What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- Nintendesert, on 05/17/2009, -8/+37With a super majority in the Congress and a new President in charge, I'm not sure how long someone can keep blaming Bush for not getting an agenda passed.
- ousthouse, on 05/17/2009, -1/+17These "Bush officials" mentioned in the article are now "Obama officials"... hell, many of them were once "Clinton officials".
- rarson, on 05/17/2009, -16/+27Maybe cap and trade is just a dumb ***** idea, and you should stop trying to force your opinions onto everyone else.
- yeahwhatever58, on 05/17/2009, -2/+9mksmothers-
I'm right there with you. This whole global warming and the carbon footprint crap that supposedly we are destroying our planet is just a big hoax. There are literally thousands and thousands of scientists out there that are not signing on to this theory. This is just a political ploy used by the left in order to gain more control over our liberties by issuing bogus regulations and bogus taxes at their command. - thesonofdarwin, on 05/17/2009, -2/+8Since I know the 'hippie dippie' denigraters can't be hassled to take the time to do the research themselves.
Mann et al. (1998) and Jones et al. (1998) confirm the 1C change in the northern hemisphere for the Little Ice Age. The IPCC Second Assessment Report, deMenocal et al (2000)., and many others, confirm the 0.5C global change. - thesonofdarwin, on 05/17/2009, -2/+8mksmothers - I take if you've never taken an Ecology class if you think what I said doesn't make any sense. Only hippies educate themselves though, right? Take some time to educate yourself because throwing 'hippie' into every one of your posts isn't going to get you far in an intellectual conversation.
- dalexandruz, on 05/17/2009, -2/+8How about we go with a mix of nuclear power, solar, wind and get rid of coal completely. Lets try to find a way to reuse rods left over from nuclear power plants instead of dumping them in the mountain. Coal burning more damaging compared to cars and homes. Solar is best suited in California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama, georgia, etc... all the sunny places). Wind would be great in the Midwest and east, I'm sure Chicago and New York would benefit from wind. The government has to stop stifling innovation, change the patent system and stop pissing away our tax money. Social Security and Medicare cost Projection in the next 10 years is about 30+ trillion. People need to stop eating poison if they want to be free from health issues. Greed and Gluttony is our major problem here in the u.s.
- 4321234, on 05/17/2009, -1/+7bush
- leandrotami, on 05/17/2009, -0/+5You.
- pingveno, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6One party state FTW!
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -1/+6Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -0/+4GWBush "totalled" the nation of the USA as if he were a drunken frat-brat driving daddy's car in a black-out. It may not be possible to recover, but I appreciate President Obama's willingness a determination to try to do just that.
- inactive, on 05/17/2009, -3/+7Humans.
- r0g3r, on 05/17/2009, -1/+5I think you're accusing the wrong side of "supporting global warming."
And with regards to your take on the ecology, ignorance breeds apathy. Just because some people are ignorant and apathetic doesn't mean others shouldn't be working on the problem. - mksmothers, on 05/17/2009, -5/+9I agree, because the republican party spent way too much money and Obama is for changing from spending too much money.
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3How will political manipulation of CO2 output produce cleaner air and water? You are not thinking clearly.
- Spudster, on 05/17/2009, -2/+5Life.
- fury420, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3you mean those "thousands and thousands of scientists" who got together to sign those big "thousands of scientists against Kyoto petitions a few years back?
the ones with little to no credibility, full of names of celebrities, fictitious characters, duplicates, and people who do not fit the definition of "scientists"?
oh, those "thousands and thousands of scientists" - Spudster, on 05/17/2009, -9/+12lol biggest challenge facing mankind
- thesonofdarwin, on 05/17/2009, -6/+9Vault, you do realize that the Little Ice Age was caused by a mere 0.5C change in global temperature and around 1C in the northern hemisphere, right?
I think I'll leave out the 'lol' comment trend because you are 'lol' enough for everyone. Small changes in average climate is what caused these huge disasters in the past. - DankBuddz, on 05/18/2009, -0/+3That's simply not true. The regulations aren't necessary. If we were operating in a free market, then consumers, including environmentalists, would weed out companies that were proving to be destructive.
No, we tried this, and we had rivers filled with *****. I'm at work, and don't have time to debate, but I wish I did. But I do have time to say that your entire logic of letting capitalism regulate the environment is laughable. I can't debate you on this subject if you seriously believe capitalism and the "free market" can keep the environment safe. Its probably one of the most retarded suggestions I've heard on Digg. Well, its not retarded, because in theory, the idea sounds nice. But so does communism and socialism and capitalism. None of which ever operate ethically.
As for cap and trade or a co2 tax, those are regulations to curb GHG emissions. Another example of regulating business to agree with environmental issues. There's really nothing more to it than that. I suggest maybe you study ecological issues as they relate to the economy, you'd probably learn quite a bit.
