What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
357 Comments
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -86/+257If this "Lord Monckton" really wanted to prove something he would challenge an actual scientist. Al Gore is just the public voice for the global warming camp; of course he wouldn't be able to win in a technical debate. He's the spokesperson because he has name recognition as an authority figure, can speak/present himself well to the public, and is passionate about the issue -- not because he is the ultimate authority on it.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -20/+174Didn't Al Gore testify before congress as a global warming expert?
- Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -103/+235Sorry but when Al Gore makes a documentary on the subject and tries to give answers he is implying he is an expert on the subject.
- diggablog, on 10/12/2007, -21/+107You just gotta love this quote: "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -82/+163@h00paj00 - The old "fake but true" evidence, so what you're saying is you acknowledge Gore wouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning a debate against anyone who has researched the problem.
Gore won't debate because he has nothing to win, and everything to lose. And I promise you, he would lose. - OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -131/+211The Goracle will shrink from this debate, I guarantee it. Even the great Algore cannot defend that which is indefensible.
- Winters, on 10/12/2007, -55/+128"...he would challenge an actual scientist"
Exactly. A Scientist vs a Politician on a scientific topic. Gee I wonder who will win. - doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -9/+73Dugg for the use of the word "foofaraw".
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -20/+73I love how Gore NOT being a scientist is a defensible viewpoint, but scientists who disagree with him are usually labelled as taking payoffs from Big Oil.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37If this guy's accent is as cool as his use of antiquated and localized British words, the debate is already over.
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -39/+72Global warming is such a threat that Al Gore will have to decline: he is too busy buying carbon credits to offset his home electric usage, and he has to jet himself and his entourage around the globe and drive to speaking engagements in an SUV caravan in order to be the great Global Warming evangelist.
Just remember kiddies, do as he says, not as he does... - batmanjr, on 10/12/2007, -26/+59@ChumpChief
True, BUT how many narrators on those animal shows give their own opinions on the topic and what the world must do. Morgan Freeman didn't take the opportunity to narrate March of the Penguins, to add in his own beliefs on penguins, or give some political view of what their life was like. - korbink, on 10/12/2007, -22/+52@ChumpCheif
"Narrators for documentaries don't need to be experts; look at the narrators for National Geographic specials, they're not experts on animal life."
They're also not making decisions that affect the wildlife. - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -22/+51This post has surprised the hell out of me. everyone on this page posting "al gore is a dumbass / global warming isn't real" is dugg up like crazy- I thought diggers loved al gore, i mean hell stephen hawking and his buddies over at http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/ moved the doomsday clock up because of global warming, and i hear on NPR all the time about that international board of scientists all agreeing that human produced CO2 is causing it.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -20/+47By your logic, Alfred Lothar Wegener is not qualified to talk about continental drift; Alfred Russel Wallace about evolution; Steve Jobs about computers; Al Gore about global warming. After all, they don't have the right magical pieces of paper that automatically give every opinion they have the stamp of legitimacy.
Yes, it is so much more difficult to argue about evidence, facts, economic and foreign policy. So let's throw all of that rot out the window and discuss credentials! This is a sign that you may be on the losing side of the debate. - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33now you know where the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph get their pompous style..
""Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the
Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President's prerogative and right to
choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the
Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save
the Queen!" " - johngardiner, on 10/12/2007, -57/+83@ Winters... yeah I also wonder... let's see Al Gore made a feature documentary about the subject so you'd think anyone who made something like an Inconvenient Truth would be able to defend the point behind his movie right... unless of course 80% of the ***** in the movie is made up and he'll have no decent arguments.... oooohh crappp....
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -24/+48I don't understand one of the central claims of the climate change deniers: namely that the huge overwhelming scientific consensus was achieved because the government(s) want it to be true. Even if it were possible to bribe almost the entire scientific population (it's not), what makes you people so sure that governments would want global warming to be true? NOBODY wants global warming to be true, not Al Gore, not anyone else. Well, maybe some luddites or Amish do. But everyone else just has the intellectual honesty to look at the facts without letting their fears about the consequences overwhelm them (as the deniers do - "It's not true because that might personally inconvenience me".)
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -59/+82@liam76
Narrators for documentaries don't need to be experts; look at the narrators for National Geographic specials, they're not experts on animal life. - robman8023, on 10/12/2007, -14/+37@Retsudo
"*including CO2, which, if anyone doesn't think is a pollutant, put a plastic bag over your nose and mouth for a few minutes and see how healthy it is."
