookmarked. Very handy if you want to follow the money.
Also I thank him for the rebuttal piece to the "The gods are laughing"....
If you watch the documentary you will see this is the exact junk that Gore talks about. Actually peer reviewed scientific articles appearing in journals that refute Global Warmings causes - essentially zero percent. Amount that appear in the media that refute global warming causes - greater than 50%.
Almost all from paid lobbyists like Tom Harris. People complain about politicians listening to lobbyists and then eagerly lap it up when it is aimed at them through the media.
I would bring brek up higher if I could. That is solid info. -
Show 51 - 100 of 176 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is