As for the government job, I was in the military and I currently work for a municipality. Trust me, I know how they operate. Thanks for the tip.
I also stand by my comment about capitalism. I know very well how it works, its obvious we have difference in opinion. - Ekdog, on 05/17/2009, -1/+4There is no such thing as "clean coal" but I do agree that nuclear power should be a part of the energy mix.
- SpinningHead, on 05/18/2009, -2/+4No future benefits of clean air and water?!
- nextTopModel, on 05/17/2009, -2/+4Tesla all-electric sedan, for example, uses about 1 cent of electricity per mile. A comparable gasoline car uses 16 cents of gasoline per mile http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/magazine/19car-t ...
- fury420, on 05/19/2009, -0/+2yes... that is the petition project that i was laughing about above... "31,000 scientists"
the one that contains celebrities, actors, duplicate names, people who have no idea they are on the petition, or who have changed their views since its publication. Efforts to verify the names have for the most part failed miserably. furthermore, I am unsure what kind of useful qualifications mechanical engineers bring to a climate-change related petition
oh, and after looking through your link... why is 80% of what it says more than a decade out of date? using data that ends in the 90s seems suspect, as does the fact that they are attempting to use local/regional data to disprove global trends. out of the 30 or so graphs on that page, only four deal with global figures, and the rest instead deal with a limited # of sample locations, data pulled from specific regions; california, "the atlantic", the Saragossa sea, "the arctic", The US, etc...
furthermore, the study's conclusion is laughable, as if human society, population & geographic distribution has not changed in the past 3000 years, and we'd all be perfectly fine, no, thrive with the effects of temperature increases... leaving out the massive amounts of the earth's population which lives in low-lying coastal areas, or who get their freshwater from aquifers dangerously close to sea-level, and pollution by saltwater. - inactive, on 05/17/2009, -6/+8Tax and trade will fail because environmentalists have no credibilty to be demanding trillions of dollars in 'action' while having no accountability for future benefits. There are none. Tax and trade will die. The problem is many state governments are hostile to the expansion of clean coal and nuclear power in the grid, and consumers will pay higher prices in the future because of it.
- mksmothers, on 05/17/2009, -1/+3If it wasn't so damn expensive I'd buy one.
- DankBuddz, on 05/17/2009, -4/+6Its not an opinion or agenda, its science and reality. The only way things like the clean water act and clean air act get through congress is if you put a price on the environment.
Mixing environmental issues with capitalism doesn't work out all so well. Nothing we haven't seen before. - DankBuddz, on 05/18/2009, -1/+3Look at the WPA, clean water and clean air acts and then tell me you don't need legislation to clean up the environment. Without legislation, nobody would give a ***** about the environment, or comply with regulations because... how can comply with environmental regulations without legislation?
I would love to hear your story about how our air and water would be as clean as it is without the clean water act or clean air act and those environmental legislations. I'd LOVE to hear it. Don't even bring up cap and trade if you clearly have no idea how environmental issues are solved by legislation.
And no, I'm not talking about corporatism, I'm talking about capitalism.
You're out of your element, Donny. - accruels, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2dugg for simpsons reference
- nextTopModel, on 05/17/2009, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun
- cherrysweet00, on 05/18/2009, -0/+2By "haunt" does that mean they're literally sneaking around outside somewhere? Or is it just that their somehow infiltrating the brains of the vast number of deniers out there who think Global Warming is a hoax? Well done, sirs!
- fury420, on 05/19/2009, -0/+2oh... He clearly mentions the greening/melting of Greenland, the increases in useful land as a result, yet makes no mention of the up to 25ft raise in global sea levels which would be the result of the volume of ice contained in the greenland ice sheet melting... why not?
- DankBuddz, on 05/17/2009, -3/+4Glad I'm not as ***** stupid as you. Phew!
- mksmothers, on 05/17/2009, -2/+3likewise hippie.
- thesonofdarwin, on 05/17/2009, -2/+3In the case of environmentalism, there were no crimes because he didn't violate any laws. So no, even as an environmentalist, it's idiotic to think Bush should be tried for his assistance in destroying the environment. On other fronts, however, where there were laws violated that's a different story completely.
- professor357, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Seriously, you really think you can get credible science from the tools that post to Wikipedia?
Wikipedia science is corrupted by the envirowackos, who spend their time trashing any science that happens to be posted that doesn't follow the IPCC party line, all the while promoting the agenda of their minor deities... Al Gore & Jim Hansen.
When 'Inconvenient Truth' is touted as an attempt to educate the public about the truths of global warming, you have clear evidence of the bias.
In discussing the Global Warming Controversy, we find:
"The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming.[14] This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the films An Inconvenient Truth and The 11th Hour."
This excerpt comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro ... - rarson, on 05/18/2009, -2/+3"The only way things like the clean water act and clean air act get through congress is if you put a price on the environment."
