digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at dailygalaxy.com

NASA Scientist: Global Warming is a Political Lie

dailygalaxy.com — A leading climate scientist says the public is being lied to and duped by special interest groups about the severity of global warming. Policy makers are sacrificing public interest to line their pockets.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • macwisdom, on 06/25/2008, -21/+158Just to clarify:
    "Hansen says the oil industry is intentionally spreading doubt about a subject they know full well is a real and serious concern, and that it’s a crime that can no longer go unchallenged."
    • annonimality, on 06/26/2008, -5/+25Hansen also caused a stir by calling on chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity”.

      Hansen says chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy are fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are intentionally spreading.
      • bono4u, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1hung them
      • Liability, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3
        Just like cigarette companies 20 years ago. Greed is destroying our world.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/27/2008, -19/+3196.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings.

      Can we go home now?
      • Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -10/+43.5% is massive, do you know what losing 3.5% of your bodies water does to you? would you like 3.5% more pay?
        how can people say we are having no effect when apparently we produce 3.5% of the worlds CO2

        not to mention that is only 1 of the green house gasses.
        • Beanbones, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. 3.5% is NOT a massive quantity by any stretch of the imagination. However, 3.5% can still have a huge impact. Consider a lake where due to external factors, the average water temperature has risen by 3.5%. Although it may not seem like much, this rise in temperature could allow all sorts of new organisms to thrive in this environment.

          So, yes, in certain cases, small quantities can have an enormous impact.

          But - and this is an important but - science has yet to prove that our effect on greenhouse gass emissions is one of these cases. The climate change we're witnessing may have been caused by a variety of factors; man is only ONE of many factors.
        • tkstock, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8Murdats and Beanbones,

          I'm sorry, but both your examples are extremely poor and have no relevance to the topic. They're not even comparable.

          The fact that CO2 causes 5% of the greenhouse effect (water vapor causes the most), and we cause 3.5% of the CO2, that means we cause 5% * 3.5% = 0.175%. So, mankind is responsible for less than 2 tenths of 1 percent of the greenhouse effect. If we were to reduce our CO2 emmissions by 50% (impossible) we would reduce the effect to 0.0875% - which won't do jack.

          That doesn't mean that politicians don't want to spend trillions of dollars to try...
        • directedition, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Actually, you're all off base.

          The 3.5% figure is SPECIALLY from cargo ships. This number doesn't figure cars, air planes, or power generation into consideration.

          http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/27055
          - It's the ENN, so take it with a grain of salt.
        • starmanjones, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4[>I'm sorry, but both your examples are extremely poor and
          [>have no relevance to the topic. They're not even comparable.

          he wasn't comparing... he was giving examples that refute the idea that 3.5% is too small to be a factor. he was right. it can matter in a large number of contexts.

          [>The fact that CO2 causes 5% of the greenhouse effect (water
          [>vapor causes the most), and we cause 3.5% of the CO2, that
          [>means we cause 5% * 3.5% = 0.175%. So, mankind is
          [>responsible for less than 2 tenths of 1 percent of the
          [>greenhouse effect. If we were to reduce our CO2 emissions
          [>by 50% (impossible) we would reduce the effect to 0.0875% -
          [>which won't do jack.

          i'm afraid that you are the one that is wrong. first you are using numbers that are specific and attributed in ways that may not be accurate. its very likely that humans have affected the biosphere in ways that aren't recognized... but are caused by us and skewing the amounts.

          the ice caps are melting. we have core samples from the ice that give us an exact record of the earths biosphere over time. these measurements directly refute your assertion. the melting ice caps directly refute your assertions. this physical evidence is why your assertions don't mean jack.

          here is why you are wrong about the insignificance of 3.5% or any other number you wanna call on . the earths bioshere is not a linear process. its dynamic and its condition is the result of an equilibrium. a few percent can cause it to fall out this balanced state and the result could be massive and catastrophic when it comes our survival.

          [>That doesn't mean that politicians don't want to spend
          [>trillions of dollars to try...

          this is what i expected. your position is a political statement not based facts.
        • tkstock, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3"he wasn't comparing... he was giving examples that refute the idea that 3.5% is too small to be a factor. he was right. it can matter in a large number of contexts."

          It doesn't matter in THIS context and that's my point.

          "its very likely that humans have affected the biosphere in ways that aren't recognized... but are caused by us and skewing the amounts."

          Sorry, I thought there was a scientific consensus.

          "the ice caps are melting. we have core samples from the ice that give us an exact record of the earths biosphere over time. these measurements directly refute your assertion. the melting ice caps directly refute your assertions. this physical evidence is why your assertions don't mean jack."

          When did I assert that the earth isn't warming up? YOU made that assumption. My assertion is that man's contribution to global warming is negligible.

          "the earths bioshere is not a linear process"

          Not only that, but the earth's biosphere isn't a process at all.

          "...your position is a political statement not based facts."

          That's what I've said about the whole anthropogenic global warming theory!!! LOL
      • jlucpicard, on 06/27/2008, -8/+990% of all statistics can be made to say anything

        50% of the time.
      • jstone, on 06/27/2008, -4/+11Look, you're missing the point. There is a 'carbon cycle' just like there's a 'water cycle.' Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by a number of sources, and is eventually released back into the atmosphere, forming an equilibrium. However, by burning fossil fuels, humans are upsetting this equilibrium. The consequences of this will be harmful.
        • tkstock, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Just curios, are there any studies out there about how much reduction in CO2 man causes by fighting forest fires? I'm honestly curious - we've become adept at containing forest fires that used to run rampant without restraint. And since there are more trees standing now than at the time of the revolution, this all SHOULD have a negative effect on CO2 - but has a study ever been done?
        • chrizzler, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3I agree... So its not a question of comparing 96.5% and 3.5%, but this 96.5% is IN the cycle and we are disrupting this process by 3.5%... which is a LOT if you're doing it for over a hundred years.

