digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at environment.newscientist.com —

US climate fix could help solve financial crisis

environment.newscientist.com — If the US focused on curbing climate change as soon as a new president took office – or sooner – it could help pull the world from the financial brink, according to environmental policy experts.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • RumpleForeskin3, on 10/10/2008, -33/+69Buried for being treehugging hippy junk
    • piesforyou, on 10/10/2008, -15/+14You're buried for uneducated prejudiced crap.
      • Mekun, on 10/10/2008, -5/+4Your buried for not seeing he was right
    • kiwiboyus, on 10/10/2008, -4/+9Buried for being to stupid to see a new market right in front of you. I guess some people like following rather than leading.
    • Seidoger, on 10/10/2008, -4/+7I wouldn't consider New Scientist as junk so quick..
    • Psamtik, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2Other than that it's true...
    • brad3378, on 10/11/2008, -1/+3I've read this article before.

      The United States could save the economy by investing $500 Billion in [insert your industry here].
    • iamansp2008, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Energy and financial sectors are mutually exclusive. You sir are the alpha dog of the day (lifted directly from Colbert Report).
  • Zoomdor, on 10/10/2008, -12/+33environmental policy experts tell us that climate change will save the economy....kinda like a cigarette lobby telling you that cigarettes will cure your lung cancer.
    • Visual77, on 10/10/2008, -4/+14Are you saying that helping the environment is what caused the economy to collapse?
      • Zoomdor, on 10/10/2008, -5/+11No what im saying is biased "reports" are always full of crap.
      • mouthbreether, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4helping the environment will enable future sub-prime lending to occur without consequence.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5It's clear from the cigarette example that he means that environmentalism causes global warming.
      • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4
        Actually, it's the cigarette lobby telling us that climate change isn't happening :

        http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont ...

        Please. Do try to keep up.
      • MWeather, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
      • nmessick, on 10/11/2008, -2/+1Its sure contributed to a higher cost of goods (10% where I work) and lower fuel economey because we stick so much stuff in a cars exaust. So yes, its not helping.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/10/2008, -1/+7This made my eyes pop - then I frowned - turned my eyes to the side - then closed them- I then found myself bowing my head.
      Then, and only then did I SLAP MY HEAD ***** SILLY.
    • VinnieDaMac, on 10/10/2008, -2/+6Maybe it's just me, but that's not a very good analogy, there actually IS a correlation between cigarettes and lung cancer.
    • earful, on 10/10/2008, -0/+7Someone will have to build all the new high-speed rail lines, wind turbines and solar factories. Engineers will have to develop the systems that will transfer power from where it's being generated to where people need it, and store that power when it's not being used.

      It's been a generation since America last invested in its infrastructure — time for another round to keep people employed and move us into the next century. Is it really that hard for people to figure out?
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2That requires real leadership and vision. Status quo is always easier.
  • RyeBrye, on 10/10/2008, -7/+26"Skyrocketing energy prices and the financial crisis have been a wake-up call that something's got to change"...

    If the only reason the economy is in the crapper is energy prices - clean energy is not the only answer. Any form of cheap energy would be the answer. The slight of hand in this article is implying that only clean energy will be cheap energy.
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2008, -0/+7Unless you know something the coal and oil industry don't, then clean energy will be the only cheap energy. Clean energy costs are dropping MUCH faster than dirty energy. In fact I don't think any dirty energy is actually decreasing in cost.
      • omaryak, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4Right — fossil fuels are finite. They might give us a century or so of cheap power, but as it starts to run out the cost will go higher and higher, and the reserves will be harder to extract. We're already seeing that with oil.

        Supporters of continuing to mine and drill for finite resources claim it's a bridge — I say it's a bridge to nowhere.
      • Oatlord, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3" In fact I don't think any dirty energy is actually decreasing in cost."

        Except that the price per barell of oil dropped again today to less than $78.
      • MWeather, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Oil doesn't cost any more to extract today than it did last week.
      • Oatlord, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2True enough, I wasn't thinking when I posted what I said. But, we've been extracting oil from the ground for nearly 150 years now. Of course clean energy costs are dropping much faster than dirty energy costs. It's a new field and naturally as the technology gets better, costs will decrease rapidly. I'm not saying we should blindly abandon clean energy, but the technology isn't there to claim it as a panacea for all our problems. Coal and petroleum are still our cheapest, best sources of energy for the foreseeable future.
    • omaryak, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3Clean energy is the cheapest energy because once you get it set up it costs nothing other than maintenance.
      • Oatlord, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Proof?
      • nmessick, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2your so wrong. a vast majority of the 'clean energy' systems are very maintenace heavy. Wind turbines, wave based systems, etc all requires alot of upkeep.
    • sulthernao, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Actually, energy is a major problem in our economic problem. High prices of Oil has been fostering inflation across the board, which is really bad because even in the great depression there was deflation.
      • rwac, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1Just so you know, Deflation is much worse than Inflation.
  • kcmo08, on 10/10/2008, -14/+34*****.
    • mywhitenoise, on 10/10/2008, -1/+11Why couldn't it help boost economy? It's not saying this is THE solution to solve the economic crisis, it says it could HELP.