Um, did you pay attention at all during basic biology class? That lightheaded feeling you enjoy from placing a plastic bag over your head isn't because of a surpus of CO2 it's because of a lack of O2. You sir, are a jackass. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -14/+36@follower64
So basically, it's a global conspiracy to make it LOOK like scientists exist with evidence for global warming?
And it's a "Hey I have an idea, let's invent a thing called global warming and get rich solving it", plus a lot of money, that creates all that?
Absolute *****. I've done experiments on a small scale, seen the math (didn't understand it one bit), seen experiments on larger scales. Went to a college with a pretty damn good Biochemistry program, and the several dozen "global warming is real" supporters who spent their time performing experiments regarding it sure as hell weren't on anyone's pay.
My question is something like this...
First, someone comes up with the idea that there might exist global warming...
They do some experiments on it, and there's some overwhelming evidence that it's real... Mind you, evidence isn't solid proof...but it's enough to create a scientific Theory, often held as fact until a solid counterproof is made available.
Next, what? They do experiments to get more details about it, and try to solve it.
So WHO is putting countless millions into studying the LACK of its existence? Oh, yeah, Big Oil. Not that I don't trust scientists backed almost entirely by Big Oil as much as I trust those first scientists working on small-time grants (admittedly some by companies that could profit from the existence being true, but who would do equally well getting employed to cut down other pollution)...
I'm not an environmental scientist, and I'll admit that. I took the 101 and 102 of pretty much all the related fields, but I'm as much a Biochemist as I am a Physicist, which isn't much. I won't stand on a podium and argue it's definitely true or false. I -have- read much of the evidence, and I think both sides, if they really want to blow cash to destroy each other, need to work hard to deal with a lot of "not-well-countered" issues on the other side. - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -18/+39@follower64
because scientists have really ***** PR. Why do you think over half the united states still believes in Intelligent Design? Plus, the media does not favor scientists- how many scientists can you name off the top of your head? now, how many polititians can you name? - AlphaEta, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34The problem is that neither the fear mongers such as Al Gore, nor those that claim climate change is a hoax use "intellectual honesty" as the basis for their arguments. The reality lies within the gray are between these two ideologies. Is climate change real? Without a doubt. Are humans responsible? To some degree yes, but we still don't know exactly how significant our contribution is. Are all of the models that predict the worst case scenario as a result of climate change correct? We don't know, but there is undoubtedly a bit of wiggle room in the models that would greatly reduce the predicted changes in sea level, permafrost melting, etc... Maybe we're doomed, maybe we aren't.
My point is that there are political and economic motives on each side of this argument. We should all try to reduce our energy consumption and the amount of waste we produce, but not because Al Gore scares us into it.
After all, the global warming scare is actually being used by the Bush administration to force corn-based ethanol down our throats! This is an untenable solution, but if we don't stop and question the motives of these people a lot of scum bags are going to get rich at our expense by selling products and processes under the guise of "environmentally friendly." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Monckton is not a scholar, a little googling will show he is just another journalist skeptic who's "research" has never been published in a peer reviewed journal, but rather the london telegraph.
So this is meaningless but you guys can still get all excited and call Gore mean names.
Way to check out the source first though, really good job. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Yes, because proselytizing ecological responsibility and telling people that they should adopt measures that would cause them to have to spend more money to do the same things they do in cheap but more ecologically harmful ways right now is the sure way to power.
Or maybe not.
I understand and totally sympathize with someone who wouldn't trust a politician to not have ulterior motives, which is why I think he ought to go on the debate. If he can't defend this cause, it's not worth his efforts anyway. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@1021 (and everyone else calling monckton a scientist)
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not a scientist. He is a retired journalist who also served as Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor in the early 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley - elioty, on 10/12/2007, -16/+32That movie looks terribly biased. Please do a little reading before you take this film seriously. It's directed by someone who, in another film, argued that breast implants were GOOD for women (and not just their self-esteem).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director) - the director of the movie - Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26Here we go again. A whole lot of you who want to believe there is no global warming, or if there is global warming it's not humans fault, or if it is humans fault there's no point reducing our polluting and short termist ways are going to get yourself all excited, AGAIN,
please don't for a moment claim the world isn't get hotter at the moment that it has been since records began, as that is empirical fact.
Al Gore isn't the guy who invented the concept of climate change, he is just the first person to get America to listen to the argument. The rest of the world was well aware that emissions needed cutting when the Kyoto treaty was drawn up.
