What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
110 Comments
- jeffbw, on 03/21/2009, -8/+70How did we get to the point where people like Will and Krauthammer can publish absolutely any absurdities they can manufacture in a nationally reknowned newspaper? For that matter, what supposedly makes said newspaper reputable in the first place? Isn't it supposed to have something to do with the quality and accuracy of the writing? It's time for Fred Hiatt to consider exactly why he thinks his paper should be esteemed above the Rev Moon's Washington Times. Or perhaps he just doesn't care, in which case he should certainly be removed before it's too late for the Post.
- eco57, on 03/21/2009, -6/+56I guess this is as close to a retraction as we're going to get.
- homercles337, on 03/21/2009, -9/+56Why cant we hold up all claims from the deniers to that same scrutiny we hold our scientific evidence? Will likes to quote a paper from the 70s, but he never read the damn thing because his conclusions are at odd with the paper. This is the only paper the deniers quote from the 70s "global cooling" scientific evidence. There are plenty of review papers on the topic out there. The deniers claims about historical scientific fact are nothing but lies. Honestly, if we know anything about the right, its that they are keen to reinvent historical fact. If Will says something the spineless, gutted 4th Estate should ***** call the ***** on his *****!
Edit: Oops, i should read the entire article before posting....damn, actually i still havent finished it. brb - novenator, on 03/21/2009, -8/+45Geroge Will is an idiot.
- rewinn, on 03/22/2009, -10/+45Will is paid to lie.
It's not that complicated. - greenfyre, on 03/22/2009, -8/+41For a long list of articles and posts (125+) debunking Will's idiocy see
"George F. Will goes platinum "
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/george-f ... - Alheithinn, on 03/21/2009, -5/+33FTA: "Consider a few of Will's claims from his Feb. 15 column, "Dark Green Doomsayers": In a long paragraph quoting press sources from the 1970s, Will suggested that widespread scientific agreement existed at the time that the world faced potentially catastrophic cooling."
I think this is key. From the 1970s. How about some modern research, Georgie? Something more recent? The guy cites 40-year-old research and the denier masses, as ignorant as the author, bow and scrape before their golden idol, whoring themselves for a shot of sunshine up their asses. - freedomjoe, on 03/22/2009, -9/+27Because Poujadism is a VALUE to the right. The educated vote liberal/democratic.
why do they lie?
It's simple math. - MacLiberal, on 03/22/2009, -6/+24Anyone who questions man made global warming, or evolution should not be listened to, period. The evidence for both is overwhelming.
- Scruffydan, on 03/22/2009, -4/+20There is more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
Written by Michael Jarraud Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization.
Remember the WMO was one of the many references that George Will misrepresented in his original op-ed - molarty, on 03/22/2009, -7/+22Here's a little info on Will:
Born: May 4, 1941 (1941-05-04) (age 67) - does "cognitive decline" sound about right Will???
For those that want more facts:
How about Will's moral history and his involvement with "Hollinger International" and Conrad Black and the investigation of "...reported to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about misconduct at the company, including violations of fiduciary obligations by officers." --
1996 Bob Dole presidential campaign --The national media watchgroup Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) criticized Will in connection with the 1996 election, for "commenting on the presidential race while his second wife, Mari Maseng Will, was a senior staffer for the Dole presidential campaign," including commenting on a Dole speech without disclosing that his wife had helped write it.
What do you think of Will now? - eco57, on 03/21/2009, -2/+17LOL
- WasabiBomb, on 03/22/2009, -0/+14Ha Ha
I've got more than a fifth-grade science education so I can tell that there's clearly something to the AGW hypothesis and that maybe, just maybe, people who study the climate for a living might know what the hell they're talking about. - fyngyrz, on 03/22/2009, -2/+15> Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic,
> how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how
> to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?
In the case of US media, the answer is no. The problem is that our media is not in the business of reporting facts. It routinely reports opinions. It feels justified if (a) these represent the perceived consensus of the general public, or if (b) they represent the consensus of the people publishing the writeup.
You cannot trust US media -- that's a cold, hard fact. If you do, you will end up carrying around a whole bunch of opinions you didn't think through yourself, that you didn't actually form an opinion on. You'll also miss a lot. For instance, US media very rarely covers events outside the USA; and I'm talking about when what we call the "World News" is being reported. If you'd like a taste of what an actual world report is like, go check out the BBC's world report... you'll be quite surprised at the things of major interest that are going on that you've never even heard about.
