What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
242 Comments
- NaziHatinChimp, on 01/16/2008, -5/+40A republican tied to a Global Warming denier group? What is the world coming too?
- BrandonMills, on 01/16/2008, -6/+30With Digg, you can tell which candidate won a primary by checking who is getting smeared.
Not that Mitt Romney doesn't deserve it, but I'm just saying :) Huckabee got stories on the night of Iowa, and McCain got stories on the night of New Hampshire. - NaziHatinChimp, on 01/16/2008, -4/+21It's more feasible than Jesus coming back.
- OneHine, on 01/16/2008, -4/+20Denying global warming is like continuing to use your toilet three days after it stopped working on the basis that plumbers are a communist plot designed to wreck your finances. I'm sure that this whole thing is natural and doesn't require any effort on your part at all. And bad smells happened long before humans had toilets, so CLEARLY we can't blame the toilet. And your office smells better than ever, how you do explain THAT, alarmists? And Michael Crichton wrote a book about this--you can't argue with him! He's a popular writer!
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -5/+18warm monger, thats witty. They wrote that down for you did they?
- lobster1, on 01/16/2008, -2/+15In summary, Romney doesn't have a climate change policy and as Governor he refused to join other New England states in combating greenhouse gas emissions at the state level. Global warming is likely to be an issue in the Florida Republican primary, if he elects to run there.
- Berkana, on 01/16/2008, -11/+23The astroturf (a.k.a. fake grass-roots movement) organizations denying global warming were engineered by. . . you guessed it! Frank Luntz, and a number of the scientists-for-hire who denied that second hand smoke had any health risks when the Tobacco lobby needed some made-to-order credibility for their claims. See this:
The Denial Machine
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5227844990 ...
Frank Luntz has since changed his mind on the matter of global warming (did hell froze over‽), but the denial machine got a life of its own, and he's not able to undo what he did. - Berkana, on 01/16/2008, -1/+13That was not an ad hominem; that was pointing out that the movement was engineered as a campaign tactic. The facts are in the video. The facts addressing the challenges brought up by the global warming denial groups are here, if you are interested. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
If this is a matter of dogma to you, and nothing anyone finds can change your mind that the globe isn't warming up (or if it is, it isn't our fault), please re-consider your dogma, because it has consequences for the entire world. This is not a matter of dogma to me; I do not take global warming on faith and the word of my favorite politicians and their biggest donors. I am willing to change my mind if shown proper evidence, but so far, all the evidence has been shoddy, or incomplete.
Remember this?
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
I watched it and considered what it had to say, but it turns out the "documentary" distorted and misrepresented key pieces of data, and not only appealed to intuition to gloss over counter-intuitive findings, but plainly hid some of the known science that would have explained the things they pointed out. The rebuttal to the above documentary can be seen here:
Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165664054 ... - Berkana, on 01/16/2008, -3/+13It's not as simple as you put it. A lot of people have a lot of investments they would lose if we stopped or reduced our usage of the technology they've invested in (the billions of dollars invested in coal mines and coal plants, for example.)
Technology is NOT a byproduct of economic progression; there is no cause-and-effect link between the two that makes technology a byproduct of economic progression. Technology has to be deliberate; it always has been. Societies that don't make it deliberate still have progressing economies (whatever "progress" looks like; usually it means the rich getting richer while the poor get left out of the progress) but never produce the technology that you see in societies that recognize that technology is a deliberate thing.
Not all solutions are technological; global warming is fundamentally a problem tied to behavior as much as it is to technology related to our behavior. Either the behavior will have to change, or incentives will have to be made to urge the change, whether that change is the adoption of other technology, or a change in usage patterns. - KRNpro, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8Actually climate change does, according to some theories, make extreme temperatures more extreme - but make winters shorter.
- Berkana, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8*not necessarily: climate change has resulted in some bizzare changes where some places get extra precipitation and snow. Some places could get far colder during the winter if the ocean currents get all messed up due to melting polar caps.
- pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which receives funding from oil giant ExxonMobile, sent letters to scientists in the United States, Britain and elsewhere offering the payments in exchange for articles emphasizing the shortcoming of the UN's report.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/US_Thinktank_Off ... - pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -5/+13right, and not all doctors agreed that smoking caused cancer. the energy industry and coal unions are using the same tactics and even the same pr firm the tobacco industry used to create misinformation and sway the debate.
- nick111, on 01/16/2008, -3/+11How about Astroturf-Fertilizer?
- pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -10/+17it's hilarious to watch the deniers here going on about how "all those scientists are full of it, i know better". just because you can't see past your own beliefs doesn't mean all the scientists are out to get you. you sound just like creationists.
- BlueSkyfish, on 01/16/2008, -5/+12*winters hotter
- truspect0r, on 01/16/2008, -28/+35Global Warming is a scam anyways.
- Tangeuray, on 01/16/2008, -21/+28Lets get ready for Global Warming TAX here we go!!!! Dems love to Tax and this is such a great cause for more Tax!!!!
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -10/+17But don't you understand that the mere act of taxation is what solves the problem. Once a tax is implemented, we don't have to do anything else. It is the solution, in and of itself.
- Applo, on 01/16/2008, -22/+29Global Warming DOES NOT EXIST.
Think about it for five seconds. Think about what your saying. JUST THINK. You are saying the earth is heating up. The fact is that it is not heating up, its heating up in certain spots and cooling in others. That my friends is called CLIMATE CHANGE. I'm majoring in geology and it sickens me that Al Gore and all the other people out there are actually making money off of it, saying the earth is warming up and the ice caps are melting.
Folks, look at it this way. Everyone is blaming Global Warming for the extinction of certain types of species. When in actuality, its been happening for millions of years. The earth is billions of years old guys. Species and different types of animals and reptiles that were around a million years ago are extinct now. Its the course of life.
When Mount Krakatau exploded, it released the same amount of carbon dioxide as the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL AGE. People this is one volcano. ONE. This volcano also increased the earths temperature 1 degree. Yet everyone is so scared that global warming is true.
Another fact, geologists all across the globe are getting paid HUGE amounts of money to say "Global Warming is REAL". If you were a up and coming Geologist, and someone offered you $100,000 to write a speech about global warming being true, would you not do it? Open your eyes, look for yourself, and don't always listen to the media. - Langford, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9Well, gotta pay for the war somehow.
- TrevorBradley, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7I'm really on the brink of giving up on digg's comment threads on any post having to do with climate change. It's like a grand debate with the intelligent warming community.
I really wish I knew what was at the source of it. Apart from a few really wacky people who tend to get dugg down, the digg community generally has a good head on its shoulders.
Forget the IPCC, Bono or some other climate change celebrity of the month, forget the consequences of what happens if the science is right or the science is wrong for a moment and look at the data collected to date as a true scientific puzzle. Can someone explain to me why the data collected, research performed, and the science of the theory that man made greenhouse gas is causing the recent increases in temperature is somehow more flawed than other science the scientific community has performed? Would other science fall apart if held to similar scrutiny? In the field of biology (evolution vs intelligent design)? In the field of physics (gravity, a theory in crisis, due to the inability to merge it with quantum physics)? What science is missing for climate change? What critical step was missed that invalidates the data, the research, and the conclusions performed to date? What experiment could be performed to validate or invalidate the assertion?
I'm concerned that the bulk of the science performed is taken in by a group like the IPCC, a "consensus" is formed, which allow the skeptics to brand all studies used to make the IPCC report as "politicized" because the IPCC is partly a UN body. Does this somehow invalidate the science performed? I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I accept the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution by natural selection. Why is this any different?
If you feel comfortable winning the debate by attrition, rather than the scientific method, by all means celebrate. But please, before you do, help me understand the psychology and reasoning of the climate change skeptic's mind. - Azerael, on 01/16/2008, -4/+10Disagreeing with established science is disagreeing with reality.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8And only 4 out of 5 dentists recommend brushing your teeth.
- stealthc, on 01/16/2008, -3/+9I'm getting dugg down for resisting the anthropogenic global warming dogma? I'm honored. Let's see if we can get THIS comment to -150!
Hint to the IPCC: Captain Planet was FICTION.
Hint to the people taking IPCC (bureaucratically organized, collectivist UN group) as gospel: Authority is not truth. Truth is the authority. And truth will speak for itself. It doesn't need anyone pounding the podium. - stealthc, on 01/16/2008, -5/+11"Global Warming Denier Group". Right, because people who insist on science instead of all this foaming at the mouth about "CONSENSUS!!" can only be in denial, or astroturf employed by Big Oil and other goblins who would profit SO MUCH if everyone were dead.
- Langford, on 01/16/2008, -5/+11Fossil Fuel Hugger?
- ncurses, on 01/16/2008, -6/+12are you 15 or really that ***** stupid
- Aidenag, on 01/16/2008, -6/+12Sure would love to know where you are majoring in Geology if you actually believe Krakatau released as much CO2 as the entire industrial age has. Check this out for a little perspective on what man releases compared to volcanos... http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg ...