In the unlikely situation that burning all the fossil fuels we do and sticking all the crap into the atmosphere that we do isn't the main cause of the problem, it would still make sense to stop doing it at the rate we are, if only so future generations have some fossil fuels to use. - doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26"And at this point, you need to ask the question: "Is it likely that dumping billions of tons of pollutants* into the ecosystem is a) good for it or b) bad for it?""
Wrong. The question that needs to be asked is "Is the benefit of radically changing our technology, economy and lifestyle worth the percieved benfits?" It's called a "Cost-Benefit Analysis", and the idea seems to be very foreign to the Global Doomsday scenarists.
And if I wanted to be snarky, I'd say that given the "pollution" we're talking about is carbon dioxide, I can come up with several billion metric assloads of green biomass that would happily answer the question "Hell yeah! Bring it on!"
"*including CO2, which, if anyone doesn't think is a pollutant, put a plastic bag over your nose and mouth for a few minutes and see how healthy it is."
Alright, in the case of that piece of blatant idiocy, I will be snarky: Dunk your head inside a bucket of clean, pure water for a few minutes and see how healthy THAT is. For bonus points please arrange for a web cam broadcast so we all can enjoy the results. Thanks. - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Al Gore is not a scientist. He is simply a very good popular voice for the global warming issue.
Challenging Gore to a debate is a bit like challenging a popular science reporter on a specific topic they discussed. You may be able to make it seem like they're wrong on a particular topic because they're not the scientists that actually studied the subject, only a person doing their best to distill the science into a form that laymen can understand. In other words, you're attacking the low lying fruit.
Why not "challenge" an actual climate scientist to this same debate? Why not publish a paper that dissects the two IPCC reports and points out flaws?
Oh, that's right... because the sole goal of this "debate" is to get publicity any maybe mislead a few people while you're at it.
Real scientific debates happen in journals, not in front of TV screens. - rubicante, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23@RadiantBeing: The point he is making is that environmental science is an extremely complicated subject. It's not something you read an article about and understand. Consequently, people who have a very strong opinion on the subject should have a equally strong background, otherwise they are simply echoing propaganda. I have my own opinions on the subject, but know enough to defer to people who have devoted their lives to study it.
- William01, on 10/12/2007, -16/+27A mere cursory study reveals that Monckton is full of *****:
"The Associated Press contacted more than 100 top climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Because this was at the time before the film's general release many of those surveyed had neither seen the movie nor read the book, but all 19 climate scientists who had done so said that Gore conveyed the science correctly."
"RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as 'remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth - doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Quite a brouhaha over foofaraw.
- MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16I think the biggest issue is the one being brought up by this guy. That a quick fix to global warming will cause serious problems to the world poor, as well as the rich.
A few quick and dirty non scientific examples
1) Lets say we do something reallly drastic about global warming like trying to block the suns light out partially. What if we were wrong, massive famine and damage to the ecosystem that can never be undone.
2) Lets say we take a different responce to global warming and employ a genius way of separating CO2 storing the carbon and releasing the "safe" oxygen. Sounds lovely.. Guess what massive amounts of oxygen (on the scale of the amounts of CO2 we are releasing now. Would have an even worse effect globally than CO2 does, and plants aren't going to help scrub that up, in fact too much oxygen would quickly kill many plants. (Realize I'm talking here massive scale replacement)
3) Now those other solutions are silly, lets say we simply do what Gore and others are suggesting and heavily tax all CO2 emissions the US. You will have a drastic effect on the US economy one that may never recover from. Some may say this is a good thing as the environment is more important. But lets look at several what if senerios.
A) What if we continue with our current patterns but massively invest in alternative solutions and potentially other future technology that may create power from nothing and end world hunger in a way thats healthy for our economy. These solutions once they become cheap then are used by third world nations to help them jump over the last 100 years in the US history of early industrialization pollution. Sorta like how the telecommunications have jump started over landlines in these countries.
B) We massively destroy our economy for environmental reasons thus not helping these third world nations, and infact give them a false example of what not to do (don't worry about the environment it will destroy your economy).
The basic point of all this is we NEED to tread lightly and not jump for solutions because they feel good. A potential problem (which is most likely overstated) like this can't be treated lightly and reacted to by gut feelings. We need real scientist and economist offering real solutions, not politicians pandering to things like the Kyoto treaty.
Last time I posted something similar to this months ago I got dugg down.. lets see what happends :) - unicronband, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Monckton demands Gore meet him by the monkey bars after recess lest he earn the title "Poopy Pants Al"
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -58/+68Gore will never agree to a debate on the subject; that would require the use of logic, evidence and reason. These are like Kryptonite to Gore's kind.
