What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
69 Comments
- poimenJohn, on 06/29/2009, -14/+41When science becomes political it hurts everyone. That is exactly what happened with climate change. It became a convenient way of motivating social change, so the science was taken captive to the political message. We expect facts and truth from our leaders and these days all we get is spin. But we don't have to accept this; we must demand more. Starting with our government and higher educational, we must demand honesty.
- DesertDad, on 06/29/2009, -14/+30Those writing grants for scientific research in large part have become political scientists in order to get their research funds. When anyone questions them, they play the science card in much the same way as liberal political scientists play the race card. And to the same effect - truth is lost, and society is the worse for the charade. In the case of climate change, the scientific method is compromised, and people will end up regarding scientists in the same light as attorneys and politicians.
Oh, and taxpayers will continue to pay for the travesty of reducing our carbon footprint. Sorry, I'm a carbon based lifeform who sees no geologic record indicating we had anything to do with the previous climate cycles - and as a prudent economist might ask, how reliable is the data suggesting we are changing those solar, galactic, and tectonic cycles now? - Shadowkahn, on 06/30/2009, -4/+20Seriously you hurt your argument whenever you bring up the 'birther' theories. Oh and impeachment? Wow a little early there. Maybe you should wait a bit till he forces us in a war based on false reports of WMD or has a liaison with an intern in the White House.
- jammies, on 06/29/2009, -26/+38Obama is so flagrantly hypocritical that the only thing keeping him in office is the Democratically-controlled Congress.
Were he a Republican, he'd be up for impeachment at the very least, and more likely for TREASON for what he's doing.........with the Democrats HOWLING for his head........but doing the same things and wearing the guise of a Democrat, he's getting away with ALL OF IT..........
It is going to be a RELIEF if his Kenyan citizenship is ever exposed!!!!!!!!!! - e1evene1even, on 06/30/2009, -9/+19If this bill is so good, why were those voting on it not allowed to read it?
Big red flag there... - rocknog, on 06/30/2009, -3/+12Indicating that you're a birther is the political equivalent of using the /s tag. Either they're joking or they're an idiot. Either way, you're not meant to take anything they say seriously.
- atomheartmother, on 06/30/2009, -6/+13Good science means being open to differing ideas and opinions- particularly in fields such as Climatology, where data is examined over lengthy periods of time and with innumerable variables. It does NOT mean shutting out debate in order to push agendas that line one's pockets.
- atomheartmother, on 06/30/2009, -5/+11They shouldn't be... no more so than ex-politicians with vested financial interests in the things they're advocating for.
- atomheartmother, on 06/30/2009, -3/+9Yes, the hefty hypocrite does come to mind.
- atomheartmother, on 06/30/2009, -2/+7Kenny, I think it's quite fortunate that fewer and fewer people are falling for your predicable attack and discredit tactics.
Inhofe's views are supported by a litany of very credible scientists, and you dismiss it as "weathermen and economists." That kind of ploy is part of the reason you and yours are losing credibility on this issue. Many of the people that aren't towing the party line on climate change ARE renowned scientists, and their affiliations include prestigious institutions such as NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA. The latest to question the Goracle include Shunichi Akasofu, founding director of the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Centre, and Kanya Kusano a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project.
A few years ago, Gore and a few others coined the term global warming and were predicting yearly heat waves and Cat 5 hurricanes- in fact, there's a picture of one on Gore's book. When it started to become clear that the earth's temperature was beginning to flat line and there weren't any more hurricanes than usual, that inconvenient truth led to the current name- climate change. Hard to argue with that one, huh?
Well it's time for those who purport to advocate for science to start practicing what they preach and accept the fact that all of science is NOT on board with man-made global warming, and that we must act now to save the planet and ourselves from catastrophe (catastrophe is another word politicians like to use when imposing their agendas). Science makes mistakes, as did NASA when it published data on global warming trends in an effort to gauge the warmest years in U.S. history. Their temperature statistics were flawed. The year 1998 was not the hottest year on record, as NASA originally stated, it was 1934.
Ask yourself this question ...what does Senator Inhofe have to gain by challenging the pseudo-science put forth by Al Gore? Then ask yourself what Gore and other scientists and institutions primarily funded by grant money have to gain by promoting it. - Shwaavay, on 06/30/2009, -6/+11All they are doing is reporting news here. You're buried.
