What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
49 Comments
- Rotzooi, on 08/12/2008, -1/+31Religious nuts would be amusing, were they not so dangerous. Still, a Republican Representative actually producing this quote did make me chuckle. But not for long; clearly, there is much work to be done yet. For say, facts and truth.
- hawkeye17, on 08/12/2008, -1/+25Bat....*****.....Crazy
- stubarwick, on 08/12/2008, -1/+18Somebody has been drinking a little to much wine at communion
- RedWolves, on 08/12/2008, -3/+20She should be impeached immediately.
- greenfyre, on 08/13/2008, -3/+15And those who accept the climate change science are accused of having a religion? the magnitude of the stupidity is breathtaking.
- barblibrarian, on 08/12/2008, -3/+15Vote El Tinklenberg, MN 6th District Congressional Representative in November! We need to get this woman out of office now!!!
- barbaragordon, on 08/12/2008, -1/+12Good grief, whatever next.
- Koush, on 08/13/2008, -1/+11Why are these people in places of power!?.
- mroffroad, on 08/12/2008, -4/+13SAVE THE PLANET,... Its my home! - Satan
- inactive, on 08/13/2008, -0/+9seriously - every single person on this planet should be given 2 SUVs (with flat tires), a herd of cows plus low grade beef to feed them, a private landfill for styrofoam burning, and an instruction manual on how to properly destroy rain-forests permanently.
then we'll sit back and watch how wonderful everything turns out, cause y'know... 'He-With-The-Four-Holes' has already taken care of any damage WE could ever incur...
isn't it weird how much you just want to asphyxiate people you've never met?? - inactive, on 08/13/2008, -3/+11So, don't try to fix the problem, just believe in imaginary sky fairies.
uhhhhh.... no. - roebeet, on 08/13/2008, -1/+7She's right - we don't need Nancy Pelosi. We just need more pirates and every Friday off, and everything will be A-OK. RAmen.
- MorganMghee, on 08/14/2008, -0/+5She is also apparently depending on Him to 'save' our infrastructure, since she voted with her GOP buds on HR1344;
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3999) to amend title 23, United States Code, to improve the safety of Federal-aid highway bridges, to strengthen bridge inspection standards and processes, to increase investment in the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System.
And is also hoping He will 'save' us from the energy crisis. While her Republican voters are screaming for 'more local oil' and for oil companies to stop sending our oil out of the country, she voted again with her GOP buds AGAINST a competitive oil leasing program in the NPR, construction of a pipeline from NPR to processing facilities and additional language that would expedite all of that because the bill also says they can no longer EXPORT our American oil out of the US, and requires any new lease purchaser PROVE they have done everything within reason to develop existing leases or GIVE THEM UP for others to develop and requires prompt, transparent accurate royalty payments back to the US taxpayers. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...
All of the above regarding hr6515 is designed to do what the American pro-drilling public are asking for (I'm not one of these), drill here, drill now and sell the product here at home to aid our economy. It is possibly the most Republican bill with the most Democrat votes I've ever seen. It's a good piece of legislation that addresses a good number of the American people's ideas on both sides of the issue with an eye to bolstering the US economy. So, why then did so many GOP reps vote against this bill? Because the GOP is not what it used to be. Big oil capitalists look only for profit, and they've spent a lot of it buying the GOP.
I'm not Republican, and I don't think the 'Psych!' method of economics is ever a good idea even for the short term, but I hope you can use this example to verify for yourself that the core values of the Republican party have been taken over by corporations pretending to stand up for your ideals, and then take steps to take back your party. - stubarwick, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5I've often wondered that myself... sadly all I can do is vote as I'm not old enough to run against them yet... nor do I believe I have the background to get elected.
- Shellius, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4What a FREAK!!
I am so, so ashamed of this person. I did NOT vote for her and I'm begging everyone to please, please help out the man running against her. Do whatever you can. Bachmann is a danger to everyone. Here is his website: http://www.tinklenberg08.com/
He's got to win! - brightlight4, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4Alaska’s Caribou Will Love Oil Drilling ‘Because Of The Warmth Of The Pipeline!!!! How the HELL can she say such stupid things??? And the Polar Bears can sit around it and roast their fish too I guess can't they?
- RedWolves, on 08/13/2008, -1/+5For being incompetent, last time I checked Jesus saved us from our sins not the planet. Also he did it less then 2000 years ago. He was 33 when he was crucified so in 2033 we can say a little over 2000 years ago.
Also there is no place for religious references from our government. Separation of Church and State was put into our constitution for a reason.