      ***** dude, try conserving electricity, water, recycle...see how much money that saves you. I don't see why that couldn't help on a global scale. The less we consume as a country the better it is for everyone, especially the economy. Also, as Green businesses rise that offers more jobs for American workers. Some people just don't get it.
      • b05q, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1No.

        Consuming stuff we don't need is good for the economy. Spending money, no matter how stupid the reason, is good for the economy, if good means 'causes the economy to grow' which is the common usage. Not spending money is 'bad' for the economy. You can make an argument that wreckless spending causes bubbles, and ultimately a collapse, and that's bad, but it's counter-intuitive and a bit obtuse.

        Questioning why we have to constantly grow the economy, when there are a finite number of natural resources in the world, is more useful than making up fairytales about 'sustainable growth.'
    • sulthernao, on 10/10/2008, -0/+6Think of a WPA program for alternate energy. We'd invest in the economy, which will cause business to have the ability to take advantage of the market, which will give lots of new jobs. These people will get their income and spend it right back into the economy which will have a nice multiplier and accelerator effect. This might not prevent a depression/long term recession, but it will certainly help diminish it.
      • stonewall123, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1.... and it would help our rapidly rising budget deficit each year ( might be as high as 1 trillion this year ). Assuming that we send between $500-750 billion abroad ( quoted from oil man Pickens) to feed our thirst for oil putting a dent in that outflow of money would certainly help.... in addition to all the good points made above.
  • RyeBrye, on 10/10/2008, -5/+20I'd rather see a nuclear powerplant in my back yard than 10,000 windmills. Just saying.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6A coworker of mine had an excellent point the other day: "There are places in Texas where you could stick a nuclear plant and nobody would even notice if it blew up"

      I guess commuting would be a problem for the dudes working there, but we could probably pay them enough.
      • GiveM3aBJ, on 10/10/2008, -0/+8yeah even though the newer Nuclear plants are so hi tech that there is an extremely small chance of that even happening

        not only that they are also extremely efficient.

        just saying
      • Saunz, on 10/10/2008, -6/+4What your co-worker didn't mention is it would take a decade to get the transmission lines out to the middle of nowhere. AND that nuclear is a heavily government (your tax $$) subsidized energy source, which (if you include the subsidies) if more expensive than wind or even solar! (which aren't subsidized).

        Oh, and RyeBrye, would you really want a Nuke in your back yard if you knew your kids where going have a significantly increased risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc. OR could you just put-up with the sight of wind turbines...hmmm, seams like an easy choice for me.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4I really don't like the "it would take 10 years" argument. People have been saying that for the past 20.
      • Saunz, on 10/10/2008, -3/+4That's the number quoted to me by an Electric Grid Operator a month ago. I guess we haven't gotten any more efficient in installing these lines in the past 20 years...
      • sulthernao, on 10/10/2008, -2/+7There is more radioactive material released by coal plants than nuclear plants. The sole problem with nuclear plants is that they have a waste product that we have to deal with, and that it is not a permanent solution to the energy crisis.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2@sulthernao, there are a few more problems than that, but you make a good point. A 1MW coal plant releases on average 35KG of U235 per year into the ***atmosphere***, you know, the stuff you and I breath. The benefit of nuclear is that the waste is contained and can therefore be dealt with (in theory, in practice there are very few workable long term solutions). Much of the waste could be reused if the political will was there, and only a (relatively) small amount remains dangerous for more than a few decades.

        But you don't just dig reactor grade enriched fuel out of the ground, and the enrichment process is highly polluting and energy intensive.