- atomheartmother, on 06/30/2009, -1/+6"Human affected climate change was theorized nearly 200 years ago, and possibly earlier."
The article you linked to doesn't say anything about theories of climate change being human-related until the late 1930s, and let's not forget that there were many theorizing global cooling as well. Here's one from Newsweek, originally published in 1975 entitled "The Cooling World.." It cites NOAA, "renowned scientists and climatologists" in predicting doom, gloom and a new Ice Age.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/02/20 ...
"Sadly, many deniers point to the changing term as an indication of climate change proponents reaching for validity that is lost."
Let's face it, the reason is was revised (back) to climate change from global warming is because the catastrophic warming and hurricanes, ect. weren't panning out as predicted. Here are just a few claims Gore and others have said that simply are erroneous:
Gore and his minions claimed in 2005 that weather extremes such as droughts, floods, hurricane, tornadoes, and heat waves have become more common and that catastrophe loomed. The fact is though, that Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century.
Gore, said: “If you look at the ten hottest years ever measured, they all occurred in the last fourteen years, and the hottest of all was 2005.”
Wrong. The recently revised NASA GISS Annual Mean temperatures show 6 of the 10 warmest years were from the 1920s to the 1950s and only 4 since 1990.
Gore also claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. But sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years. The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” Unless there is another Little Ice Age, they will continue rising at roughly this rate for centuries to come.
Alarmists also blame melting ice sheets on global warming. Rather than climate, though, recent articles published within the past year have indicated that the ice sheets that are in fact melting in both Greenland and Antarctica is "at least in part due to vulcanism" (they discovered active volcanoes under the ice sheets, first one, then another ...).
I could go on and on. You're right, Climate Change is a more appropriate term. Has the climate changed? Yeah, guess so. Is it likely to change again? Yeah, based on the fact that people were once farming on ground where glaciers now stand and vice-versa, that's a safe bet too. The fact is that human burning of fossil fuels has very little to do with long term climate on earth, and though it may make us feel good to imagine that we're "doing our part" by stemming their use, indicators are that it will have very little impact- particularly in light of the fact that China, India and other developing countries are building coal plants and using these fuels at increasing levels, and aren't about to cripple their economies the way the US is poised to do.
Calling the ever-increasing number of people (including renowned scientists) "deniers" does not marginalize them, only the name-callers who seek to undermine those they disagree with and suspend common sense, evidence to the contrary and the scientific method. I realize that many who subscribe to the AGW theories are well-intentioned, but many who promote the alarmism are not. Their motives are born of money, notoriety and a combination therein.
As for Gore, he didn’t create the Internet. He didn’t devote his life to defeating big tobacco in 1984. The science isn’t certain. The debate is far from over. And many serious and acclaimed scientists do not agree. - Gandalff, on 06/30/2009, -3/+7This was all foretold by what the Democrats were going to do from day one before Obama took office after the election..... Never thought this article I read and commented on this morning from Last year would be so pertinent but fits perfectly into this discussion of hiding the Truth of what is going on in Washington. It was a WSJ article on * NOVEMBER 21, 2008 and tells it all till to today.
http://digg.com/d1eTJb - Gandalff, on 06/30/2009, -4/+8Stop it rbiii you have attacked the High Priest of their Church. He btw is THE expert and is proven to be one by not allowing anyone to debate him in the Senate or have a counter point thus making his Word Golden and Final.... Oh my gosh I think I just peed myself just thinking of Al..... =) Nope sorry false alarm
- Gandalff, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4This is the only thing that Kills me about Fox News Too....
Reported Today June 30, 2009
FOX NEWS RECORDS UNPRECEDENTED TOP 10 OUT OF 10 PROGRAMS IN CABLE NEWS FOR 2ND QUARTER... ON PACE TO BE NETWORK'S BEST YEAR EVER...
THE O'REILLY FACTOR 3,191,000
HANNITY 2,345,000
GLENN BECK 2,053,000
ON THE RECORD W/GRETA 1,950,000
SPECIAL REPORT W/BRET BAIER 1,889,000
FOX REPORT/SHEP SMITH 1,783,000
THE O'REILLY FACTOR (RPT) 1,579,000
AMERICA'S NEWSROOM BILL HEMMER & MEGYN KELLY 1,399,000
YOUR WORLD W/NEIL CAVUTO 1,389,000
STUDIO B W/SHEP SMITH 1,169,000
Keep Burring it seems to be working..... - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -14/+17Alan Carlin, the EPA employee, is an economist, not a climate scientist and apparently doesn't believe in global warming.
