What is Digg?543 Comments
- lhbaker, on 11/10/2007, -71/+175I'm amazed that so many poeple still think that global warming is a fiction dreamed up by Liberals. I just wish more of them lived near the ocean.
- inactive, on 11/10/2007, -58/+144lvlvl: So science & facts are liberal issues? Then I guess your right-wing neoconservative issues must be sorcery & mythology.
You apparently did not watch the video or understand what scientific consensus is, or probably science for that matter. Let me guess, you think the world is flat & woman was made from Adam's rib, right? Go stick your head back in the sand. - BassMastr, on 11/07/2007, -9/+64I thought the debate had moved from wether the earth was warming to what is cause the earth's to warming...
- hagingtree, on 11/07/2007, -34/+88Yeah you are right, lets just give air time to Gores point of view and nobody else, how dare we let a Scientist give an opposing argument to a politician on a scientific issue.
- Scruffydan, on 11/08/2007, -5/+50let scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals question science. Politicians, pundits and think tanks have no place in the scientific debate.
- charon79m, on 11/09/2007, -18/+59What I find amazing here is Gore just dismisses Christy. This isn't just some nut-job that lives on the top of a mountain somewhere in Montana... This is one of the guys that ensures that the satellites are reporting correct data. He ensures that as the orbits deteriorate that the sensors are re-calibrated to ensure proper measurement. This is NOT some nut-job fringe guy.
I'm all for a healthy debate. I'm all for ensuring that this world is as healthy as it can be for all the inhabitants. I'm all for us doing our part to make sure our children have a planet on which they can live in health... but here's my view.
1: Compact florescent bulbs are not the answer... they are more of a problem than they claim to fix.
2: Flying around the world on my own private jet spewing out hot air is not carbon-neutral no matter how many carbon offsets I purchase from myself.
3: We have enough trouble accurately telling people weather or not they'll need an umbrella tomorrow... how can we even begin to think we understand the complexities of the warning and cooling of the planet.
We need to focus our attention on learning as much as we can, not focus on shoot-from-the-hip policy that we may need to retract in 20 years. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling) Let's put away political banter and the idea that science is ruled by consensus; let's focus on understanding how the planet is today so we can better understand tomorrow. - TopherT, on 11/06/2007, -4/+43Horse meat is really tough, if you don't beat it, you can't chew it.
- noahhoward, on 11/09/2007, -61/+96Wait. So he wants the media to ignore the scientific process. Don't worry that there are two sides to the story, just cover his side and ignore anything else. Sorry Al, I thought you were a hypocritical bastard before but now I know you're full of *****.
- ZenMojo, on 11/07/2007, -14/+45He wants the media to acknowledge the scientific process. Peer-reviewed consensus says that global warming is real and has put forth evidence that it is affected by human contribution. The opposition relies on NON-peer-reviewed hypotheses. The scientific process is being subverted.
- Tinian, on 11/07/2007, -8/+39has anyone noticed that the guy from the IPCC never said global warming wasn't happening? he just said that he thinks Gore is wrong about the doomsday predictions. He also said he has doubts about Gore's claims that humans are exclusively to blame. Also, if you actually read the IPCC report, it agrees with Mr. Christy.
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -14/+45Typical Stalinist reasoning. Those who dissent should not be heard.
- drmangrum, on 11/06/2007, -19/+46Unfortunately for Gore, science doesn't work by consensus. There is no smoking gun, there is only data and how it's interpreted. We have evidence that shows that the earth naturally goes through warming and cool trends. I'm not saying that human aren't the cause for climate change, but neither am I saying that we are. If anything, human activity is augmenting a natural phenomena. Gore resorting to name calling and second rate discrediting tactics just make him look foolish; especially when he's a complete hypocrite with his own lifestyle ( ie his house ).
- dimitrisokolov, on 11/07/2007, -26/+52
The problem people have with global warming is not global warming itself but the fact that some liberals blame people as the cause. We know for a fact that the earth has gone through warm and cold periods BEFORE HUMANS EVEN EXISTED. What's occurring today is totally within the planetary norms. So for some jackass like Al Gore to say it all caused by SUVs and human activity is ludicrous. We may be contributing to it, but we are just one small factor. The earth has warmed up plenty of times before our existence and most recently just came out of an ice age, so it is no surprise that it is warming up again.
Al Gore and his followers typically ignore real science just for their own political causes. Invent a problem, steal your money and claim they have the solution. That is typical liberal ***** 101. Liberals haven't solved poverty, aids, crime, drugs or any other social ill that they keep stealing your tax dollars to fix. More government is NOT the answer. - bitt3n, on 11/08/2007, -3/+28if it's a zombie horse and its trying to eat my brains you sure as hell bet I'm gonna beat it
- Klepto21, on 11/12/2007, -19/+40Arguing about it is honoring the question. So if you believe nothing is in question, don't argue.