          @ tkstock: More trees standing than at time of industrial revolution.. wont buy that. Facts? Further more: Trees are in the CO2 cycle, so it doesn't matter how much trees there are per square meter (not for an impact on the cycle). Everything that grows holds CO2, and everything thats dies releases it (trees eventually die). Grass grows faster (taking CO2) but also dies faster (releasing CO2). Only solution (of course) is to put the CO2 back from where it came: underground, out of the cycle. The whole compensate-your-CO2-by-buying-trees business is therefore a big lie!
        • Origin415, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2@tkstock
          forest fires are a natural occurance, they are necessary to clear out underbrush so new life can grow in forests. The fires won't kill the larger trees anyway. In fact, one tool to fight forest fires is to start controlled burns ourselves.
          The reason we contain them is because people live near forests.
        • tkstock, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Origin415, I know all that, but it doesn't answer my question. (The fires will kill larger trees if it is big enough - I've seen it first-hand. There's a difference between forest and ground fires).

          The question is, forest fires in of themselves release CO2 into the atmosphere - a lot of it. So, by reducing the amount of forest fires overall, we're reducing CO2 emissions by some amount. Has that amount ever been determined? The additional trees also provide an addition CO2 "sink" - that's probably measurable too. That's my question.
        • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1There is a HUGE difference between the # of trees and the volume - the fact is that forestry has released a massive amount of carbon by clearing out the large trees and planting saplings. For the stats every 6 inch sapling counts the same as a full grown red-wood, that's how they got that stat.
      • rlbond86, on 06/27/2008, -0/+13[citation needed]
      • Naieve, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2I think we need to drastically address this high co2 issue.

        Let's institute a one child policy and a vegan diet.

        Obviously the large number of human beings and animals being farmed for our consumption is having too great of an impact.
      • Micktion, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1I agree!

        So in other words you are saying this submission is totally deceptive and in actual fact a complete negation of the actual content it is referring to.

        If you have any moral fibre at all you should bury this submission, as whilst the story is worthy the submission is FUD.

        As much as I like the irony of someone submitting a DIGG story which is lying about a story which is about people lying, this is too serious to joke about.

        Whether you believe in global warming or not, you should bury this submission as it is very clearly a total distortion of the truth and an attempt to spread FUD and disinformation about the original story.

        I believe global warming is a very serious issue, so I'd digg the story, but not this submission.

        Wow this is complicated, but thats exactly how BIG oil wants it - complicated and $500 a barrel for oil.

        I bet the IP number of the submitter can probably be linked to some pro OIL lobby group. They must be laughing their heads off.
      • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2What a confusing thread - how about just checking the science:

        http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

        just search the page for the CO2 entries, and check this one in particular http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/235212 ... and "How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
      • starmanjones, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1@tkstock

        >>"he wasn't comparing... he was giving
        >>examples that refute the idea that 3.5%
        >>is too small to be a factor. he was
        >>right. it can matter in a large number
        >>of contexts."

        >It doesn't matter in THIS context and
        >that's my point.

        why doesn't if matter in this context? if you can't give specifics about what amounts amount would matter then you're talking out your ass.

        >>"its very likely that humans have
        >>affected the biosphere in ways that
        >>aren't recognized... but are caused by
        >>us and skewing the amounts."

        >Sorry, I thought there was a scientific
        >consensus.

        there is. its hard data that what we've already done is making a change... could it be wrong? ya. its possible. you seem to think that the possibliity that the consenss is wrong and its some natural climate change is a good reason to ignore the science. but if you make that case then you have to explain why our contribution to the greenhouse gases will have no additive effect to the naturally changing climate.

        there is a hugely good case for saying this is happening and we are causing it. if we aren't causeing it. there is a 100% chance we will cause it if we don't stop the way we are ding things. so acting on this is ao brainer. not acting on it is an "i don't give a *****" answer.

        >>"the ice caps are melting. we have core
        >>samples from the ice that give us an
        >>exact record of the earths biosphere
        >>over time. these measurements directly
        >>refute your assertion. the melting ice
        >>caps directly refute your assertions.
        >>this physical evidence is why your
        >>assertions don't mean jack."

        >When did I assert that the earth isn't
        >warming up? YOU made that assumption. My
        >assertion is that man's contribution to
        >global warming is negligible.

        ah, ya. if you don't think we should ignore the science and the data then i stand corrected. that is an arguement relevant inside the climate change debunkers camp. you all sound the same to us. "ignore it." "its politics."

        >>"the earths bioshere is not a linear
        >>process"

        >Not only that, but the earth's biosphere
        >isn't a process at all.

        so its always been just the way it is right now? the ice cores are wrong? we clear cut the forrests and it wouldn't matter?

        you are seriously going to say the earth is static? really? well, the earths biosphere is dynamic. changing one thing a small amount can cuase it to fall out of eqilibrum and make things pretty much unlivable for humans, our fellow animals and a bunch of plants. i'd keep that opinion to yourself because it makes you sound pretty... clueless.

        >>"...your position is a political
        >>statement not based facts."

        >That's what I've said about the whole
        >anthropogenic global warming theory!!!
        >LOL

        the only thing here thats political is that your side of this debate wants to ignore all facts and use politics to keep any action on it from happening because it might hurt the economy or something.
      • starmanjones, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1[>Actually, you're all off base.
        [>
        [>The 3.5% figure is S

        we hadn't gotten to exact figures. i think we were letting the figures go and trying to get by the "it can happen." barrier.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Sadly, it takes a rocket scientist to point this out.
  • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -23/+113Strange title - it sounds like the standard Denier dreck, but admittedly is ambiguous. Just to be clear, Hansen is one of the leading figures promoting the truth that climate change is crisis that we must deal with immediately
    • pantone286, on 06/26/2008, -3/+18The title is ***** insanely confused. Who knew rush limbaugh was a digger?
      • askantik, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1lmao. Yeah, whoever submitted this Digg didn't think out the title...
    • DifferentAngle, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0*promoting the belief

      • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Well, for those of you who never bother to look at the science I suppose it does boil down to a question of belief or not. Some of us have checked it out though, so 'truth' it is.
      • DifferentAngle, on 06/29/2008, -1/+0true implies absolute knowledge, which would be very hard to claim on this topic
  • WriterSD, on 06/25/2008, -23/+69Ahhh... Good points folks. You're right. I didn't read closely enough. I just reread what I wrote, and the title and description make it sound like the argument's on the opposite side. That's what I get for submitting something while I'm still half asleep. Thanks for clearing it up!
    • NecroSexy, on 06/26/2008, -2/+28You should become a journalist!
    • malex, on 06/26/2008, -1/+47On the plus side, this will be a good test case to see if some people bother to read an article before posting their opinions.
      • matu4251, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2At least it already proves that people post without reading.
      • Troy64, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4If you just read the comments, you can figure out in the first 3 comments that the article is the opposite of the title.
      • rentmitchum, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2I can't believe global warming is just a LIE!
      • starmanjones, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2i read the article because i just couldn't believe the headline.
    • trippinlikegod, on 06/26/2008, -5/+12I hear Fox news could use a man like you! ;)
    • DuffyDirect, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1So posting on digg offsets your sleep town? Sounds like a personal problem.
      • mugicha, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Sleep town? Is that like funky town?
    • weareglass, on 06/26/2008, -4/+8Unfortunately, now all the crazies will be on this thread, speculating on the inaccuracy of global warming with copied and pasted rants by political appointees and scientists on the payroll of multinational oil corporations. Yay.
  • manzplan, on 06/25/2008, -39/+12oh sure, its a lie.. just keep pumping that crap into the sky and nothing will happen....
    • warlax27, on 06/26/2008, -9/+2Who should I trust Manzplan or a NASA scientist.....???
    • kjk437, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Neither, you both are idiots and aren't realizing that this guy isn't denying the existence of global warming at all.
    • FabianN, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6Read the article dumb ass.
      The title is confusing and doesn't reveal the real argument of the article
    • zmjone2992, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3RTFA
    • rlbond86, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2That's what the article says, tard
  • ranksurge, on 06/25/2008, -21/+15When Mother Nature has had enough of us little hmans, she'll be swift in exterminating our little race - so all this talk about "going green" and "saving the polar bears" and whatever other cause you want, is all to keep us feeling like we are doing something positive...just my $.02
    • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -9/+5The talk may be, just as the talk of defeating the Nazis was talk, but those taking action are achieving something. Not enough of course, enough will require that more people actually take action as well.
    • scamerica, on 06/25/2008, -10/+4Idiot
      • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -9/+2Hey, scamerica has a new screen name!

        Keep it, it's you.
    • Qeveren, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8Mother Nature hates being anthropomorphized.
  • SaveJake, on 06/25/2008, -14/+34Just had this conversation last night....well it turned into a heated discussion!
    Tell me, do you see this falling into a generation thing?

    Yes it is expensive to 'Go Green' but I find that those over 60-ish have a problem believing or just don't care. It won't be a problem for them. Even those with children and grandchildren tend to feel this is a money making scam.............I just don't understand their logic or lack of it.
    • greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -14/+18Well they are the generation that did the most damage, hands down. Acknowledging it is somewhat akin to a generation of Germans coming to grips with the Holocaust.
      • Quisquis, on 06/26/2008, -9/+8Wow you're a asshat... I can't believe you would compare those two.

        BTW Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies says this thread is over.
        • publiclurker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2As he said, some people have trouble.
      • dkeck14, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4terrible comparison. where the tire meets the track (so to speak) environmentalists appear to half-heartedly follow their morality. The ones I run across generally seem to only have enough energy to express their conscientiousness. If I believed the world was going to be devastated within 50 years, and that carbon reduction was the only answer, I would radically change my lifestyle. (Luckily, I do not think this, so I not have to live with what must be massive moral confusion).
    • RunnyBabbit, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11I find the opposite. I work in a grocery store, and many more of our elder customers bring their own bags than the younger generations.
      • bono4u, on 06/27/2008, -4/+6But isn't the reason for that to spare the 20 cents for the plastic bag and not a environmental issue.
        • RunnyBabbit, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4No, we don't charge for bags. All the advertisement that comes with buying your own is "green" motivated. I am aware of other states that do have laws requiring that plastic/paper bags be charged for, but Washington is not one of them yet.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Are they doing this more now, or have they always done it? I know while traveling in Europe as a kid, when we'd go to the store we'd have to bring our own bag to pack our purchases in. Don't know if it's changed or not.
        • RunnyBabbit, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2It became a topic of discussion in my state (at least I think so, I can only confirm this with anecdotal evidence gathered from my store) a few months ago, and the number of people bringing their own bags probably quadrupled within a month, and it has kept growing. We're doing a lot of "redeem this coupon for a free bag" promotions too. If the customer comes in with one such coupon that expired two weeks prior, we'll give them one anyway. We sell so many we run out very quickly.
      • Origin415, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2They also love their paper bags. Seriously, if you run out of paper bags, all hell breaks loose in grocery stores. As for reusable bags, I found the majority of those people were young white couples, the same type that buys only organic/cage-free/free range (ie me in the future). --former Stop and Shop cashier
    • bjiggs, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3ahh. Maybe because they're convinced that it's *****. Or maybe because the people who say the sky is falling themselves continue to produce MORE C02 than the average citizen.

      The science is FAR from settled and no amount of propaganda will change that.
    • Troy64, on 06/26/2008, -8/+7It is probably the experience that comes with age that changes your perspective. You have lived through enough of these scams to know better. You know the science that can't predict what is going to happen 3 days from know is going to have problems predicting what is going to happen 50 years from know.