I suspect that as long as news reporting is a profit-making enterprise, we will be subject to the opinions of the profit-makers.
Thankfully, getting out of this is a mouse-click away. Just go looking. The real news is out there. - Scruffydan, on 03/22/2009, -3/+16But even that claim has been shown to be false;
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Coo ... - enki25, on 03/22/2009, -0/+13Stupid people are so boring.
- enki25, on 03/22/2009, -5/+17Can you point to a peer reviewed research paper that makes this claim without using the word "*****"?
- Semblance, on 03/22/2009, -11/+22Wow, I can't believe a prominent conservative got a question of fact wrong! Gee, that almost never happens!
- x1soundgarden1x, on 03/22/2009, -2/+13"refuted"? More like "smacked down."
- TigerStar337, on 03/22/2009, -5/+15Chris Mooney states: "Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever."
The anti-science conservatives like to cherry pick examples that don't really prove anything. It is funny because at one time, the anti-science conservatives where the leaders in the clean environment movement. In the 60s and 70s, the Republicans created new laws in California, and then federal clean air and water acts. Wow, times have changed. I don't know what happened, but the only reason the anti-science Republicans are against climate change laws is because the Progressives are for it.
Why do the Republicans hate America? They have been in power the last 30 of the past 40 years. What has happened? The deficit is now at $10 trillion dollars (Republicans pride themselves as being fiscal), all individual freedoms have been taken away (patriotism is the enemy of freedom), only the rich can now afford a University education, and there is no middle class because their jobs have moved out of the USA. Why do the Republicans hate the middle class people? Why do middle class people vote for Republicans after they have done nothing to help them? It is crazy. - weswood, on 03/22/2009, -1/+10I researched this. According to a high ranking government official, the saying originated in Texas and is actually "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — I can't get fooled again." This is well-documented evidence! Pull your heads out of your asses and stop believing everything the liberal media tells you about colloquialisms!
- realpolitik, on 03/22/2009, -2/+10You've furnished a magazine survey which indicates that 69% of Americans believe that global warming is occurring and another 19% don't know.
Not sure how this supports your claim that the "disbelievers ranks are increasing." - juniorb, on 03/22/2009, -1/+9"Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?"
No. Not in this political landscape, where winning and making money is more important than truth. The global warming confusion is a casualty of the information overload syndrome: it's nearly impossible for the average citizen to sift through all the information to determine what's true on a given topic, so they cling blindly to what like-minded people say and avoid examining any issue from more than one angle. - Trent1492, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9"In the article, the writer also makes the claim that in the 1970's, the climatological science as well as the abillity of the scientific community to record was nearl dismal in comparison to today's advances. If this is the case, then, why are we to trust the information recorded in the 70s,..."
You think that climate research stopped in the 70's?
"Furthermore, the recordings from a hundred years ago came from a ery limited number of sources. Today's numbers are the product of more than one thousand times as many recordings per year, possibly tens of thousands. Thus, how are we to claim that the early recordings represent a viable statistical analysis of temperature changes?"
Physics and the past thirty years of rising temperature with no natural phenomena able to explain it. - eco57, on 03/22/2009, -0/+8I don't think anyone is saying the the *only* thing we need to do is reduce carbon emissions; but it is something we absolutely *have* to do. So it is going to be polarizing regardless.
- fmaxwell, on 03/22/2009, -0/+8No, most of us can judge him because this is not our first encounter with him. The literate among us have read his writings before. We've seen him speak on television programs. We've read prior refutations of his claims. The poster to whom you replied gave but a few examples showing the kind of crap that Will has done in the past. You, on the other hand, offered nothing of value. You made an information-free, sanctimonious post in order to insult someone who did some actual research.
Maybe you should get over yourself. - PoleCatz, on 03/22/2009, -3/+10Not fair to post this on a Sunday! The shills for the oil and coal companies take weekends off.
- novenator, on 03/22/2009, -2/+9Well, he IS a dinosaur after all. ;)
- WasabiBomb, on 03/22/2009, -1/+7Eh, don't feel too bad. When I read the first couple of paragraphs, I thought it was yet another AGW denial editorial, as well.
- MacEnvy, on 03/22/2009, -1/+7I think shouts should be limited to 5 people at once. Shouting is what's killing Digg. There's no way you actually have more than 40 "friends" you think should hear about an interesting little story you read, and if you do, make a friggen e-mail distribution list or something.
