What is Digg?686 Comments
- crazywarthog, on 11/14/2007, -122/+309If you you really think the average politician cares about you, "the children" and the earth then you are a fool of fools. They see man made global warming as a new age Boogie Man to scare the masses. They see trillions of dollars in new taxes and the government agencies see billions of dollars of funding research grants. Furthermore, there's so much money at stake the politicians can feather their nest and their supporter's nests too !
It's about $$$, power and control. The perfect scam. After all, who doesn't want to save the earth ! - Maninthemiddle, on 11/14/2007, -84/+198When scores of eminent climatologists, paleo-climatologists, atmospheric scientists - people within the field of study - present viewpoints in variance, there is not a consensus.
There is a debate - and a growing one.
Does not mean we should not be vigilant and active. But to say that it is a consensus - debate over - is simple not true at best, and zealotry at worst. - totorototoro, on 11/11/2007, -13/+120The greatest scam in history? Clearly this guy has never received an email from the Vice President of Nigeria.
- reed311, on 11/12/2007, -16/+111Nice, now maybe the founder of MTV can tell us what real music is.
- Frei, on 11/14/2007, -29/+116Anyone who made a TV station about the weather and managed to make a profit from it knows a lot about scams.
- Isidore, on 11/13/2007, -162/+244Weigh the qualifications of the man above versus the vast majority of climate scientists who do believe humans are changing the climate.
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... (2001)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... (2005)
For the comments of other scientific bodies http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ...
The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.
No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ... - WhiskeyLemur, on 06/30/2009, -17/+98I have said it before, and I will say it again:
Science is not about consensus. - drshorty, on 11/10/2007, -7/+83Hmm. Not the typical Digg crowd it seems.
- zelig, on 11/14/2007, -44/+112If "the science is settled", as the ipcc climate global warming crowd says it is, then I guess they won't be needing more government grants, since there is nothing more to learn.
- Frei, on 11/13/2007, -17/+74Yeah the weather channel guy is the cutting edge source now.
- edstate, on 11/12/2007, -24/+80I may be one of the few on Earth left who don't have a definite opinion on this issue yet... so I'm glad to see the debate is still going strong. Look, pollution and addiction to oil are ***** stupid. And who wants to ***** up the Earth? That said, I don't like ideas and ideals being shoved down my throat. Especially, and ironically by self-professed professional skeptics like Bill Maher (who I actually like). And then there are the people who look at you like you just ***** your pant when you say "Man-made Global Warming? Um, I'm still kindof on the fence". This is one of those debates that really brings out a frightening level of arrogance and hypocrisy in a lot of people.
- Lilitou, on 11/10/2007, -2/+51What I don't understand is this:
Who cares if global warming is man made? Who cares if it's a myth? Pollution is pretty conclusively bad, even if it isn't going to end all life as we know it within the next century. So why are the anti-global warming people (and I'm not talking about corporations that don't want to spend a little extra money; I'm talking about regular people) so invested in mocking--or even actively opposing--measures that could help reduce human impact on the environment? - ashmael, on 11/13/2007, -17/+65The fact that politicians can profit off of global warming doesn't change whether or not its happening. Disasters have always been profitable for someone.
- rcook18, on 11/13/2007, -26/+74The companies doing the polluting don't want to save the earth.
- BruceKelly, on 11/13/2007, -10/+48My favorite quote on the issue is, "I'll start believing it's a crisis when those that say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis" -?
- MammasMilk, on 11/13/2007, -14/+48People make $$$ of picking up our trash and sanitation... oh no! Beware the evil garbage scam! SCAM I tell you (Yes I did use all caps... watch out!) trash and liter don't exist and it's a scam because someone's make money off of it.
- div2n, on 11/10/2007, -9/+42As I understand it, there is no scientific debate that the Earth is warming. The debate is whether human activity:
A) Is the primary cause
B) Is a contributing but not primary cause
C) Plays no role
From all that I've read, most scientists fall into category B at a minimum. By my observations, it seems to be folks in denial and neocons that fit into C. - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -6/+39And what are YOUR sources? And what are MY sources for questioning your sources?
The ultimate source for this information is called that Scientific Method. It is a protocol designed to reduce the risk that we fallible humans do what we're excellent at, which is see patterns where they don't exist and draw inappropriate conclusions.
One of the benefits of this system is that the data and exact experimental methods are published for peer review or review by anyone who wants to look. Don't have the resources to mount your own climatological study? Then have a look at the data that's already published, crunch a few numbers yourself, and see if you draw the same conclusions.
But when people don't publish their data, or go to the press before having their conclusions reviewed, then that's suspicious. And you should be rightfully suspicious because the one thing you shouldn't do is confuse science with polemics. You need to learn to tell the difference and not just throw up your hands in frustration. Why is it important? Because there are people in this field who are specifically trying to confuse the message, to get you to throw up your hands, often for political or financial gain.