      But since global warming is a religion, the people with life experience are the idiots..
      • Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4science cant predict what is going to happen 3 days from now? I hope you mean meteorology because science has predicted things decades and centuries in advance of any evidence.
        • Troy64, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3What things were predicted by science centuries ago that have happened, or even 50 years ago?

          (Just a hint knowing that there will eventually be an earthquake on a fault line is not predicting anything.)
        • Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4recently. we discovered the remains of a supernova that we expected to find.
          I would call predicting that supernovas would exist in out galaxy, form in such a way at such a rate and have certain effects lots of predictions, and it took us 50 years to find one, after producing a correctly predictive model about it a long time ago.

          Einstein's theory of relativity predicted that light would be bent by objects with mass at a certain amount, it took years for a viable solar eclipse to occur for someone to prove him correct.

          science is ALL about learning how to predict what will happen, weather is a bit difficult because we don't have enough data or powerful enough computers yet to model it in real time, you could accurately predict tomorrows weather, but by the time you are done you could just look out the window.
        • Troy64, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3Your points are not exactly what I am looking for. If someone could point to a star and say that star will super nova in 50 years that would be a prediction. Finding evidence that something has already happened and then 50 years later finding proof that you were right, is not a prediction.

          Also finding proof of Einsteins theory is not a prediction of a future event.

          I am not saying that science is not valid, it is just not accurate at predicting future events.
      • angryredplanet, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1I don't know how many times this needs to be spelled out to the denial crowd but global warming is a proven fact. CO2 is an essential part of the atmosphere for Earth to maintain it's climate (a.k.a. the greenhouse effect). Without it, Earth's climate would be too harsh for life, as we know it, to exist. Too much CO2 has an equally disturbing effect. As an example, look at Venus, an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and it's climate is known to be extremely unstable.

        We know all about global warming. What we don't know is how long we have until the atmospheric concentration of CO2 makes Earth's climate more reminiscent of Venus. This time frame is predicted (accurately or not) by computer models, however the certainty of the path we are following couldn't be any clearer. Unless of course you're a denier.
      • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Most of the alleged scams you refer to were IF/THEN conditionals. IF we do not eliminate CFCs, IF we do not scale back pesticides, etc

        Your point amounts to "they said I would get cancer if I didn't quit smoking. I smoked for a couple of years 3 decades ago and I don't have cancer, so they were scamming me"
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5The people who supposedly "care" seem to not care. The U.N. wrote a huge report about the causes of human contributed greenhouse gases that says our meat eating habits contribute greater amounts of greenhouse gases than transportation and manufacturing.
      Yet how many greenies have become vegetarians? Why is this always a battle against the evil oil companies? We aren't all victims, it just so happens the number one contribution to greenhouse gases has to do with personal choice, not big corporations. I just find it a bit hypocritical that many of those demanding moratoriums and mandates and regulation on others don't take steps to adjust their own lifestyles.
      Perhaps others would think it's not just a money making scam if the people promoting it acted as if they believed in it themselves and did more then complain about everyone else not doing enough.
      I know there are a lot of issues that seem like there's nothing that can be done at an individual level, but this definitely is not one of them. But perhaps many young people just like meat as much as many older people like their money.

      http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/lo ...
      • bono4u, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Well spoken, couldn't agree more. Awfully the truth is bitter and sometimes hard to admit.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2But why now, as opposed to say the industrial revolution in America or Victorian Britain, are we seeing these problems? Shouldn't we see some evidence of man made problems in tree rings during those ages of world history if man was actually contributing to the problem?
      • Naieve, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Screw you, I want my Baconator.

        ; )
      • desertDenizen, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1They would do better to promote a low-meat diet rather than a no-meat diet, to avoid making it a religious battle. In addition to the environmental reasons, flexitarians get essentially all of the same health benefits as vegans.
      • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Most of the activists I know are veg, do not own a vehicle, etc

        I think the issue is really about who is an environmentalist and who is just a poser - get better friends
    • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1It may be simply because they lived through the last crusade in the 70s with the ecology movement. Some great things came of that, but not the doom and gloom that was predicted. It's possible that some of the older generation sees the same thing happening all over again.
    • knobtwiddler, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2i duno, seems pretty cool outside to me right now.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1One word: neuroplasticity. Or rather, lack thereof. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, unless the dog (person) has made lifetime learning his/her modus operandi.
  • brexians, on 06/25/2008, -31/+16we do not facing global warming instead we have in frond of us a global chilling as the sun declares strike!
    search and check and double chek what I am telling you....
  • scamerica, on 06/25/2008, -46/+25Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
    Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
    Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
    Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
    Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
    Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
    And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
  • Doofy, on 06/25/2008, -37/+32Meanwhile, Global Cooling continues. We're also overdue for the next 100,000 year ice age.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 06/25/2008, -29/+22Hansen = conspiracy theorist, no better than a truther ffs.
    I agree with him in that science has been politicized, but completely disagree with him on who started it.
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5It's a conspiracy to suggest that the oil industry, which stands to lose millions (if not billions) if AGW prevention measures are implemented, might be doing their best to bury evidence for AGW?
      • Troy64, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3The oil industry has more to worry about with 4 dollar a gallon gas than they ever had to worry about with global warming prevention measures. You realize China and India are never going to comply with any standards. At less than 4 dollars a gallon they will have plenty of customers.
        • WasabiBomb, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Which is why we need to be exploring new sources of energy, instead of relying on petroleum like we're doing now. When a new, more efficient source is found, the other countries will switch.

          We just need to start being serious about finding a replacement, NOW.
    • xexx, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Conspiracies to make lots and lots of cash? No, that can't exist...
    • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Regardless whether he is or isn't why are scientists who don't believe this ridiculed instead of being allowed to dissent and challenge the theory? Isn't that what science is all about? A constant challenge to gain a greater understanding?