        You also can't just build a nuclear reactor in the middle of the desert. You need billions of litres of water for cooling, which puts geographical constraints on appropriate sites.
      • rwac, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1@Saunz, Solar is heavily subsidized.
    • GeorgeWKush, on 10/10/2008, -2/+6Put a nuclear plant next to my lake. Nuclear energy's only by product is warm water. It would be nice to have a lake that isn't cold as *****.
    • roijen, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4I don't know, I kind of like the looks of thousands of wind turbines on empty plains. Maybe it is just the engineer in me that gets geeked by the sight of so much technology.
    • Yarmin3, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2We should definitely focus our attention on blocking new fossil fuel power plants from opening instead of nuclear.
  • gavdog2020, on 10/10/2008, -11/+17No, it can't.
    • roxgod666, on 10/10/2008, -2/+5hmm interesting counter... I would love to see you in a debate.
  • imasuperDOTcom, on 10/10/2008, -8/+15Yes of course it could. And if we all stopped eating meat, Iran and Israel wouldn't have so many difficulties.
  • ancientshoes, on 10/10/2008, -15/+24wow, the hippies are really grasping at straws, aren't they?
    • brad3378, on 10/11/2008, -3/+1Considering they're the reason why we ship so many jobs overseas........yeah, pretty much.
      • stonewall123, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1How do you figure? Got some links to support that statement?
  • alvinrod, on 10/10/2008, -10/+22What a load of crap. If you want to push for clean energy, that's certainly fine and a good thing in my opinion. Don't pretend that it's going to save the economy, however. That's just complete BS.
  • dekuscrub, on 10/10/2008, -17/+18Complete 100% *****.
    The global warming hoax does nothing but raise energy costs and is actually holding back the developing 3rd world countries with extreme tree-hugging policies.
    • roijen, on 10/10/2008, -2/+2I agree with your stance on the article but I have to disagree on your 'global warming hoax'.
    • earful, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3So now you claim it holds back the developed world — where were you when people were complaining China and India were excluded from the Kyoto treaty?
      • dbzssj44676, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1China and India aren't the only 3rd world countries.
    • stonewall123, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1@ dekuscrub- Can you give one single example of a country that is being held back by these so-called 'tree hugging policies'? I doubt you can. So far any proposals have been completely voluntary for countries which choose embrace them and by in large have been ignored.
  • jwoulf, on 10/10/2008, -13/+13B - is for *****

    B - is also for Buried
  • MoralThreat, on 10/10/2008, -11/+10Just cause you hug a tree don't make you an expert.
  • tinroofrusted, on 10/10/2008, -11/+19This is the STUPIDEST idea I ever heard in my life.
    • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -2/+4I expect that's probably because you don't really understand it.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2008, -9/+11We can't even agree on what causes global warming, much less how to fix it. Throwing money at the problem without a plan would be about as effective as giving 700 billion to a bunch of investment bankers.

    What we need at this stage is research into solutions, and that won't provide the blue collar jobs the economy's looking for.
    • GeorgeWKush, on 10/10/2008, -3/+2"We can't even agree on what causes global warming." That's a subjective statement. We can't even agree if man made global warming actually exists.
    • earful, on 10/10/2008, -0/+6Throwing money at a problem will keep people employed during an economic downturn. And there are plenty of blue collar jobs to be had in the construction of services and systems that will be needed to power the new eco-economy.
    • sulthernao, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6We do know what causes global warming - greenhouse gases. What exactly is the cause of the sharp increase in global warming right now? I'm strongly inclined to believe man made pollution.
    • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -3/+6Well actually, we are in agreement about what is causing climate change.

      What you think is a "debate", isn't a debate - it's disinformation from oil-industry shills, and gulliable Americans going along with it because they've somehow managed to convince themselves that it's a political issue, rather than simply being common sense. The rest of the world has moved on... and renewables will be THE economic opportunity of the 21st Century.

      And Investing in renewables is not the same as using tax money to buy bad debt.

      You people are unbelievable. No wonder you're so ***** up.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1When the economy tanks and unemployment soars, you will have a lot more people putting their hand out for welfare. This will mean that the government will need to either raise taxes, print more fairy money (inflation, which is just a way of raising taxes without people noticing), or bring in more debt.

      Wage growth should be contained until the unemployment level drops significantly. Surely it makes sense to start on large public infrastructure projects. You are not saving money by paying for people to sit at home playing their playstations until their job prospects improve.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1"You are not saving money by paying for people to sit at home playing their playstations until their job prospects improve. "

        But you will be if Obama wins the election.

        /I kid, I kid.
  • clichecow, on 10/10/2008, -10/+10Buried for trying to pretend environmentalists opinions about the economy matter
  • thegrantman, on 10/10/2008, -10/+4PETA would appreciate this logic.
  • kalvinb, on 10/10/2008, -4/+8The only way clean energy is going to "fix" the economy is by providing a very large sector of business.

    Much like building dams helped get us out of the depression.

    The difference being that alternative energies are still in the research phase and not so much in the blue collar factory stage of producing the products in large quantities such as windmills.

    The economy is largely correcting itself from years of giving out free money to people who couldn't pay it back. Stop giving money to unqualified people. Problem solved.
    • slvrbullet87, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Building tanks and bombs got us out of the depression
      • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3And your grandchildren are still going to be paying for Iraq. Get a grip.