- BigLou, on 06/30/2009, -4/+7Climate Chan? Do they have a random board where they post pictures of clouds and other weather-related things getting screwed by tentacles?
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -4/+7[citation needed]
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -10/+13We're not talking about seeing a tornado. If a layperson told me that dinosaurs became extinct due to hunting by early humans -- despite all the evidence and the scientific consensus to the contrary -- I wouldn't believe that layperson.
- bigterguy, on 06/30/2009, -3/+6But MadKennyP would believe all those government officials on the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. FAIL !!
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -6/+9Al Gore?
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -6/+9That's the beauty of science based discussions. The messenger isn't important, the argument/data is important. If the messenger doesn't put forth a defensible position, it can quickly be discarded.
So you attacking him because he's not a 'climate scientist' fails to discredit his position. But don't feel bad about making this amateur mistake. It's such a popular red herring (especially on the internet) that it has a name -- Ad hominem. - RagManX, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3"Yeah, "false reports of WMD." That are known to the entire world three months before the UN bothers to do an inspection."
Pics or it didn't happen. - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -4/+6@MadKennyP - An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
And if a Hair Stylist told me he/she researched my car problem and presented a compelling argument that he knew what was wrong and could fix it, I'd have no problem letting him/her fix it. I certainly would discard him/her solely based on their chosen profession. That would be ignorant. - kemp34, on 06/30/2009, -8/+10Only opinions, queries and findings that align with the climate alarmists' dogma are science. It's the ascendancy of "neo-science".
- Agamemnon582bc, on 06/30/2009, -5/+7Yeah, "false reports of WMD." That are known to the entire world three months before the UN bothers to do an inspection. Saddam sure couldn't have been able to move what he had in that time frame, yup.
- huskiefan06, on 07/01/2009, -1/+3The main reason Liberals fight for environmental policies is MONEY. Liberals get millions and millions of dollars from the solar panel, wind turbine, and carbon credit industries every year. Look at your former Vice President Al Gore, whose company stands to make windfall profits from policies in which he lobbies Congress for. Funny how liberals fail to recognize this. These pie in sky industries that liberals love are only able to operate with government assistance like subsidies and no interest loans.
- ayeroxor, on 06/30/2009, -4/+6Are you trying to say ass? And failing that miserably? That's quite something.
- Minarchian, on 06/30/2009, -2/+4Ouch!
Poor climate scare mongers :(
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_r ... - huskiefan06, on 06/30/2009, -3/+5Why else would liberals propose this? Control. These people crave it. They know that if they hold the power, people must depend upon big brother in order to live their lives. One example: this idiotic bill requires homeowners to have a regulator come into their home in order to have an energy audit done before they can sell their house, then if their windows and doors are not in compliance, they must become compliant before the owner sells their home. Now I'd love to know why big brother wants this power. Nothing than a complete power grab. Just like Obambi appointing czars which are not confirmed by the Senate and are not answerable to anyone but Obambi. They actually believe the ordinary Joe is destroying the earth by living their lives like all other Americans. They actually believe these insane regulations will actually affect the climate. Man is full of vanity, and cannot affect the climate. Many drivers of hybrids actually think they are saving the earth, how ignorant they are though. I could care less if people CHOOSE to drive these lawn mowers, I just don't want big brother telling car companies which models to make, thereby LIMITING my CHOICE of vehicles.
http://www.motorauthority.com/hybrids-delaying-fue ... - thelazyfox, on 06/30/2009, -6/+8Economists are *not* scientists.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -3/+5@thelazyfox - I didn't see the 'feels like" quote in the article. But sure, if this guy has a 'hunch' or his psychic told him the world has been cooling down then that's not much of an argument and it could easily be discredited. But there's still no need to use his chosen profession as grounds to discredit him.
- thelazyfox, on 06/30/2009, -4/+6Sure, that's a valid point, except this dude just "feels like" the world has been cooling down. How's that for a scientific argument.
- Ozzy72, on 06/30/2009, -3/+4I'm sure many will try to suppress this news article.
- huskiefan06, on 06/30/2009, -6/+7This man made global warming farse is just another way for big brother to further enslave the US population, turn the US into a third world nation, transfer wealth from the US to third world countries, and finally punish the US. There are many in the movement who are being used by those who stand to receive a windfall of profits from these regulations.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -2/+3It's all a fake...