Tried finding a direct link mentioning what Krakatau released, but i can sure as hell tell ya it wasnt 30 billion tons of C02.(a single year of man made C02) Let alone the Entire industrial age. - TrevorBradley, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6I'm generalizing here, but digg users are neither climatologists or in the pocket of big business. At best they're highly anti-governmental interventionists, which might explain something. That's no scientific argument.
I'm hoping we can actually segregate the scientific puzzle from the "let's throw money at the problem" which I'm certain is turning people off the political aspect. If people are basing their opposition to the science based on how money is going to be spent and/or wasted, they're not being honest in the debate. - geddon, on 01/16/2008, -19/+25We need to come up with a better term than Global Warming Denier. How about: Smogger?
- elvenseven, on 01/16/2008, -4/+9You mean what the US media fed? In my country they call it climate change not Global Warming.
- VoodooPunk, on 01/16/2008, -5/+10How dare someone not agree with the Global warming science. This man should be tarred and feathered. Doesn't he understand that there is a consensus about the issue. Just imagine what would have happened if anybody had dared dispute the scientific consensus in the 17th century that all materials contained a substance called phlogiston that made things flammable. It would have been utter chaos. Romney needs to understand that anything classified as science is completely infallible and must never be questioned.
- DucoNihilum, on 01/16/2008, -8/+13Or we could do nothing. It will be alot cheaper.
- Azerael, on 01/16/2008, -9/+14What about "idiot"?
We could fit creationists under that umbrella, too. - masterm1nd, on 01/16/2008, -3/+8Can you tell which candidate won for the dems?
- pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7that argument makes about as much sense as not mowing your lawn because your neighbor isn't mowing his. we keep insisting we are a world leader, let's lead by example.
- Tangeuray, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5 Make your emissions limits LAW and PROSECUTE these ass clown CEO's who abuse the LAW. I am tied of cooperate America getting off the hook time and time again and the Taxpayers end up paying the Bill.
- joshtj, on 01/16/2008, -14/+19These comments are sickening. It's sad to see Digg falling for the anti-global warming hype garbage, of all places. People would rather believe in convenience than reality. Fix yourself already America, we're tired of your self absorbed, self consuming *****. Go on an OE and see how the world works outside of your bubble.
- PhilLesh69, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6When they had a conference on Global Warming in Bali, the airport did not have enough room to park all the private jets of all the conference attendees.
They had to fly empty jets to nearby airports just to park them. - pintomp3, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6are you referring to that list of 400 deniers? that was debunked.
- bogdon6, on 01/16/2008, -6/+11And no one denies climate change. The question is first, how much are humans causing any changes and second, are the changes going to make anything worse?
- aracne, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Yeah, ignore the pesky scientist. What do they know?
Also ignore the surgeons, what do they know? You can do the surgery for yourself... - Curlz31, on 01/16/2008, -6/+10Nobody is denying that global warming exists. I simply challenge people to show me some evidence that humans are causing it. I am yet to have anybody provide me with objective evidence.
- mattnyc99, on 01/16/2008, -6/+10Good roundup of Romney's official climate change policy compared to other candidates: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4 ...
- Berkana, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6The proponents base their conclusions on scientific observations that have already proven their hypotheses through demonstrated predictive value. The original theory on global warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses was proposed in the 50's, and since that time, its predictions have come to pass on the pessimistic side of the projections.
The skeptics, on the other hand, have shown a disturbing pattern of having been hired by oil and coal lobby opposition groups, and have censored scientific findings based on recent observations whenever they could. The Bush administration consistently interfered with scientists whose findings were not convenient for their corporate donors. That says a lot more than a strict dollar amount. The money given to proponents often went into scientific equipment to test if their hypotheses were correct, which is an expensive endeavor. The opponents spend the money on propaganda and spreading lies to spread doubt for those who hire them. - dood, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6What's this about Bali? I thought this was an article about some guy who ties dogs to moving cars or something.
- ralphie81, on 01/16/2008, -5/+9Answer me this:
Where does you learn grammar? - Aidenag, on 01/16/2008, -6/+10Also, Krakatau lowered global temp, not raised it. But hey what do i know, im not majoring in geology hahahaha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Global_clima ... - brufleth, on 01/16/2008, -1/+5McCain actually wanted to institute a war tax. He couldn't get support for it though. Wouldn't want people to realize that wars cost money.
Fiscal responsibility is hardly something the right has the high ground on. -
Show 51 - 100 of 243 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is