      Both sides may be partially right and partially wrong or some part thereof. Ending scientific debate isn't the answer. And in constantly challenging scientific ideas, won't we come up with something to help even if global warming is disproved? Isn't that the real goal here rather than a who's right and who's wrong finger pointing contest.
  • freyaXgefn, on 06/25/2008, -42/+18finally, science is backing up what i've been saying for years and years. global warming is a fallacy.
    • greenfyre, on 06/26/2008, -5/+26LOL! Try reading the actual article which, as it is about the actual science, directly contradicts what you have been saying for years.
      • btschul, on 06/26/2008, -11/+4what are you, a 13 year old girl texting her boyfriend? "LOL!!" what the *****
        • xexx, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4What are you? The the inappropriate capitalization enforcement agency ridding the world of socially unacceptable capitalization? Shut the hell up.
        • gernblansted, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3Is this like you first time on the Internet?
        • Chassit, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1That's "wtf".
    • btschul, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Phallacy
    • lhbaker, on 06/26/2008, -0/+23So science isn't science to you until a scientist says what you already think?
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7You didn't read the article did you?

      ..."Hansen says chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy are fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are intentionally spreading. It’s time, he says, for them to be held accountable for their propaganda. The oil lobby, driven by millions of dollars spent on sophisticated misinformation campaigns and organizations created solely to dissuade the public with anti-global warming rhetoric is endangering the public, he says."....

      Sounds to me like he is saying those that don't believe the Climate Change are the ones being duped by the oil companies....
    • enki25, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4RTFA
    • Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2so you claim that 1 scientist agreeing with you makes you right and every other scientist wrong because now 'science agrees with you'?

      oh and wait, he doesn't, this seems to be a case of selectively trusting evidence you dont even bother to check, if this was an article saying how global warming is real you would dismiss it as BS, however because its the other way you dont even check what it says let alone check if its from www.ilieandmakeupstuffallthetime.com
    • jaymzdean, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Whoever titled this submission was brilliant because it's bound to expose a whole lot of people who have never looked at any evidence, pro- or con-global warming. It's simply that they were told to believe global warming didn't exist, by someone who's approval they value and so they fail to read anything but headlines. Then, when opportunity arises, they stick their head out of a haystack and scream, "Global warmin' ain't REAL, hyulk."
  • IconoclastStill, on 06/26/2008, -23/+18Hansen is a hack with an agenda. Sorry, SD, gotta bury this one, and regret Hansen cannot be literally buried as easily, as he has caused so much needles trouble with his lies.
    • greenfyre, on 06/26/2008, -7/+8So supply some actual documentation (that is not easily discredited) that Hansen has lied. This is nothing more than the typical Denier baseless slander
      • rorster, on 06/26/2008, -7/+4And not being a denier? Would that make you a truther?

        Global warming is by idiots for idiots.
        • WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Prove it. Come on- you seem so certain... let's see you whip out your evidence.
  • virtualonliner, on 06/26/2008, -2/+29"The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work"
    Now who would have thought that.
    • Quisquis, on 06/27/2008, -6/+3Amazing that this quote applies to all the funding going towards global warming supporters as equally as it applies to those that disagree with it's existence...
      • bono4u, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2True, nevertheless lobbyists are part of the problem not part of the solution.
      • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1You don't havea clue how science funding works, do you?

        Science funding: You get grants to do research. You must account for every penny and it must all be spent on research. You get the money whatever your research results are. You also get your salary no matter what the results are.

        In fact the only risky thing is falsifying the research, because if you are caught your career is over. The smartest thing to do is good research as best you can regardless of the answers because then you keep your job and get more research grants.

        Denier funding: The money goes straight into your pocket and no one ever asks what happened to it. You only get the funding if you slander climate change. The funders don't care if what you say is true, distortions, or outragous lies, as longs as it confuses people about climate science. You will never get any more funding if you don't say climate change is hoax.

        See the difference? Given these situations, what would a scientist do? What would a Denier do?
    • lordmetroid, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It is working exactly like it has been designed and intended. Learn some history.
  • EffYoo, on 06/26/2008, -7/+12So many people seem to overestimate the ability of the US to have an impact on this issue. Unless countries like China, Russia and India join into some kind of global treaty regarding greenhouse gas emissions, federal regulations will (be able to help, but) not solve the problem. If the US builds nuclear instead of coal then coal will be cheaper and China will build more coal plants. If US caps factory emissions then factories will move to China, create whatever emissions they want to then create even more when they ship their stuff halfway around the world to sell it in the US.

    It isn't an easy issue to address and the most effective solution will be technological. Not efficient, not cost-effective, but effective in pace and scope of greenhouse gas emission reductions. We need to focus on technology that is clean and also better so it will be adopted all over the world in places where US government tax credits, subsidies and mandates do not reach.
    • greenfyre, on 06/26/2008, -9/+6Since the west caused 80% of the problem and is still, hands down, the largest per capita user, other countries want to see us actually do something rather than whine about them.

      The problem is now. We are caught on the freeway with an 18 wheeler heading straight at us and we are waiting for a technological solution? The result of that strategy is obvious even though the majority will be still be surprised by it.
      • thebaron2, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Top 10 polluters per capita, as of 2004 (if you have more recent data please share):

        Qatar
        Kuwait
        United Arab Emirates
        Luxembourg
        Trinidad and Tobago
        Brunei
        Bahrain
        Netherlands Antilles
        Aruba
        United States[1]

        1. # ^ Including American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Turks and Caicos, US Virgin Islands
        • b1kamikaze, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4My problem with this list is that IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT WHEN PUT INTO CONTEXT. The idea is that the US really is one of the biggest polluters in the world if not the biggest. Maybe what greenfyre meant was more like this: the largest per capita user............... from a list of countries which actually have a population above let’s say…. 5 million. From the list you gave us, that is what??? None??? Combine the total population of the countries you mentioned and still the US has 26 times more people... (If you don't believe me there's a list after this). I think that if the US would do it's best to keep down pollution Aruba would be still the least of our problems. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying that the US is solely responsible for global warming but its there in the top and not behind any of the countries you mentioned, and it’s actions have repercussions on the entire planet… think about it.

