What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
All tees - $10 view!
threadless.com - Threadless.com's Holiday Sale is full of awesomeness. $10 t-shirts, holy moley!
278 Comments
- strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -30/+129Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration like to use the "Big Lie" propaganda technique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie - lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -18/+76Great reference. This part is really appropriate...
"...never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+65Of course Global Warming isn't ‘Caused By Man’
Women are responsible too you know. Y'all can't just blame us guys. - edgeoforever, on 10/12/2007, -16/+64As Colbert put it, as long as there's one voice against it, the "no consensus" BS can be trotted.
- skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -14/+54"And you think Al Gore and the UN doesn't use this philosophy in the "global warming" debate."
Yes! You finally figured it all out. Al Gore and the UN made it all up! All those scientists are part of the REAL big lie campaign to spread their socialist agenda and make you think the Earth is warming because of us, when all along it's methane from plants and cows and volcanos!
/sarcasm - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45It's interesting to note that, a decade ago, the same "group" of people were denying that there was any evidence of Global Warming. That it was all propaganda. Now they admit Global Warming exists as if they had never argued against its existence, but change their tactic to whether it is caused by man.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Zoom: The Global Cooling theory was never widely accepted and was backed up by only some volcanic explosion data. The theory was disregarded when proven wrong. That is what science is about, as more evidence comes to light, new theories or modification occur.
What's your reason for not believing in the evidence? - draebor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Well there's no CONSENSUS on this... but at least 90% of us think you're full of *****, Cheney.
- DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Global warming became politicized because people like Dick Cheney politicized it. Because there is no scientific argument against global warming since there is no coherent argument against it, the strategy shifts from disproving it scientifically to disproving it POLITICALLY.
So, for Republicans, global warming is nothing but a cause de force for the Democratic party. Or it's an ideological plot by socialists to bankrupt America. Or its just a bunch of scientists trying to get more funding so they can keep getting food on their table. ANYTHING to reframe the argument away from the science and into debatable territory where the science isn't as important as the allegedly evil forces behind it. - ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25For a non biased view by the people who do care about the enviroment :
http://www.ucsusa.org/
The Bush Administration is obviously bought body and soul by the those in control of engery and power. Think about it, Iraq was all about oil, the fact that it did take out a loudmouth unstable despot like Saddam was just icing on the cake.
There are developments in many areas where engery consavation in both vehicles and in the home are made by scientists but a whole lot of those advances are generally ignored and put on the backburner to die out since its more profitable both for the oil companies as well as those who are in charge of that field not to mention those who recieve "donations" from patrons in that field to keep gas / oil comsumption the way it is never mind the impact it has on the climate.
Those of you who have watched "An Inconvient Truth", should have a good idea what that climate change can mean. While I felt that that movie was perhaps over "dramaticised" it had more then just a seed of truth. And the fact is, as long as there is some truth in what the scientist have been saying, its something we cannot just ignore.
"90% probability of human involvement causing the climate change doesn't mean its fact...." is fracking ***** and I am pretty sure Cheney knows it even before it came out of his mouth. - aut665, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17What we need is scientists with a bigger say in politics than politicians.
- rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Am I the only one that feels that when Cheney says, "Its not our fault," then thats a pretty good indication that its our fault?
- TimHasAGayfro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19If you people that say it is not real would just actually look at the research on your own and not think about politics you would see that painful truth. People that say Florida is going to be underwater in 50 are as dumb as the people saying it is not real. We are having an effect.
The IPCC has no reason to be biased. The report is designed to give governments suggestions on what to do. It is a complete consensus of all of the countries that put resources into. There were something like 125+. - JordanV32, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13i took a class this year that focused on climatology and i have spent many many hours studying the IPCC's reports. While i cannot deny the fact of increased carbon based molecules and methanes in the atmosphere, there is a definite discrepancy about whether the earth IS on a the natural warming stage of a cycle. There is a 22,000 year cycle for CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and a 8,000 year cycle for methane levels, and we have been overdue almost 1000 years for another influx of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. All of these cycles depend on the earths rotational axis, which is not perfectly balanced, and the minute differences in the angles at which the earth rotates makes a huge difference in the climate. In fact, these rotations cause miniature ice ages and warm spells; our last "miniature ice age" was during the medieval times, and some scientists believe the change in climate helped develop the bubonic plague into what a horrific epidemic it was. But cycles in the earths continual rotation are not the only things that can cause global warming or cooling. mass production of grains and plants that began as our earliest civilizations were being founded produced drastic changes in CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere at the time, and farming has still has had a greater effect on global warming than actual industrial smog. and yes, methane produced by cow farts actually does have a significant effect on the climate, as dubcanada mentioned. So even though Cheney is being stubborn with his refusal to believe in the fault of human industrialization for global warming, there are many many other factors that are at play here, and he is in the right to be skeptical about our present situation. the farming production that we have been doing for centuries has had a much greater effect than the damage we have done in the past few years, and if other large developing nations(ie china, india) are not going to do anything about limiting our damage to the environment, then why should we
- MicheBel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19@strangerzero
Thank you for that. I knew what it was, I just didn't see it in black and white so concisely.