You are right on one fact, I don't believe Jesus came and saved the planet. Do you? That's funny if you do. - Berkana, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5Ugh. As a Christian environmentalist, I can't help but say this: Jesus, save us from your followers.
- gox35, on 08/15/2008, -0/+3People like this give Christians a bad name
- MorganMghee, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3obamayomama: Do you expect people to take your point seriously when you make statements like that? Or should I just assume that you don't really see the difference between a baseball player defending himself against accusations that he injected performance enhancing steroids, and as a defense tactic issued something called "An Analysis of the Career of Roger Clemens," where he, I believe, read it aloud - all 18,000 mind-numbing, eye-glazing, reality-distorting words - before Congress when Clemens testified Feb. 13. Their hope, it appears, was that by droning on through all 45 pages, 38 charts and one "exhibit," apparently compiled to prove that Clemens' sub-par 2005 season was the fault of his weak-hitting Astros teammates, they would put Congress, and the rest of the country that still cared enough to watch, into a blissful, unconcerned slumber -- against a scientific study authored by 26 accomplished, educated researchers and scientists? You do no justice to your cause.
Robert (Skip) Ambrose*
USFWS Endangered Species
Ecological Services Field Office-Fairbanks
Steven C. Amstrup
USGS Alaska Science Center
Alan W. Brackney
USFWS Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Raymond D. Cameron*
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
David C. Douglas
USGS Alaska Science Center
Nancy A. Felix
USFWS Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Gerald W. Garner*
USGS Alaska Science Center
Brad Griffith
USGS Alaska Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Jerry W. Hupp
USGS Alaska Science Center
Janet C. Jorgenson
USFWS Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Peter C. Joria*
USGS Alaska Science Center
David R. Klein*
Alaska Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit
Thomas R. McCabe*
USGS Alaska Science Center
Dan J. Reed
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Harry V. Reynolds
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Patricia E. Reynolds
USFWS Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Donna G. Robertson*
USGS Alaska Science Center
Donald E. Russell
Northern Conservation
Canadian Wildlife Service
Walter T. Smith
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Mark S. Udevitz
USGS Alaska Science Center
Noreen E. Walsh*
USGS Alaska Science Center
Greg J. Weiler*
USFWS Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Robert G. White
Institute of Arctic Biology
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
Kenneth R. Whitten*
Alaska Department of
Fish and Game
Kenneth J. Wilson*
Alaska Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
Donald D. Young*
USGS Alaska Science Center
- Squidwalk, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3I'd be content with just knowing she doesn't have any future influence in government. This lady is an old-fashion kook. She even has illegal campaigning practices on more than one occasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann - blatant3, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4Aww thank you Jeebus!
- ricperry1, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3She's probably Baptist, and as such, probably is just delusional... wine not required (or permitted for that matter). BTW, I'm Baptist too. Admitting it is the first step to recovery.
- motivatedmama, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3I was oblivious once. Then I left the church.
- EatingPie, on 08/13/2008, -2/+5Even within her own world view -- a Christian philosophical framework -- she is not correct. There is "planet saving" but it hasn't actually occurred yet.
According to the Bible, during "The Fall" when Adam & Eve were cast from Eden, the Earth also fell too, "cursed be the ground because of you" said God to A&E. The Bible also says that when Christ ultimately "redeems" humanity, the world will share in that redemption -- the world is actually *waiting* for that redemption to occur. The Earth fell with humanity, it will be redeemed with humanity *at some future time*.
The Environment is a great example where politics have overridden Christianity. After all, Christ charged Christians to do his work in the world, and part of that work has to do with *saving* the Earth itself.
-Pie - Squidwalk, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3Dan, Jesus is really irrelevant in this situation. Belief in him aside, humanity has had the freakin' Industrial Revolution since his days. Other than some breakthroughs in proper urban sanitation, we are environmentally far worse than 2000 years ago.
You don't need to deny religion in politics to know that Michele Bachmann is speaking irrelevant nonsense about a serious political issue. If she wants to deny the seriousness of global warming she can provide the necessary research and facts. But to offer non-sequiturs such as this is a mockery of Congress. Her personal beliefs are clearly an obstruction to her capacity to properly accomplish her job as a Congresswoman. - Squidwalk, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Checking the wiki on her, I found that she used Congressional materials for campaigning, as well as tax-exempt churches. Seems like there's more reasons to get her out of office than her non-sequiturs.
- sgiffy, on 08/13/2008, -2/+4Oh sweet Jesus.