          Population numbers:
          US 301,139,947

          Luxemburg 480,222
          Qatar 907,229
          Kuwait 2.868.000
          Bahrain 1,046,814
          Brunei 374,577
          Trinidad and Tobago 1,056,608
          United Arab Emirates 4,588,697
          Netherlands and Antilles 183,000
          Aruba 112,000
          Total: 11,617,147
    • malex, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3China has a massive nuclear power program. Just so you know.
      • Quisquis, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4and has surpassed America in the amount of pollutants it produces...
      • Murdats, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2they are also heavily researching space based solar power and many other alternative energy schemes because china is and is going to be using a LOT of electricity, and they would prefer to not have to burn the world down for it like the rest of us are.
      • Math, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2China is also the biggest consumer of solar panels.
    • cLamm, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2A lot of people pay attention to what the U.S. does, if they were to do something fairly drastic to combat global warming, the rest of the world might be inclined to follow suit.

      Unfortunatly, this article nails it, money makes the world go round and as long as people with a lot of money profit from activities that contribute to global warming, it will keep happening.
    • jerbaker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3"If the US builds nuclear instead of coal then coal will be cheaper and China will build more coal plants. If US caps factory emissions then factories will move to China, create whatever emissions they want to then create even more when they ship their stuff halfway around the world to sell it in the US."

      1. China produces its own coal and US coal consumption won't affect Chinese coal prices considering their prices are not set by the market.

      2. The problem of factories moving out of the country to avoid carbon caps is very easy to fix. Any product manufactured in a country with no carbon caps gets a 100% tariff. End of problem.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3"2. The problem of factories moving out of the country to avoid carbon caps is very easy to fix. Any product manufactured in a country with no carbon caps gets a 100% tariff. End of problem."

        Until your lobbyist pays off the requisite number of congress rats and you get an exemption.
    • vault, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1I'm sure the Goracle-worshipping eco-Marxists will bury this, but global warming amounts only to a 0.7 degree increase over the past century, and it doesn't consistently go up either. Why should the U.S. screw its economy over environmental ***** and let China/India pollute to hell and back and replace the U.S. as an economic superpower?
  • phreak79, on 06/26/2008, -6/+10Regardless of the merits or otherwise of climate change this is a poor digg as Hansen has been very vocal on climate change issues and he certainly doesn't think it's a lie.
    • housewarmer, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Read the thread - the poster admits to writing a inaccurate title.
  • aflaks, on 06/26/2008, -0/+44Having read these replies, it has become pretty obvious that most people do not read the articles before commenting
  • Itazura, on 06/26/2008, -1/+120That may in fact be the WORST title ever, next time make a title that isn't the opposite of what the article is.
  • nightowl313, on 06/26/2008, -9/+55Misleading headline. Buried.
    • baylat, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7the poster already apologized
      • pbrubaker, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1Agreed, Buried. What are we Fox news? Just re-submit the story.
      • RunnyBabbit, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4It doesn't matter. Most people don't read the article, and even less read the comments. Now we can't even guess at how many are now stuck with the words "NASA scientist doesn't believe in global warming" in their heads just because it confirms their belief.
  • Dumbledorito, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7FTA: '"The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work," says Hansen.'

    Lobbyists and the industries they represent will almost always pay off officials to screw things up. If the data and science said that painting one out of every 10 houses blue would help stop global warming, the Blue Paint-X division of Paint-X Technologies would attempt to craft a policy of blue-only houses across the nation.

    Nothing can be done for the public good anymore without a bunch of monied interests trying to suck as many taxpayer dollars as they can, even at the cost of whatever the original policy proposal was.
    • Naieve, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1ELECTION LAW REFORM.

      Politicians found to be making decisions based on their own monetary concerns should be tried for treason.
  • GiveM3aBJ, on 06/26/2008, -16/+4-did everyone get the memo its not called global warming any more its 'climate change' the earths temperature has been going down for the past 10 years.
  • nblsavage, on 06/26/2008, -9/+19what a crappy title, WriterSd you should be ashamed.
  • OC73, on 06/26/2008, -21/+7Global warming isn't a political lie, it's just a scam.
    • bjiggs, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4What do you mean? Hansen and Algore haven't made a dime off of this. Oh wait, nevermind.
  • Borgcube636, on 06/26/2008, -20/+14NASA should know better than anyone else that THE ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is experiencing global warming! Look at the data from ALL the planets - they are all warming up, becoming brighter, etc. etc.http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/05-14-2 ... Earth changes are REAL. They may not be entirely man-made, but they certainly are real.

    Here are some highlights:
    Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

    Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

    Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

    Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

    Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

    Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

    Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

    Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

    Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

    Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun
    • SirvenomItsac, on 06/26/2008, -8/+2is not only the temperature, CO2 levels rising, are dangerous alone.
      • Quisquis, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2co2 levels follow temperature increases... look at a graph.
    • LucasVB, on 06/26/2008, -6/+6Your astronomy-fu is not strong. Stop spewing this junk science and go learn some real science.
      • bphicke, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3Al Gore does not equal real science.
        • trogdoor, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5Al Gore does not represent Climate Science either, I don't particularly like Al Gore, but anthropogenic global warming is undeniable.
        • LucasVB, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4***** Al Gore.

          If you dismiss the entire global warming hypothesis just because you don't like that guy, then you're pretty ***** pathetic. The sad truth is, a lot of people are against the whole thing exactly for that sole reason.
    • SmartfulDodger, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8Our entire solar system must be under attack! And by CO2-emitting-aliens!
    • ParticleMan420, on 06/26/2008, -5/+9***** post is *****. here are some highlights:
      Sun: how would they know what kind of activity was going on on the sun 1100 years ago? just because more people were studying the sun and we had the technology to do so since the 40's doesnt mean there's more activity there.
      Venus: also only been closely studied for 30 years. before that they thought it was covered in swamps
      mars: has ice caps, there's a probe with cameras sitting on it now.
      Jupiter: you mean the invisible plasma clouds? how would something invisible become brighter, but remain invisible?
      Saturn:again, your 'facts' seem to coincide with the time serious study was beginning.
      Uranus: clouds change color.
      Neptune: clouds change color
      Pluto: they cant even see the panet clearly yet, how are they checking the atmospheric pressure.
      now all of my comment was pulled out of my ass, just like you, so if you actually have answers, good! lets hear them
    • bjiggs, on 06/26/2008, -6/+6Ha ha. You're right.