I so wanted to believe that Americans could see through that though. Guess not. - spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22"...never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."
Sounds like my ex-gf - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15It's a shame he won't live long enough to see how retarded he is. Of course, D.C. could be underwater and he'd still blame it on terrorists or something.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8perhaps you should read the definition of consensus
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consensus&x=0&y=0
con·sen·sus
–noun, plural -sus·es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony. - Gardimus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11 "Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty." -Dick Cheney
I guess that doesn't apply to Global Warming. - SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@zoom182:
Obviously, there are localised sources you can pick that show warming and localised sources that show cooling. The only think that shows is that you can't make statements about global average temperature by cherrypicking sources.
> That's why you still hear scientists talk about global cooling. It's the politicians that are talking the loudest about global warming. You
> have to know who to pay attention to. When it comes to science or technology, obviously you want to ignore the politicians. From
> seeing the anti-science bias here, it's obvious too many kids here are not very well read, don't know recent history, and listen too
> much to politicians.
You're certainly correct that people listen too much to politicans and not enough to scientists -- but if you seriously believe that it's only politicians who talk about global warming, I'm afraid you've been gravely misinformed.
"Global cooling" first. This has been a conflageration of two seperate issues. Firstly is the 100,000 year cycle of ice ages. Certainly many scientists are saying we are due for an ice age, and have been saying so for decades; but in this context, "due" means "may happen at some point in the next 10,000 years". Consider that the IPCC global warming prediction figures are for the next 100 years. These are completely different timescales, and certainly the not in contradiction to each other.
The second issue, manmade global cooling, is much more minor, and was never widely accepted; the idea that there was a consensus on manmade global cooling due to carbon dioxide is a myth. It partly rose out of a severly out of context Washington Post quote in the early 1970s from the National Academy of Sciences; that was then repeated in a sensationalist Newsweek article in 1975, which Newsweek (much) later withdrew and apologised for. Claims that this amounted to a scientific consensus are simply wrong. For example, here's a climate change report summary from 1970 I found: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/scep-1970.html. Mentions global warming. Doesn't mention global cooling.
Regarding the actual issue at hand, global warming: you're right, we should get the date from the climate scientist rather than the politicians, and conveniently, there was a recent international conference on climate change by climate scientists on global warming; the report from which you can read at http://www.ipcc.ch/. I commend it to your attention, since it is apparent you have not yet seen it. - 81v3d07g0d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Seriously does no one get it? Why does it matter who or what caused global warming... as far as I can tell its a fact. Since its a fact, the results and consequences are real, and it will effects both human beings and animals in a very significant way. So why don't we stop arguing about who or why and start preparing for the negative results of it.
I mean WTF people, I don't know why people cant see this. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8it also seems that some corporations have said, "ok ***** this *****, we've gotta change immediately to the detriment of all especially the poor nations." here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/20/global.warming.pact.reut/index.html
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It's sad, though, than in a scientific matter politicians have bigger talk than scientists themselves, this fact alone shows how many things gone wrong with all this Global Warming matter
- ggko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9No consensus on Iraq's threat either, yet you still invaded, Mr. Cheney.
You can argue erring on the side of caution on that, but then why not with this too? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Of course since facts are not democratic, that really doesnt mean ***** now does it? Scicence is based on evidence, not voting.
- WilyOne, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1140-50 years ago all the "scientific experts" were worried about the Coming Ice Age.
The bottom line is, Man is not as smart as he thinks he is. Any time any "expert" is sure about anything, don't believe him. Science is a process, and when your're talking about something as complex as global climate, we humans are nowhere close to fully understanding it. - Nevrast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A wise man once said "Go ***** yourself, Mr. Cheney."
- SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@aut665:
> What we need is scientists with a bigger say in politics than politicians.
No! What we need is a *seperation* of science from politics. Other countries manage to keep science (and especially global warming) seperate from left-right politics, and are all the better for it; why can't America?
(Not, of course, that politicians shouldn't be advised by Scientists when legislation is regarding a scientific issue; but Scientists Are Not Politicians, and Politicians Are Not Scientists, and neither should pretend to be the other.) - SpaceDreamer, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19They'll probably blame the chinese when the finally acknowledge that it's caused by man.
- eddigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Why is it that the global warming nut cases seem to ignore the fact that the last ice age was only a few thousand years ago and maybe, just maybe we are in a natural "warming" period. Too bad these idiots won't be around in 10,000+ years when their asses will be frozen in some glacier.
- chewbaka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11In unrelated news:
America: 'No Consensus That Cheney/Bush Actually 'Elected by Public'' - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Cheney has had quite a week:
"England is withdrawing their troops, which shows that we are succeeding in Iraq. We are surging more US troops,which shows we are succeeding in Iraq"
"Global warming? Yes, I agree with that report. Except the part where the consensus was that man was responsible. I didn't see that" - SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@lowrentdiggs: What colour is the sky in your world?