- noahhoward, on 11/06/2007, -7/+26Wow, way to show you didn't read the article. John Christy was a scientist on the International Panel on Climate Change and he shares the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. Read papers on the subject? He ***** wrote the papers on the subject.
I cannot believe the level of ignorance it must have taken to write that comment, let alone the morons who modded it up. - stealthc, on 11/09/2007, -15/+33Consensus science is pure and total quackery. Regardless of Al Gore's insistence that people agree with him, the laws of physics do not run on democracy. I don't care what the IPCC says. I care what the data says. I care about how the theory fits into the elegance and patterns of true science. And the fact that the Earth is just another helpless speck in the great tides of solar activity makes a hell of a lot more sense than thinking all of a sudden the puny ants adrift on that helpless speck can somehow trump the giant thermonuclear fireball which gives off more energy in one second than they ever will for the next million years.
A human believing in anthropogenic global warming is like a microbe believing it causes the rain. - inactive, on 11/06/2007, -19/+36Not many people are that stupid. Unfortunately, the stupid ones are really loud.
- source042, on 11/07/2007, -27/+44No... He wants the media to stop dredging for pseudo-scientists who have probably never read a single paper on the subject and simply dance around with the money jingling in their pockets from the lobbies they represent.
- pintomp3, on 11/09/2007, -29/+46i never understood why lies are given equal time as the truth. it's the argument creationists use to say that there is no consensus on evolution, therefor intelligent design should be given equal time and weight. the tobacco industry tried the same tactic to argue the link between cigarettes and cancer is not conclusive. they paid their own doctors and hired a marketing firms to combat the truth. the oil industry and coal unions have hired the same marketing firms and employed the same tactics to cast doubt on what the overwhelming majority of scientists find to be true.
- beargrylls, on 11/06/2007, -9/+25Why are people supporting Gore on this? He's basically saying that anyone who disagrees with him on the issue should be ignored. Scientific debate is how progress happens, equating a qualified scientists to someone who believes the earth is flat is offensive.
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -15/+31Okay, ignoring all the brain dead (pardon the pun) zombie references...aren't we SUPPOSED to question science? I'm not saying Christie is right...but dear God, if we stop questioning science, aren't we coming to an intellectual standstill?
Sorry, but it just breaks my mind that someone who is basing our whole future on science is questioning someone about questioning it?!?
FAIL LOGIC IS FAIL! - RollFizzlebeef, on 11/09/2007, -12/+28Christy's resume:
PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong... - mabhatter, on 11/09/2007, -4/+19that's exactly what the pundit the press put up was saying.. that it's silly to discuss it... by choosing that person the media was discrediting the whole debate. Like on Jerry Springer when they bring in the 3 baby mommas to discredit all welfare moms.. that's what the media was doing. Instead of bringing somebody to debate what we should DO about the environment, they bring somebody to say nothings wrong at all and we're wasting our time. The debate is about pushing people to be more conscience and efficient... bringing somebody who says don't bother is sabotaging the debate from the start. (see my post above) It shows the media is not interested in discussion, only arguments, not interested in solutions, only dissent.
- geekee, on 11/12/2007, -9/+24"You apparently did not watch the video or understand what scientific consensus is"
Scientific consensus is a contradiction. Science is based on experimentation. One person has the ability to prove everyone wrong with a well devised experiment. Global Warming should be debated in scientific journals, however, not the popular media. - EuphopiaB, on 11/06/2007, -1/+16If you won't listen to a Ph.D. in atmospheric science about this subject, then who will you? Do we have to get a politician to make a movie before something other than "scientific consensus" will be tossed our way?
- noahhoward, on 11/06/2007, -4/+19Yet when the SCIENTIST who researched that 'fact' questions Gore, the scientist is somehow wrong?
- mabhatter, on 11/06/2007, -9/+23the point is that media keeps digging around for people that simply say "ignore global warming" as their form of "fairness". What that does is by default take the debate AWAY from DISCUSSION about solutions to character assassination and name calling. It's like Jerry Springer or Rush, the media doesn't want to cover people talking reasonably and reaching a conclusion, they want fights.
The fact of Global warming may not be 100%, but we are incredibly wasteful... discussion and action should be taking place regardless of why icebergs are melting, because human wastefulness has directly caused tens of thousands of extinctions already... debating wether THIS particular argument is really valid or not is stupid. He's attacking the media sabotage of open discussion, not the guy brought up.. the press had no business brining the guy to the discussion if he wasn't going to bring something useful to talk about.
Is anybody stupid enough to think all that environmental stuff is crap and we should go back to leaded gas, washing our hands in open freon, and dumping toxic waste in our lakes and rivers? Because that's EXACLY what the media is saying by baiting the discussion.. they've tipped their hand and showed who their real masters are, and it's the big companies. The liberal media is a carefully crafted lie.... they dig up the craziest people they can find to discredit MODERATE arguments against their masters. - mothrabc, on 11/07/2007, -8/+22Gore may be right, but attempting to censor the other POV is plain wrong and scary.