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -2/+3The main reason Conservatives fight against environmental policies is MONEY. Conservatives get millions and millions of dollars from the oil industry every year. Look at your former Vice President, Dick Cheney, he was CEO of one of the biggest oil services companies in the world.
- Xwhy, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1"Pics or it didn't happen."
That's the way to put your head in the sand. - ayeroxor, on 06/30/2009, -3/+4What the ***** is a Climate Chan? Nice work, tgalligher.
- Gandalff, on 06/30/2009, -3/+4Yojiff That made to much sense stop it you could get banned.... =)
And yes it was WAY over their heads. Keep it simpler and in plain English next time! Sarc/ - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -6/+6"Global warming is here, it's human-caused, and it will continue for centuries even if greenhouse-gas emissions are stabilized." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of hundreds of climate experts and government representatives from 113 countries. February 2, 2007.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 ... - RagManX, on 06/30/2009, -3/+3"And if a Hair Stylist told me he/she researched my car problem and presented a compelling argument that he knew what was wrong and could fix it, I'd have no problem letting him/her fix it."
If the hair stylist instead said "I'm not sure I even believe you when you say you have problems with your car. Keep driving it, and I'm pretty sure it will be OK." would you still have no problem? That's a little closer to what's going on with Carlin. Sure, an economist can be a valid denier of global warming, but when they have the science of intuition to back it up, well - it's wise to question them a bit more. - RagManX, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2It's the intarwebz. You're allowed to say "ass" around here.
- Minarchian, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2His title is "Senior Operations Research Analyst"
That is a pretty descriptive title, I would say. It surely means he's more than just an "economist"
But even a Research Analysts don't mean ***** if they disagree with the predetermined outcome, right? - huskiefan06, on 06/30/2009, -5/+5So because it doesn't agree with your worldview, its now considered not credible. With all due respect, that's a typical liberal defense. Ignore the message when it doesn't agree with your worldview and demean the messenger by name calling. I wonder how much money Al Gore's carbon credit trading company stands to earn if this piece of trash legislation ever gets passed by the Senate and gets signed by B Hussein Obama? I wonder how much money GE stands to make when that happens as well. I wonder how much money wall street stands to gain when they start trading these artificial carbon credits inside derivatives? Follow the money, my friend. I have to laugh at your typical defense.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_A ... - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -5/+6You cite to two pretend news sites and PETITION?
Anything even remotely credible?
I have to laugh. - RagManX, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2"A few years ago, Gore and a few others coined the term global warming and were predicting yearly heat waves and Cat 5 hurricanes- in fact, there's a picture of one on Gore's book. "
I'll grant you the over-hyper claim of heat waves and Cat 5 hurricanes was a bit much, but to claim this is something fabricated in the last few years is dubious. Human affected climate change was theorized nearly 200 years ago, and possibly earlier. Over 70 years ago the idea started to gain traction, with increased carbon dioxide emissions given thought as a likely cause. Over 40 years ago scientists were seriously looking into the long-term impact human activities would have on the climate, with some scientists saying severe climate change within a century.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/08/ ...
When I first started reading about the topic in the 80s, the texts I was looking at spoke of "climate change" and pointed out that greater variability in weather conditions was the expected outcome of increasing emission of pollutants due to human activities. The last decade or so of talk was unfortunately described as "global warming" while "global climate change" (which has since become more commonly used) has just recently been picked as the preferred descriptor. Sadly, many deniers point to the changing term as an indication of climate change proponents reaching for validity that is lost. The reality is global climate change is what was used at least 25 years ago, and should have been used instead of global warming. - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -16/+15Next argument for the GOP: A physics teacher explains why mortgage-backed securities and derivative investments will result in a slower growth of GDP over time versus a free market, Keynesian model.
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -10/+9Senator Inhofe has ZERO credibility on the issue of climate change. He still uses his wholly debunked list of "700 scientists" to try to argue against the scientific consensus.
"'Padded would be an extremely generous description of this list of prominent scientists. Some would use the word “laughable." For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science? I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as 'prominent scientists,' and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. Another example, CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville, expressed skepticism that there is a “consensus” about mankind’s role in global warming. Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University.
"The Inhofe list is utterly ignorable compared to either the IPCC report or the Bali declaration by actual prominent climate scientists. The notion it is relevant to the climate debate is laughable, as even a cursuory examination makes clear."
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-in ... -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is