Pisceanmars is right, guys: it's only America where global warming has somehow, utterly irrationally, become politicised. Indeed, it is only in America where *science* has become politicised. In every other country I have been to, science is kept quite seperate from left-right politics, and rightly so. (Indeed, most sensible countries also manage to keep *religion* seperate from left-right politics, but that's a rant for another day...). - BaxterK, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Seems to be a lot of hot air coming from right, wonder if that has something to do with it.
- lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ GeneralAntilles
I agree that we need to get together to support our country!!!
How about this: increase the nation's CAFE requirement significantly. Cut off all oil company subsidies. Put this into helping our farmers produce new crops and our industry to use them to produce bio fuels. Train our workers/former soldiers to build distributed energy sources (local wind, solar, geothermal heat pumps, etc). Do these and other things so we no longer have to import oil. This will mean less GW gasses, fewer reasons to put our kids into harm's way in resource wars and put us back into a leadership position in the world's community. Everybody wins! Are you with me? (I'm serious.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Bush called it "climate change". He also didn't attribute it to human activity. I'm not sure if this is moronic optimism, or pure ignorance.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Amazing! someone actually added a knowledgeable comment!
- SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6lowrentdiggs: sarcasm detectors don't work when the position that people are sarcastically portraying for rhetoric effect is actually less extreme than the position taken by some of the extremists in real life...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Here's an inconvenient truth: Al Gore and Bill Clinton ran this country for almost a full decade, what "radical" reforms occurred under their administration to combat global warming? And no, none of the "reforms" Al Gore mentioned they did in his film were not even close to being radical. They didn't force tough environmental standards on this country due to the severe economic impacts, just like the Bush administration. Those who live in glass houses....
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"when theres no published scientific data that doubts or denys global warming"
Please tell me you are not really that stupid... - omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Actually, there is. There was a consensus handed down by over 2500 scientists from 130 countries which said that it is 90% likely that global warming is man made. It came out less than a month ago.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Cheney's a goddamn megalomaniac. He also says the war option with Iran is still on the table. I wouldn't expect reality to ***** up his narrow world view.
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Global Warming is the NEW RELIGION for Suckers! You have to believe in it, even though you cant see it, the prophets (professors) all say its going to bring disaster, so you have to believe them..."
So, since I can't personally see evolution, or the speed of light, they don't exist, despite the fact that biology or physics would'nt exist in their present form if we were to not known their existence.
I find it disgusting those who say this is a "New Relgion" and enviornmentalists are "Evangelists".
Religion doesn't effect other people. If my neighbors were satanist, but peaceful and logical, it would'nt matter.
But you, driving your SUV to the park instead of walking, and leaving your incandescents on, out of spite, and out of your desire to "Stick it to the moonbats" Does effect me. If this was 2525 and you lived on Mars, I would'nt give a *****, I'd say go ahead and **** up your own plant, but at this point it's criminally shortsighted to waste the limited resources of the earth in a couple generations of incredibly selfish people, buisnesses, and politicians who refuse to act for fear of angering either.
Also, I wonder if you say the same things in person as you do on the internet, if so, I'm sure not many are impressed by your arrogance. - macslut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why can't some of you read?
Go to the article, not the blog:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2898539&page=1
Read the following, "You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera."
To be clear, he's saying that he believes there is now evidence that global warming is taking place. He goes on to say specifically that he himself believes "some of it has been caused by human activity".
He is accurately pointing out that The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stating, "it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years," suggests that there is not common consensus to the EXTENT it is caused by humans (note the 90% and "most" part). It should be noted that this very same panel (different people) suggested in 2001 that it was 66% likely that this was the case. - SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm not sure why you've posted thse articular links. The Telegraph report states that, due to new data, the estimate of the effect of global warming has been revised slightly downward. Wow, estimates revised slightly due to new data? Amazing. The Times link, meanwhile, is not an news report at all, but rather a book extract.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That was his philosophy on WMDs, yes.
- DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So all you guys bitching about submissions from LGF...I take it you're ok with submissions from ThinkProgress?
- PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ thcobbs, no climate scientist in his right mind, whether supporting or unsure of global warming theories agree that there have been wide temperature fluctuations caused by among other things milankovic orbital cycles...Little Ice Age, and the Medieval warming period are nothing new and are basic historical elements in climate history, however, this current warming is unprecedented, and no matter how much you try to justify this current period with common milankovic cycles, just remember that those cycles happen at fairly steady intervals of 10000 years, and this current warming period has changed our climate drastically over only the last 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles - gmacerola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What the hell is wrong with you people. This is science. In science, we have adopted norms for what can be considered causation and what cannot. "over 90%" is not causation. The P value MUST be below .05 (or 5%). Had it of been 95%, the IPCC study would certainly of said so. It did not. Thus, there is no SCIENTIFIC way of saying the humans cause global warming. Am I saying we do not. No. Am I saying we should not do anything about it. No. I am simply saying that in science we do not bend the rules. Not in any instances.
- Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Of course there was a consensus about how Global Cooling was going to destroy us too, not all that long ago."
Then you should have no problem citing 2 or 3 sources, right? -
Show 51 - 100 of 279 discussions