      Solar output is up and as a result other planets, none of which have SUVs, are also getting warmer at the SAME TIME.

      This alone should be enough to make people think twice about the hype but I guess people believe what they want to believe.
      • gernblansted, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4"I guess people believe what they want to believe."

        to wit, your post.
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5If you're really interested in the truth, check out this site. It basically debunks the "The Sun is doing it" argument".
      http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...

      If you're not interested in the truth and just want to keep looking like an idiot, please continue.
    • Abomonog, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2"Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet."

      Very surprising considering the planet is too hot for ice.

      "Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun"

      How can a planet with no known atmosphere have a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure?

  • nastronomical, on 06/26/2008, -19/+3No DUH!!
    • ironhide, on 06/26/2008, -1/+15Welcome to the "Too stupid to read the article" club.
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Man, I love that the article was submitted with a contradictory headline. It really goes to show how much people like you really care about the facts.

      Stay stupid, nastro!
  • asw0210, on 06/26/2008, -9/+9Is this the same guy that accepted money from George Soros?
  • MrFurious2k, on 06/26/2008, -8/+12Hansen should know better than anyone how politicized this cause his become. He's at the center of a lot of it.
  • dstamat, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3Here, read this.

    It's for the "EXECUTIVE OFFICE of the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES", May 2008:
    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-a ...

    Not to worry... he's read the whole thing and taking action now.
    Apparently offshore drilling is going to help !
  • SaperKain, on 06/26/2008, -5/+10We should just trust Big Oil, "Clean" Coal and GM & Ford lobbyists cause they couldn’t really have a possible angle in all this.
  • LucasVB, on 06/26/2008, -9/+1In any issue, on any side, there will ALWAYS be people striving to line their pockets. This is a non-argument. Stop using it.

    Also, welcome to capitalism.
  • JoeVet, on 06/26/2008, -6/+1760 minutes shows how the White house censored Hansen and anyone who spoke openly about the science. Typical neo-con tactics.....if you can't argue truthfully then hide the truth.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4OzpgTOhk&feature ...
  • LucasVB, on 06/26/2008, -13/+3In any issue, on any side, there will ALWAYS be people striving to line their pockets. This is a non-argument. Stop using it.

    Also, welcome to capitalism.
  • baylat, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Its no use arguing with them anymore...(some of the posts above)
    • layzice, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I was just thinking the same thing, but which side are we on...
  • thomas, on 06/26/2008, -1/+12It has been said before but I feel it is worth repeating. Your headline SUCKS!
  • kingUssop, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4What is wrong with the submitter... his description and title are a lie and not what the article is about.
    • Yage2006, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Maybe hes just a reactionist idiot who did not even read it and using confirmation bias just posted it without any thought. Perhaps the same way he makes all of his decisions in life.
  • wonderbriefs, on 06/26/2008, -4/+13Read the article, good article, but burried for misleading title.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -17/+16Buried, CO2 levels used to be in the 1,000-2,000 ppm levels back in the Mesozoic era (the period from 65 to 259 million years ago). The planet survived that just fine and life flourished, so the takeaway is if 1,000 ppm didn't result in calamity, then 400 ppm won't either.
    http://www.globalwarming.org/node/388
    • Disgod, on 06/27/2008, -1/+10The planet survivied just fine, but the life on the planet back then had evolved with those conditions. We haven't, we've evolved with a rather cool planet. If the temperature does manage to get as high as the mesozoic era we'd be screwed. You're comparing apples to oranges. If we are suddenly pushed into a similarly hot environment most, if not all of humanity would die off.
      • jamesfaction, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5exactly. It's the speed at which things are changing. The rise of mankind and technology is resulting in the biggest extinction event this world has ever seen, dinosaurs included. Thanks David Attinborough for pointing this one out.
    • mugicha, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8No one is saying the planet isn't going to survive. We could detonate all of our nuclear weapons and the planet isn't going anywhere. There have been several major extinction events in Earth's history and life has managed to keep going one way or another. That's not the point. The point is, will we survive? Will our civilization survive? If you don't give a ***** then that's fine, but I think there are a lot of people who do and who want to do something about it. And if you think I'm being alarmist about the survival of our species, bring over your pet T Rex and we can talk about it.
    • Yage2006, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3I use to somewhat subscribe to the planet use to be warmer then it is now and everything was fine. However there is a big difference now. We are not nomadic tribes that wander around we have cities built on coast lines and have our agricultural area's set aside global warming would be quite a big problem if sea levels rise as coastal cities would be flooded. And just because it might have been warmer before does not mean it would be fine and dandy.

      Try to look at the big picture.
      • Disgod, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4We hadn't even evolved during the era he's talking about, hell at that point the only mammals that had evolved were less than 10 pounds. He's talking about when dinosaurs ruled the world. They weren't warm blooded, which is an advantage when it's 110 out, but bad for anybody who is warm blooded. We'd start dropping dead pretty quickly from heat stroke.
    • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1So true, we will just have nothing to eat for a few thousand generations and after that everything will be fine for whatever evolves.
  • rentmitchum, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10Buried for causing more confusion through this submission's title than anything.
  • Jpesci, on 06/26/2008, -6/+31Global Warming deniers are right up there with moon landing conspiracists... the facts are out there but they tend to ignore them.
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/27/2008, -0/+14... As clearly evidenced by the deniers who posted here to say, "We told you so!"... without realizing what the story really says.
    • Naieve, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5I believe in climate change.