- greenfyre, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2@obamayomama
Environment & Climate News Publisher: The Heartland Institute
E&CN is NOT a scientific journal, the HI is a right wing industry funded 'think tank' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla ...
What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
Exposed: Fake List of 500 global warming skeptics scientist http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1618/73/
Heartland Institute Spreads FUD & Lies About Global Warming http://envirowonk.com/content/view/183/1/
Heartland Institute deniers denied by 'U' profs http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diary ...
Four hundred skeptics? Try 19 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5 ...
Top Scientists Demand Names Removed From Climate List http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-docu ...
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/category/climate-cran ... - MorganMghee, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2Oh yeah, definition of regime per encarta:
Definition:
1. form of government: a system or style of government
2. particular government: the government of a particular country, especially one that is considered to be oppressive
3. controlling group: any controlling or managing group, or the system of control and management adopted by it
4. established system: an established system or way of doing things
5. characteristic conditions for process: the characteristic conditions under which a natural, scientific, or industrial process occurs
What part of that doesn't sound like the hold big oil has on our government. I'm objective, I've objectively researched and come to the same conclusion most Americans have according to the sector political campaign contributions records and any poll of your choosing, that Big Oil Has Control of Our Government. - Shellius, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2She is seriously delusional. She told a reporter that God also told her to the run for Congress, after fasting for 3 days and during resulting hallucinations, she said she heard the voice of god. (It sounded like a stomach rumbling with hunger).
Help us defeat her: http://www.tinklenberg08.com/ - MorganMghee, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2I added the link so that you could check yourself, thus removing the 'trust me on this' factor. You'll need to provide me with the same if you would like me to evaluate your research. And I think if you will review the study criteria, you'll agree the methods are universally accepted and would be used by any similar study. Sure, an on the ground tag and record study would greatly improve the accuracy (but probably not alter the averages) but such studies are expensive and often quashed or disregarded by the oil regime. No one will fund an exhaustive detailed study, but they are sure quick to blame the methods as inaccurate and inadequate when they appear to be resulting in findings not in keeping with their agenda. I would be happy to review other equally credible reports you may have access to, this is the most current, thorough qualified data I could find and have yet to find any article disputing it.
- MorganMghee, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2You are simply wrong: http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/index.htm
In this report, prepared for congress, you will find the exact opposite is true. - MorganMghee, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2Surely, I did, by referring you to the method criteria.
Let's begin with your first link, which is not a study but in fact a paper based on lots of other papers. Most of the papers having been written from '92-'95 and this paper was funded by..wait for it...BP Exploration Alaska. Almost all of the resource papers cited are written by LGL Alaska Research Assoc. FOR BP. I'm sorry, but this 'source' clearly does not pass the credible qualified data requirement.
Next: The Caribou Question article directly relates to the study I've cited, and each claim denounced by the writer has been more recently studied and updated in my citation, the quality and location of the foraging available during crucial calving and rearing seasons is effected by development.
Finally: The article authored by Matthew Cronin would need to be lumped into the same category as your first link, for the same reason, as Mr. Cronin works for said LGL aka Alaska Research Associates. A quick look at LGL's sectors page will give you an idea of the sorts of private companies they probably do business with.
Again, it's really hard to put a private organization up against purely scientific team and expect to generate the same level of trust and lack of bias. Oil is not the only sector facing the problem, human generated global climate change has it's share of denouncers and it comes down to the same issue basically, 'who ya gonna trust?' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQPC-M5lS4k - Squidwalk, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, I'm sorry I misunderstood. When it comes down to it, I don't know a whole lot about the impeachment process, I'm glad you taught me that incompetence in office isn't enough to fire a Congresswoman, I'll be one less guy shouting "Impeach" wrongly from now on.
Not to derive too much, but could she be impeached for the campaigning violations? - neognostic, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Here's next, another quote attributed to Bachmann - During a radio interview on Wednesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to argue that drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) would be beneficial for Arctic wildlife. Bachmann claimed that drilling would cause not only an “enhancement of wildlife expansion,” but that the area around oil pipelines would also “become a meeting ground and ‘coffee klatch‘ for caribou”:
- MorganMghee, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1You can defend and point all you like. Your three sources are only 2, and the third IS addressed within the research I provided. Heartland is an Oil advocacy group, and Cronin a debunked flunky. The poll you quote used biased questions based on a lie that drilling will bring down gas prices, and was already replaced by an unbiased poll. The results contradict the previous poll. You, still need to be in your seat studying.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobi ...
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080728/poll-truth-c ...