- qmeister, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12C'mon, this guy is a "Lord" and he's British. He must know what he's saying.
:) - fungible, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15I can't believe people are so willing to bet the future of our planet on a the ramblings of a guy who calls himself "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" and uses words like "foofaraw" and "shibboleths" in his everyday correspondence. I mean, he's amusing and all, but I don't think I (much less Al Gore) would even respond to such obvious idiocy.
- Klainmeister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I don't really care the debate or what either have to say. Whether global warming is real or not isn't my personal issue. What ever happened to just wanting to use less resources and being kind the environment that sustains life?
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"In the unlikely situation that burning all the fossil fuels we do and sticking all the crap into the atmosphere that we do isn't the main cause of the problem, it would still make sense to stop doing it at the rate we are, if only so future generations have some fossil fuels to use."
On this we can agree. So you with me on the building of nuclear power plants to replace the coal-burners, right? - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@Retsudo
You're changing the argument.
Do I agree that dumping lots of waste into the environment is a bad thing? Uhhhh.... Yes!
Do I agree that humans are 90% responsible for the upswing in global temperatures? Nope... I've only seen correlations, conjectures, and models. I've not seen any direct links between our activites and increasing temperature that exclude the Sun getting warmer, natural response from leaving a "mini ice age", or sheer coincidence. - libertao, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I am officially challenging Stephen Hawking to a debate on astrophysics. I bet that chicken will not accept this challenge!
- Catch_ME, on 10/12/2007, -21/+30Globe warming cannot be debated and decided upon by 2 people.
Al Gore is not the leader of the global warming crowd.
95% of the top scientists in the world have real evidence that it is real and does exist. - AlphaEta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Look, we fundamentally agree. There is no doubt that we need to reduce the amount of pollutants (including CO2 and CH4) we release into the ecosystem. I personally have taken significant steps to do such, but I'm not quite ready to start burning candles for light and turning the furnace off in December.
As far as your specific question, I've personally never seen any government "want" climate change to be real in the context you've described. So I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you.
Many people who are beating the climate change drum DO present ONLY the worst case (or best case, depending on their position) scenario. These models are not infallible, and like you said, as more research is done maybe things will look better, or they could get a whole lot worse.
The part of your comment that I don't completely agree with is when you said: "But everyone else just has the intellectual honesty to look at the facts without letting their fears about the consequences overwhelm them (as the deniers do - "It's not true because that might personally inconvenience me".)" My point is that BOTH EXTREMES lack the intellectual honesty to look at the facts without bias. Not just the people who claim climate change is a hoax.
So is your country immune to the effects American corporations have on petrochemical prices? Unfortunately, just as they've done with oil, the energy corporations WILL force ethanol down your throat! But that's irrelevant. My point was that the people who lack the intellectual honesty to assess the negative consequences of an ethanol-based energy system (because they are scared ***** by Al Gore) will NOT question its viability. - polymorphist, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17"Really. It's getting so ***** old trying to have conversations about this with people who have never taken a university level enviro-sci course."
Absolutely! I'm sure the "university level enviro-sci course" teaches nothing but the scientifically proven truth. - rberger909, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I hereby challenge George W. Bush to an arm wrestling contest. If I win I'm the new president. If he declines to participate he is frightened and obvious not qualified to be president. Sound fair? We'll book it for this Saturday, see you all there!
- spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11A quick review of the scientific consensus on this topic: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49
"Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.
This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about.
Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either."
Continues, in plenty of detail. - Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Which country is it that is meeting the Kyoto agreement goals?
- William01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10**though it has been widely ridiculed in the scientific community as devoid of scientific merit**
"The Associated Press contacted more than 100 top climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Because this was at the time before the film's general release many of those surveyed had neither seen the movie nor read the book, but all 19 climate scientists who had done so said that Gore conveyed the science correctly."
"RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as 'remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth - Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+20And 93.7% of global warming related statistics posted in the Digg comment sections are made up on the spot.
"95%" of "top scientists?"
How do you define a "top scientist."
For that matter, if 95% of "top scientists" have "real evidence," then wouldn't that imply that at the very least 95% of the total set of "top scientists" are meteorologists, climatologists, or other professions directly related to global warming?
I guess its true what they say. There really IS lots of money to be made in the topic of Global Warming! -
Show 51 - 100 of 361 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is