      I think Global Warming is a religion, because it simply doesn't have its facts lined up.

      Truth of the matter is we don't know what is going to happen.

      Clearly shown using modtran, the first 20ppm has more effect then the next 400ppm of added co2.

      I am all for lowering co2 levels in a smart, sustainable way. Unfortunately, until someone factors in the rising nations and their output, not to mention little things like natural co2 output from livestock, deforestation, and human population, we are not going to solve anything. Changing the energy equation will help, but it must be drastic, and it must include changes in other areas, such as livestock.

      Basically I listen to a friend of mine rail on about his work in biofuel and the problem of global warming, and I just sit back dumbfounded. How can you be for two things that are so contradictory. Biofuel isn't answering anything, it is merely going to make the transition to a more climate friendly technology harder.
      • Arcesius, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Biofuels are sick, in my opinion. I know it's cliche, but with all the people starving in the world, we're using up our excess corn to make fuel for our cars? That's kind of ***** up.
      • greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"it must be drastic, and it must include changes in other areas, such as livestock." Of course, which is exactly what all of the science based climate change community is saying.
      • greenfyre, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"because it simply doesn't have its facts lined up."

        Such as? I await your cogent critique of the NASA science
  • michael43, on 06/26/2008, -12/+7Almost everyone here is convinced global warming is man made, but they continue to sit at their computers pretending they are scientist and never even considering what powers their little magic boxes. Most of them are plugged into a grid that's powered by a big electric company with great big smoke stacks ejaculating pollutants into the air 24 and 7. Then, when they run out of beer and peanuts, they jump in their SUV's and go down to the local "shop and save" which shoots some additional carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. Upon their return, they log back onto digg and start bitching about the cold hearted bastards that are ***** up their pretty little planet. Just a little dose of the truth, I hope it doesn't hurt to much.
    • nblsavage, on 06/26/2008, -4/+8I power down my pc at night (and when I'm not going to be home), we have a fuel-efficient car but usually commute to work on light rail. We recycle and buy local when at all possible. Not everyone is the same, hope the truth doesn't hurt too much :)
      • michael43, on 06/27/2008, -8/+3I'm sorry, I forgot to put a footnote in that excludes all the saints. Bless you for powering down your PC at night, you're going to save the ***** planet. Shut the hell up, you're an embarrassment to the rest of your idiot clan.
        • nblsavage, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5awww, did I upset the widdle douchebag?
    • mugicha, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4Buried for lameness despite a strong desire to digg for using the word "ejaculating".
      • michael43, on 06/27/2008, -8/+1Why don't you come out of the closet? It's obvious you're a queer.
    • jamesfaction, on 06/27/2008, -4/+4Right on point. There's plenty of people around, digg included, who could stand a little home truth. I take public transport all but once a week, car pool and walk when I can, recycle, save power as much as I can, but I know there's always more I could be doing.
    • atroxodisse, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Most of the man made CO2 comes from livestock, not cars, not power plants.
  • Stevanoski, on 06/26/2008, -13/+6Hansen a shrill shill. He is the same one who tried to cook the books to leave out data showing we are actually in a cooling phase. What a con artist. No wonder the Left loves him.
    • gernblansted, on 06/27/2008, -4/+3Right! Because the NeoCons are such pillars of honesty and integrity, they should know.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Why are you trying to refute a statement by sarcastic name calling? Wouldn't it better suit you to show that he didn't "cook the books"?

        Unless, of course, you can't do that. Then I'd understand why you used such a sad attack strategy.
    • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Provide a credible link for that accusation about falsifying data.

      And to PolishLogic, no - it is up to the one making the accusation to provide reasonable evidence. Despite the current US administration it is still not enough (in most cases) to prove guilt simply by making an accusation
  • beersnob, on 06/26/2008, -2/+14Absolute WORST most MISLEADING title every spotted on Digg!
    • boardthis, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1every? :)

      this is far from the worst title on digg.

      this writerSD guy still should pay some sort of penalty for not reading the article before trying to be some sort of a "digg hero".

      dock him a 1000 diggs. that should do the trick.
  • Hoogs, on 06/26/2008, -8/+1Someone give this scientist a medal. This whole global warming thing is just the next "doomsday" scenario designed to get people worried, similar to Y2K.
  • JinnRikki, on 06/27/2008, -1/+14What a misleading title, what wingnut put this up?
  • solstice21, on 06/27/2008, -1/+9buried for misleading title
  • AsylumAleikum, on 06/27/2008, -10/+5Hansen is a fraud. There is no scientific evidence that changes in Earth temperature constitute a trend,
  • charlietuna, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Here we go again.
  • PantsSupreme, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Is US political system beyond repair?
  • xceptionaly, on 06/27/2008, -4/+5Most of the people I know who call ***** on global warming are old enough to remember the great "Global Cooling" scare of the '70s and think this is also *****, and I can sympathize with their skepticism, but I don't see how anyone can believe that the millions upon millions of tons of CO2 we dump into the air every year does not have any environmental effects. And as other diggers have pointed out, we're going to need the other major contributors (China, India, Russia, etc.) to step up to the plate and go green with us. And since they very likely won't, I think we should just go green on our own, and then build a giant ***** dome around the US and let everything else go to hell.
  • mugicha, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8Um, the guy apologized like 4 comments down from the top for the misleading title. Chill out diggers!
  • OriginalLucid1, on 06/27/2008, -9/+11We are being lied to, but its not the way this article purports. The "Global Warming" leaders such as Al Gore are in it for the power and nothing else.
    • mijelh, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2***** read the article.
      you are welcome.
    • zarex, on 06/27/2008, -3/+5Don't forget the money. Gore and his cronies have profited handsomely from their alarmism.
    • greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1What is about Gore that gets the Deniers so excited? Is it some kind of Oedipal complex? or some sort of repressed homoerotic obsession? It's definitely creepy.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.