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/BRS ... - Squidwalk, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Dan,
I'm glad to see we're on the same page with the incompetence. But RedWolves and my objection to how she used a non-sequitur to dismiss the serious issue of global warming certainly isn't idiocy. If you were to take your car to a mechanic because it is smoking, and the mechanic does not think there is a problem, you'd want a real explanation as to why. Congress members are not in their representative position to dismiss facts.
You're right that incompetence is not a crime, but it is the leading reason people are fired. If you still don't buy that, then she should be removed from office for using Congressional materials for campaigning purposes and for using tax exempt churches as a campaigning method. Really, there's a lot to call Bachmann on, she's been a pretty crummy and illegal congresswoman. - gox35, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1god knows:)
- satirical, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2Jesus, you saved our planet but ***** our government. Thanks a lot!
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+0@ MorganMghee: “Let's begin with your first link, which is not a study but in fact a paper based on lots of other papers. Most of the papers having been written from '92-'95…” Did you not read the very report you cited to me? If you had, you’d know that in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section it states that “Much of the research reported in this document was designed and conducted between 1988-1994 while Thomas R. McCabe served as the Senior Scientist and Coordinator.” Pot meet Kettle.
You charge, “The Caribou Question article directly relates to the study I've cited, and each claim denounced by the writer has been more recently studied and updated in my citation…” Sorry, but you’re wrong again. Not only does your source not deal with most of the issues raised, but click on the ‘References” link on the report you cite and you’ll see a list of references dating back to 1973 for God’s sake. The most recent I could find is 2001- the same year as the article you attack as antiquated. Pot meet Kettle- again.
As for your assertion that my source is “not a study but in fact a paper based on lots of other papers,” are you also unaware that the “Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries” paper is as well? In their own words much of the report sections “summarize previously published peer-reviewed scientific papers and were reviewed by a single independent scientist.” That’s right on the index of the first page. Pot, I think you already know Kettle.
Your attack on Matthew Cronin is particularly ugly, since Mr. Cronin is a PhD, an affiliate professor at the University of Alaska, and has published extensively in the wildlife-related research journals on the relationship between the Prudhoe Bay oil field and its caribou herds. He is respected as thorough and fair by all but a few radical environmentalists. As for the Heartland Institute, 84% of their funding comes from individuals and foundations. No corporation gives more than 5% annually.
You write, “Oil is not the only sector facing the problem, human generated global climate change has it's share of denouncers and it comes down to the same issue basically, 'who ya gonna trust?'” I dunno… the funding sources for the study you cite are government sources primarily. Funny how the left is so distrustful of government these days- unless, of course it fits with their agenda. I tend to trust my neighbors before government, and yeah, “Big Oil” are my neighbors. The bulk of ‘Big Oil’ benefactors are hardworking men and women across America who boost their retirement portfolios through oil and natural gas stock. In fact, only 1.5 percent of company shares are owned by industry executives. The rest are owned by mutual fund investors, or those planning for retirement with pension and IRA funds. A study by economists Robert J. Shapiro and Nam D. Pham found: “Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700,” so realize that when you want to stick it to “Big Oil,” you’re primarily hurting the little guy (not to mention people who drive cars, i.e. just about everyone in the US.) As for your assertion that climate change is “human generated” that is open for a debate on another day, but it’s not the issue we’ve been discussing. Terms like “Big Oil,” and “Oil Regime” do reveal a lot about your leanings, though.
As for your rant on the “definition of regime per Encarta,” it’s a little bit semantics and a little bit ridiculous, especially in light of the previous paragraph that proves that “Big Oil,” is, in fact, most Americans. Let me address the last part though… You write, “I'm objective, I've objectively researched and come to the same conclusion most Americans have according to the sector political campaign contributions records and any poll of your choosing, that Big Oil Has Control of Our Government.” What the hell are you talking about here? Is it the presidential election? If it is, despite the fact that Senator Obama has painted Senator McCain as a “Big Oil” guy, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics says that “about $1.3 million (of McCain’s contributions) has come from political action committees and individuals tied to the oil and gas industries. The ad does not point out that Obama has collected at least $1.3 million from the energy/natural resources sector. About $400,000 came from oil or gas company workers.” Poll of my choosing? OK, how about Zogby’s poll on June 20, 2008 which found 74% Support Off-Shore Oil Drilling in U.S. Coastal Waters, and 59% of likely voters favor drilling in ANWR. Time to face reality.