So even though this Joe Coleman document is a ridiculous, unsupported, and pointless rant, and as such has no place in a serious discussion of Global Warming, I am willing to reserve judgment. If he'd like to re-publish citing reputable original or third-party science that supports his points then I'm ready to listen. Until then he's just another person muddying the water and wasting our time. - Frei, on 11/13/2007, -6/+34Perhaps you haven't heard about the "War on Terror?" Anyway, are you implying the current use of resources isn't profitable?
- Klepto21, on 11/12/2007, -13/+41So getting a fuel-efficient car and putting solar panels on my roof are just what these conniving evil politicians want me to do, right? Please stop with the "global warming is fear-mongering"; fear-mongering is "Iraq has WMDs".
- TrevorBradley, on 11/10/2007, -8/+35But this isn't like religion, where we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways. There actually *is* an answer to this question, and what that answer is is rather important.
Science is about research and provable results though. At some point we have to relegate the no-evidence "flat Earthers" along with creationists and other crazy people.
Right now the science seems to indicate with high confidence that human made CO2 is the source of much of Earth global warming. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, we should work with that theory for now. By all means continue to investigate alternative theories, that's what science is all about. - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -2/+28The easiest way to update sources would be for you to provide a list of your own, wouldn't it?
- Haecceity, on 11/12/2007, -12/+37Right, a former weather anchor "must" know more about global climate than all those hundreds of thousands of people with doctorates employed by universities. It amazes me how people in American gullibly swallow the claims of the corporations. It's rapidly becoming a nation of selfs.
- ncairns, on 11/10/2007, -11/+36John Coleman is a meteorologist - the polite word for 'weatherman.' He is NOT a climatologist.
- cerilia, on 11/10/2007, -4/+28Because we all know how good of a job his channel does at predicting weather.
- buddahead9, on 11/12/2007, -8/+31people care about the enviroment?!?!?
I can't drive down the street without seeing someone fling cigarette butts out their car window.
Americans just want to fight for a cause when it is convient and funded by someone else. - inactive, on 11/12/2007, -16/+39when did he become an expert?
never.
i see. - ShieldAxe, on 11/10/2007, -9/+29"Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data" Must be those same dastardly scientists that duped so many into believing evolution.
- tonicboy, on 11/11/2007, -17/+37Yeah, and what are YOUR sources? And what are John Coleman's sources, for that matter? Any jackass can give an opinion without offering any evidence other than "Trust me, I know".
- zyl0x, on 11/12/2007, -14/+33I am against man-made global warming.. but seriously, we create WAY too much pollution. Have any of you seen Beijing on a bad day?
As much as I hate this GW BS, if it gets people to smarten the ***** up, then I'm all for it. - blackhawk919, on 11/10/2007, -5/+21Well, in Burlington Colorado (the only city in Colorado that has a temp of 70 today that I could find) it says that the record temp was 83 and that was set in 1934. So I think you are well within the margin there. It may be warmer than the average, but even the average temp is well above a "snowing" temp. You may just have to put the skis away for another month or so.
http://www.wunderground.com/US/CO/Burlington.html - WhiskeyLemur, on 06/30/2009, -6/+21You can say there is no debate; that does not make it true either.
If there is no debate, why are eminent scientists still bringing up the issue? If the IPCC is all-knowing, why are some respected scientists suing (sometimes litereally) to get their names taken off the report?
I don't know what the truth of the matter is; I am not a scientist, and I would add that the field of global climate is too broad for any single scientists to cover fully. I have informed opinions, and so do you, but that does not make them facts. Neither does the scientific "consensus." The point is that anyone who says that it is a non-issue, a closed case, that there is no debate, is being foolish. If there were no debate, we would not be having this....debate.... right now. - Barclay1188, on 11/10/2007, -2/+17Wouldn't that mean that you're boring her out of her mind?
- rabidmonkey1, on 11/10/2007, -11/+25Thus Sayeth THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH!
Don't you see the absolutely fundamental problem with the "logic" of not questioning these people?! Science is as much a money-fueled industry as anything else. The IPCC reports are severely edited and censored. Any scientist that did not agree with the findings was kicked off the panel. - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -4/+17"More false data is being debunked all the time"
No, it's not. In fact, the more time passes, the better we understand that GW is real, and that humans play a big part in it. - jnwhite, on 11/12/2007, -10/+23I'm confused. IF he's so smart, why does he say he's been in meteorology all his life, but the entry discusses CLIMATOLOGY. He's confusing weather and climate I think. Also, can't trust blogs that don't have comments (e.g,. Instastupid). Come to think of it, its always wingnut blogs that don't seem to have comments.
- gendjinn, on 11/10/2007, -3/+16People who believe that scientists can form a conspiracy have obviously never met any. You will certainly find individual scientists and small collaborations that fake results and publish (or fail to retract) papers they know to be false. But there is little else a scientist loves to do (or more likely to establish their career) than to point out the mistakes of other scientists ESPECIALLY when it is the conventional wisdom. Take a look at the covers of Nature and Science for the last 50 years and you will find groundbreaking work that overturns the established theory gets the most coverage. Sheesh.