Your goal shouldn't be to pass legislation. Your goal should be to clean up the environment. Regulations don't actually solve problems, they simply create loopholes which corporations to exploit to make matters worse. This should be blatantly obvious just by the nature of how cap and trade works.
"Mixing environmental issues with capitalism doesn't work out all so well. Nothing we haven't seen before."
You're not talking about capitalism, you're talking about corporatism. A free market would easily take care of environmental issues. - tomwerman, on 05/17/2009, -7/+8one can only hope
- mksmothers, on 05/17/2009, -7/+8Hippies hate it when you contradict their little fantasies. I didn't say that global warming was a myth, I said that we human beings are not contributing to it.
So go back to you and your hippie dippie friends and pretend that what you are doing actually contributes in any way to the fate of the earth. It doesn't. Do you know what REALLY contributes to global warming, hippie? See that bright thing in the sky? Its the sun.
And did you REALLY use wikipedia as a primary source? What are you 12? - OriginalLucid1, on 05/18/2009, -2/+3Whoever is holding up any kind of "Global Warming" legislation is a hero to me. It is clearly a hoax designed to redistribute wealth and I hope it never comes to pass.
- yeahwhatever58, on 05/19/2009, -0/+1Oh, I see...and I am supposed to take the word of politicians and actors and celebrities who come out in support of the bogus global warming theories?? And you don't think that there has been any scientists, who used to believe in global warming, that now they have jumped ship because of all the conflicting evidence out there?? This is my point. This is such a hot topic for debate and there is very compelling evidence to the contrary that you can't just dismiss. It is a typical ploy to attack the messenger as uncredible in order to sidestep the message and the evidence. So following by your claims about not believing in celebrities and actors, I would have to assume the same thing applies both ways.
If you looked carefully through all the charts and support material, you will find that there is support past the 1990's. What you have to keep in mind is that these studies started after the Kyoto gathering in 1997. They started this research in 1998 and so you will see evidence to support that time period....even some afterwards...but that doesn't change the facts and evidence for hundreds of years prior. Plus, there is enough evidence provided to where the past few years are not going to make a material difference to the debate when the evidence provided goes back hundreds of years and in some cases, thousands of years.
There is nothing laughable about the conclusion. The only thing laughable is your inability to accept anything other than what supports your political beliefs. Because in the end, that is what this is all about. Global warming and the supposed destruction of our earth through CO2 emissions is a political ploy to advance a cause that the far left wants to achieve. They want more regulation and more control brought to the government over people's lives and they use this whole scam issue to enact more laws and regulations that infringe on our basic freedoms and liberty. Along the way, through more regulations comes more restrictions and more tax dollars received...giving the government more and more control and power.
By the way, why is it that we never hear that it is the activity of the sun that causes much of what happens, not man made activity?? You talk about sea levels rising, etc. etc.......why is this always related to man made activity and no credence is ever given to the activity of the sun??? The evidence is there to support the fact that the sun's activity is responsible. The reason why the left doesn't talk about that is because it would diffuse their whole "let's blame the people so we can take control over their lives" strategy. It's all a sham. - Adrian540, on 05/17/2009, -2/+3NUKE THE WHALES
- professor357, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1ROTFLMAO!!!
- g00dETH3R, on 05/18/2009, -3/+4"Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? ...: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
- Reid Bryson
Chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology - rarson, on 05/18/2009, -2/+3"Without legislation, nobody would give a ***** about the environment, or comply with regulations because... how can comply with environmental regulations without legislation?"
That's simply not true. The regulations aren't necessary. If we were operating in a free market, then consumers, including environmentalists, would weed out companies that were proving to be destructive. All those people buying Insights, CFLs, and other green technology would push bad businesses out of the market.
Besides, when people own private property, they have an incentive to protect their own property. Businesses that dump waste, for instance, do so for the most part on "public" property (it's not really public property because it is owned by the state).
If you think that the government actually takes care of public property or even follows its own regulations, I suggest you get a government job sometime and see how they actually operate. Not only does the government get a free pass, but those regulations that you seem to love allow loopholes that legalize the very actions you're railing against. Cap and trade, for instance, allows any company who wants to pollute as long as they pay money for it. How exactly do you expect that to help the environment?
All it will do is generate revenue for companies selling credits, allowing them to kick back politicians who will protect the companies paying to pollute. You, as a consumer, will have no power to force a polluting business out of the market because of the regulations in place. That's corporatism, not capitalism; I think you don't actually understand what capitalism is. Capitalism doesn't exist without a free market.
Since you swifty avoided any argument at all about cap and trade, perhaps you'd like to comment on the actual subject at hand. - SpinningHead, on 05/18/2009, -1/+2You refer to the "expansion of clean coal" as if its real and question my clarity? Cap and trade involves total emissions, not just CO2.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is