Shouts should not be used to promote stories. That's why I turned mine off completely. - Trent1492, on 03/23/2009, -2/+8"Reviewing studies between 1965 and 1979, the authors found that "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then." More weasel words. Where is the quantitative, statistical and footnoted evidence from Mooney? We’re just supposed to take his word for it. Uh huh."
Google is your friend:
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Article: pp. 1325–1337
Volume 89, Issue 9 (September 2008)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ab ...
Note: This a peer reviewed article.
FTA:
"The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations. Graphical representations of this survey are shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2 for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of
the articles would, according to the current state of climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper—and both were immediately challenged (Woronko
1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the models progressed over time, the findings of the rest of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes significantly, but they were not reversed."
The article is full of graphs and citations from the literature.
- phramus, on 03/22/2009, -3/+9*****. I was around in the 70s, and I remember the whole thing quite well. But then, I was an adult in the 70s.
- Wakkyweed, on 03/22/2009, -3/+9Yeah, I recently had a short debate online with a guy named Big Kev who claimed that some scientific theories become "lame and vulnerable" when logic is applied to them, and that the rules of science are "constantly being found false". He used Gobal Warming and Evolution as his examples. What a tool!
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archi ... - paintgrl, on 03/22/2009, -5/+10ditto
- phramus, on 03/22/2009, -3/+8Headline should have been "Clooney Rips Will a New One!" Dugg.
- homercles337, on 03/22/2009, -1/+5Yes, exactly. Grazie.
- Alheithinn, on 03/22/2009, -2/+6I'm beginning to think it's random. I can make a comment and when I try to make another, 5 minutes later, after digging/burying stories or comments during that time, I get told to slow down. One every five minutes? C'mon!
- homercles337, on 03/22/2009, -3/+7He is right up there with folks like Ben Stein, eh?
- Trent1492, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4What?
- GBPACKGB, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3@ jeffiek
That's nice. But while the media may have focused more on the global cooling claim, there was certainly not a scientific consensus. - elliotys, on 03/22/2009, -1/+4"The point is if you get fooled you can't be fooled again." -W
- wkenri, on 03/22/2009, -5/+8George Will, like David Brooke is a douche fart.
- realpolitik, on 03/22/2009, -0/+3Yes it is that simple.
PRECISE MODELING of climate change is not that simple, because of the dense involution of the geophysical phenomena of our ecological system. But climate change proponents like yourself who represent the issue as being very complex invite and lend credibility to all the toxic skepticism.
The fact is, the ONLY reason Earth is warm at all is because of atmospheric GHGs. If anthropogenic GHGs emissions materially increase the atmospheric concentration, then THE EARTH WILL GET ***** WARMER.
The nuances of this process are at the fringe of human comprehension, but the net effect is not. - Spudster, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3It's about time we start to get honest, critical reporting.
Reporting "two sides" of a story when one side is false is not good journalism and we need to call reporters out on it. - MWeather, on 03/22/2009, -4/+7And we'll be at solar maximum by 2012. An 11 year cycle isn't a long-term solution to warming, specially when temperatures rise despite entering a period of solar decline. When we had yet to hit the maximum the last time idiots like you were blaming the increased temperatures on the solar maximum. Now you point to the solar minimum to refute warming? You people are insane.
- lioozher, on 03/22/2009, -2/+5This is the kind of ***** going on with the media in Venezuela. All the stuff about Chavez being a dictator when he was democratically elected, etc.... Welcome to the owning class, global corporate media...
- TheMoniker, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4Why would it matter if Gore won or lost a debate to anyone? The peer reviewed literature is quite clear and the debate was settled within more than a decade ago.
- greenfyre, on 03/23/2009, -2/+5Excellent failure to grasp even the basics
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=It ... - fmaxwell, on 03/22/2009, -2/+5First, the other poster didn't mention anything about political parties. Nothing. So be a man and apologize for misrepresenting what he said.
Second, I've gone back through your messages and find the recurring theme "partisanship is bad." Well why is it bad? What's so bad about pointing out that a given political party is corrupt, anti-science, beholden to the religious right, etc.? We have two viable parties (and before any Libertarians, Green Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc. types get their panties in a twist, reread that word: viable) wrestling for control of our country. One of them is closely aligned with my views while the other stands for almost everything that I oppose. Why should I not be partisan and promote my party while pointing out the flaws in the other party?
Sorry, but you're going to have to either think or get out of this sandbox. - greenfyre, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Th ...
Been done repeatedly, but the Deniers bury it. All of their crap has been debunked. -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is