- drmangrum, on 11/07/2007, -7/+21So what? The guy had an interest in religion. They used to have a word for people like that; Renaissance man.
- TwistedSheep, on 11/07/2007, -11/+25A scientist did, but a consensus of scientists do not.
- drmangrum, on 11/07/2007, -4/+18Actually, yes. As long as they have supporting evidence that doesn't stem from a 2,000 year old book.
- djdingo, on 11/08/2007, -17/+30Gore: Don't give equal time to someone who doesn't believe in manbearpig.
- mOdQuArK, on 11/08/2007, -4/+17Something tells me that you're not really interested in hearing any other viewpoints.
- nreynolds, on 11/07/2007, -8/+21if they have another viable theory, then yes. As long as they aren't talking about religion. Simply accepting something because a "consensus" says it's true is idiotic. I believe in evolution, I don't know enough about Global Warming (and neither do any of you) to make a good enough decision on it, but I'm at least open to other ideas.
- lhbaker, on 11/07/2007, -4/+17A 'basement horticulturalist?' Dude, can I score quarter ounce?
- geekwithsoul, on 11/06/2007, -4/+17The "media" has nothing to do with the scientific process. Until you can understand that, I can't even be bothered to explain anything else to you. The only things that have "two sides" exist in the fictional "Flat Land." -- the universal reality we find ourselves in is much more varied and until mainstream media comes to terms with that, it's part in intelligent discourse is negligible.
- jjacksonRIAB, on 11/06/2007, -5/+18Not to say that I agree with either side, but something is missing in Al Gore's argument - like the part where he is responding to the argument she actually MADE in the quote, and that is that there is no proof it's caused by humans.
His response is simply a red herring and irrelevant to the question itself. Most of the time he's just stringing as many fallacies together as he can to appeal to an ignorant audience, and that doesn't make him scientific or intelligent. - MWeather, on 11/07/2007, -9/+22There are scientists who don't believe in evolution too. Shall we give them equal time?
- probrian, on 11/06/2007, -2/+14remove the head or destroy the brain
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -13/+25So you WANT them to include people who's views are totally unsupported by facts and data?
What a good little right wing asshat you are.
Oh, right. If you guys ditch the "flat earth" stupidity you'll have to argue on facts and merit. Oooo, scary.
Well, I understand the right wing doing all they can to avoid that. - diggduggjoe, on 11/07/2007, -4/+16The Hockey Stick is junk science and many facts have been ignored by the political body called the IPCC. Global warming is about money and power, nothing else.
- wtbuser, on 11/09/2007, -8/+19Coming from the man who doesn't deserve his gimmick Oscar and Nobel nor has any legitimate background worthy of critiquing actual scientists I'd say he doesn't deserve equal time or any time.
- rocket777, on 11/07/2007, -2/+13Has the bay risen? I live by the ocean, it looks the same as it did when I first went there, 30 years ago. If it's going to be up by 20 feet, as AL says, then shouldn't it have begun by now?
- diggduggjoe, on 11/06/2007, -4/+14John Christy is an award winning climate scientist with street cred from NASA! He worked with satellite data to show that many of the temperature stations show warming due to their existence in urban areas where the heat island effect is dominant. The surrounding areas were mostly normal. His expertise is measurement, and he feels that the data that he and others produce do not indicate what the IPCC believes to be true.
- kageki, on 11/06/2007, -4/+14You don't get it do you? How come then a scientist isn't leading the cause but a politician? Let alone there have been many articles debunking the claims put forth by Gore. Why don't you read them?
- Scruffydan, on 11/08/2007, -4/+14the point of a carbon tax is to ensure that all costs are internalized. Externalities lead to market failure, a carbon tax can (if implemented properly) ensure that all costs of our actions are internalized and taken into account. Accounting for all costs makes the free market function as it is supposed to. There isn't a hidden agenda.
- tricks574, on 11/09/2007, -36/+45Al Gore has lost all respect I had for him. Saying that a dissenting opinion should be ignored? What is so important and imminent about global warming that we need to stop all discussion on it?
- drmangrum, on 11/06/2007, -4/+13Actually there is plenty of evidence that the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles many times in the past. Most of which before humans even evolved. There is even some evidence that shows CO2 levels raise after a warming trend.
The data is just data. it can be interpreted in several different ways. There is no smoking gun. If there was there would be no debate and no Us vs Them mentality. - Burninsensation, on 11/08/2007, -3/+11there is a point where questioning science becomes stupid and a waste of time, when that science has such overbearing evidence in support of it. For example, the earth is round.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 538 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is