Now I am actually a trained scientist, I remember reading the various climate change papers in leading journals in the early 90s and back then the evidence was not conclusive, merely overwhelming, NOW it is conclusive and those who are trying to claim it is not real and not a danger either have a vested interest in the status quo or are misinformed.
So unless you have gone and read the original research, can cite references to journal articles that support your position or have performed your own peer reviewed research then you do not know what the ***** you are talking about. If you think we can have 6 billion people on this planet consuming resources at break neck pace and dumping pollutants into our water, earth and air and think it doesn't have an impact on the environment then you are not only misinformed but you are a complete ***** idiot. - 4degrees, on 11/10/2007, -6/+18"in allusion"? haven't seen a typo like that in a while.
an illusion - wiirdo, on 11/13/2007, -40/+53Two generations from now, the hysteria will be about global cooling. Every generation needs something to bitch about.
- wonderchemist, on 11/10/2007, -2/+14Proves you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. To reiterate
Weather: Gee! It sure is hot today!
Climate: Tucson, Arizona is in the desert.
- strafefire, on 11/10/2007, -22/+34"To all global warming deniers. I live in Colorado. It is November 8. It is 70 degrees outside. It should be snowing."
It was snowing, IN MAY, in New York earlier this year. Does that prove Global Cooling?
It is November, in Florida, and the temperature RIGHT NOW, is 56. Does that mean that it is Global Cooling? - klco, on 11/10/2007, -2/+13No but neither did an abstract term. Operatives of the Tterrorist organization Al-Qaeda did.
- Infantrydude, on 11/10/2007, -9/+20And do not forget the population bomb of the 60's. And the Ozone layer in the 90's
This is not about science it is about money. Money for grants and "we need to do more research". Science is a secondary feature. - archiesteel, on 11/10/2007, -4/+14David Attenborough, a "Joe Nobody"? And who the hell are you, exactly?
Stephen E. Schwartz works for the National Environmental Policy Institute, which is funded by Exxon and Shell Oil.
Bob Carter is on the IPA, an organization that is also funded by Big Oil. He also writes articles for Tech Central Station, which receives money from Exxon.
Can you find *one* credible GW-denier that is not on some oil company's payroll? Yeah, didn't think so...
"You pretty much have to be willfully blind to not know about it."
...says the guy who willfully drinks the Big Oil kool-aid... - MWeather, on 11/10/2007, -2/+12"The evidence is simple. There has been global warming and ice ages on planet Earth long before humans even existed. It doesn't matter if humans even exist the temperature will change dumbass."
Just not as rapidly or from the same causes. - Humptydank, on 11/10/2007, -3/+13Any way I can help kiddo, but you missed the point.
I wasn't suggesting you provide sources, I was suggesting that you go look at theirs. This was prompted by your questions/challenges about what everybody's sources were.
I was instructing you in the nature of the Scientific Method to remind you that many of the organizations making these climate change claims use this convenient Method and, as a result, not only publish their claims and conclusions, but also their methods and original data. You can run the whole experiment over again if you want, and see if you get the same results.
So I was answering your question: Yes, any jackass can give an opinion without offering any evidence, but just because you can't believe them doesn't mean you can't believe everybody. Just keep going after original sources until you get to an original study, and that's how you find the source.
Did that answer your question? I hope so, because I think you'll find 8th grade to be a delight -- we start on the Periodic Table! - reakt80, on 11/10/2007, -3/+13Mainstream conservatives can believe all kinds of claptrap. My favorite is the young-earth theory. The fact that anyone can look at environmentalists, who willingly take personal action to reduce their day-to-day pollution, and say it is THEM who are evil and NOT the corporations funding bogus science is beyond belief to me. Are they aware that they are essentially behaving as rabid pro-pollution advocates? What possible justification is there to be pro-pollution? Besides perhaps an abiding love for eating, breathing, and drinking toxins. Pathetic.
- Frei, on 11/10/2007, -1/+11I too am amazed at how passionate the anti-global warming people are about it. Trying to manage natural resources well, create new and clean technology and learn more about the world we live in all seem like positive things. Maybe it's just who is giving the message that they hate so much. That or we have a pollution fan base, maybe we can turn sewage dumps into resorts for them.
- Adoxos, on 11/09/2007, -1/+10Neither did Iraq or Iran. The point is that the government uses true catostrophic events, such as global warming or 9-11, as a fear generator to profit off of and destroy peoples liberties. Global warming is not a scam, the government is.
- Mentosan, on 11/12/2007, -8/+17The reality of global warming is backed up by observation and scientific data. The question is if the cause is man made, solar cycles, cow farts, airplaine or just too much friction :P . Earth was a lot hotter or cooler in the past so it can be only a natural phenomenon but us burning all the coal and oil ( energy from the sun stored through millions of years) might make matters worst....how much worst is the QUESTION!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 672 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is