As for you, greenfyre, if you can form a cohesive argument and you’d like to discuss issues, I’m all for that, but I’m not going to respond to a random list of very questionable websites. Sorry. - inactive, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1You don't seem to get it. I'm making a point about the impeachment remark. Impeachment is reserved for elected officials who commit high crimes and misdemeanors. That's it. I said the fact that people are calling for impeachment is idiocy, not the fact that you object to her remarks. You don't go impeaching people because they say something you don't like. If her employers (her constituency) wants to fire her that's fine they just need to vote her out of office.
For the last time, my point is about the impeachment remark and has nothing to do with what she said or what she believes. - inactive, on 08/18/2008, -1/+0I note that you didn't address the fact that your info is equally as aged as that which I provided, and yet you suggested my sources were dated AND you didn't address the fact that you hypocritically asserted that my source was "a paper based on lots of other papers," despite the fact that I've proven yours was as well.
I also see that as I've successfully skewered your sacred cows, you resort to pure opinion and name-calling and abandon any factual arguments- i.e. "debunked flunky," "based on a lie that drilling will bring down gas prices," ect. For your coup de grace you provide links to left wing websites as evidence. What a joke. The poll I cited was Zogby- an established entity that is regarded as credible by almost fair-minded individuals. The poll you provided was conducted for the "Wilderness Society" (no agenda there, huh) and contains very dubious questions posed to- well we don't know who the questions were posed to. So I must use one of your lines in an earlier post, "who ya gonna believe?" Certainly not the propaganda you're citing here. - inactive, on 08/13/2008, -3/+2"For being incompetent"
Incompetence? Is that a high crime? A misdemeanor? Didn't think so.
"Separation of Church and State was put into our constitution for a reason."
A reason you don't seem to understand. Please explain to me how this woman's views on global warming and her personal religious views violate either the establishment or free exercise clause.
I'm not debating what she said. I'm pointing out the sheer idiocy of this mindset where if a politician says something you dislike or disagree with you come running shouting "Impeach! Impeach!" - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -2/+0My point was that just because a report is submitted to congress doesn't make it credible. It may well be, but not for that reason. Do you dismiss the research I cited in the the Biological Conservation Journal? There are many noteworthy biologists there as well.
Furthermore, caribou populations are notoriously hard to measure for a number of reasons and are, according to the study you cite, "estimated from aerial photo-censuses," not a very accurate method. If we do accept the study, it seems to suggest that herd populations rise and fall in response to a number of different factors. Figure 3.8. also indicates that populations were on the increase during some of the heaviest oil production years. - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -2/+0Hate to dim that glow of yours, brightlight4, but let me shine a ray of truth on the matter:
A series of scientific papers published since 1992 consistently show that the caribou population has increased dramatically during the period of oil field development, and caribou herds regularly use ranges in the oil fields. Another paper published in 1998, in the journal Biological Conservation, showed the size of the caribou herd that uses the oil fields has increased dramatically (from about 5,000 animals to more than 23,000) since the oil fields were first developed. - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -2/+0I must say, your use of the term "oil regime" makes me somewhat suspect of your objectivity, and I've taken note that you haven't addressed the issues I raised with the report in terms of natural population cycles; i.e. the likelihood of populations increasing and declining due to natural cycles.
Here's a study that appears to be even more in depth than the one you provided, entitled "Caribou Distribution During the Post-Calving Period in Relation to Infrastructure in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, Alaska."
Among other things, the study states, "In summary, the log-linear analysis, without combining data into intervals, indicate that caribou distribution in the PBOF is unrelated to the covariates (distance from infrastructure, distance from the coast, Julian data, year). The log-linear analyses of the caribou in distance intervals suggest that caribou prefer habitats near infrastructure to those farther away. Our analyses suggest that caribou, rather than avoiding oil field infrastructure, occur independent of, or close to, infrastructure. Our analyses also indicate that caribou distribution was unrelated to distance from the coast, interactions between the distance from the coast and the distance from infrastructure, Julian date, and year of the survey."
And here's the link to the PDF: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic51-2-85. ...
In addition,the following article from the Property & Environmental Research Center, which states, "The weight of evidence suggests that the oil facilities built in the late 1960s have not visibly harmed the caribou that migrate through the Prudhoe Bay area. While there are speculative reasons to be concerned about the larger herd of caribou migrating in ANWR, the evidence of likely harm is weak."
Here's the link: http://www.perc.org/articles/article309.php
And Matthew Cronin, PHD wrote the original article I quoted, which was published in Environment & Climate News. Here's the link to that: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1123 - inactive, on 08/13/2008, -5/+2On what grounds? Believing in something you don't? Not a high crime or misdemeanor last time I checked.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is