        Building weapons doesn't create net value.
      • dbzssj44676, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1Building tanks and weapons and selling them got us out of the depression
    • stonewall123, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1@ kalvinb- Granted there is much research that is being done its not true that alternative energy companies are only in the research phase? Look at GE (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f6db26a-0951-11dc-a349- ... Also, there are huge wind energy projects underway in many US states equal to tens of billions of dollars in investments and employing many people. Additionally, there are lots of solar companies that have already transitioned from research to manufacturing several years ago ( Evergreen solar, Sunpower, First Solar ). They have such a large backlog they have had to open new manufacturing facilities in several states and yes creating manufacturing jobs. These industries will be developed like it or not. Would you rather those jobs go to Asia or Europe? So many manufacturing jobs have already left that we need really do need to encourage as much domestic manufacturing of every industry we can.
  • kelly, on 10/10/2008, -6/+8Fixes for global warming are just a means to shift money from the US to developing countries. (As if we have any money to give)

    The crazy thing is that its all based on the implication that this warming/change (or whatever the leftie wingnuts are calling it these days) is man-made and thereby man-fixable.
    • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -2/+2And this particular hallucination is based upon what exactly?

      You do realise that all the aid that goes from the west to the 3rd world, is less than the interest on debt coming the other way don't you?

      America is not the victim, you Ignorant tit.
      • kelly, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3"And this particular hallucination is based upon what exactly?"

        The United States is receiving the most amount of lobbying efforts from foreign powers to offer its financial support. This has a double affect... takes massive amounts of money away from the US and invests it divides it to other countries thereby boosting their economy and hurting the US's.


        "You do realise that all the aid that goes from the west to the 3rd world, is less than the interest on debt coming the other way don't you?"

        You do realize that this effort would require sums of money that would make the recent bailout seem miniscule in comparison? Your equation to current foreign aid finances places a magnifying glass on who is really the "ignorant tit" here.

        American is not the victim and wont be the victim here but ONLY if we can educate the public that this is not a manmade problem and therefore is not man-fixable.
  • Wonderama, on 10/10/2008, -4/+6An economy in depression needs resources invested in assets that will increase productivity. This plan is the same as pouring it into the military. I hate it when hippies try economics.
    • sulthernao, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3If we create jobs in the energy sector we are investing assets that will increase productivity. We will be creating new jobs, whose income will be spent right back into the economy raising the GDP and speeding the economy back up.
  • BrokenCircle, on 10/10/2008, -4/+7Global warming is causing a global economic crisis?
    • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Not this one, but according to the Stern Report, commissioned by the Blair governement, the economic damage that climate change will do, is worse than the current crisis:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

      And that's just economics.

      See - this is part of the reason why the Blair government took Climate Change so seriously... the reason the Bush admin tried ignore it, laugh at it and interfere with the science is that not only are their sponsors the oil industry... they ARE the oil industry.

      And miscellaneous cowards on digg, rather than face up to what's happening... have decided that the Bush admin and the oil industry and all the shills in their pay are telling the truth, and the global, peer-reviewed scientific community is involved in a conspiracy.

  • linuxdad, on 10/10/2008, -7/+15Man made Global Warming is a crock of sh*t. Its just another thing the left uses to screw everyone over. Al, Nancy, Harry all of you are full of crap!
    • roijen, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5Not to be mistaken as a political jab but why is the idea that global warming is man made such a hot issue?

      If human activity over the past several hundred years is the fault it doesn't make you uniquely and solely at fault.

      Maybe I just fail to understand the offense people take at this suggestion.
      • Phaedryn, on 10/10/2008, -3/+3Simple, it's an erroneous claim made to promote an agenda that couldn't be otherwise promoted without instilling fear in the masses (ie - without fear, most people would never stand for "solution").

        It isn't that the claim is false that upsets people, its that they are using a false claim to promote a political/economic agenda that would otherwise be rejected out of hand.

        That is what most find offensive.
      • sulthernao, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6Why is it a false claim? I'd think that it'd be obvious that if we put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that there will be greenhouse gas like effects - that if we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, we will make it warmer.
    • miggyb, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Really? Is "the left" causing Europe to invest in renewable resources, too?
  • flappysocks, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5Why is there a fat woman pulling up her pants on the front of New Scientist?
  • davidjunit, on 10/10/2008, -6/+4"...according to environmental biased 'tards."
  • meddelem, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6the industries of years past have been filthy and evidently problematic.
    business ventures that are built on sustainability&cleanliness will certainly spark a new era.

    a business that installs solar panels = profitable enterprise.

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/norman_foster_s ...
  • drex8, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3Or we can wait for that creationist wacko from turkey to pay up.
  • RonPaulTOLDu, on 10/10/2008, -5/+9man-made global warming is a religion. accept that its c02 ***** ***** up or youre a heretic. its a scam for a global carbon tax, so they can tax you for breathing for being alive. ITS A SCAM! how can you tell? AL ***** GORE IS INVOLVED! The guy they picked to take a fall for Bush etc
    • nick111, on 10/10/2008, -4/+4Well no, it's not religion, it's science.

      The less religious a country is, the less likely they are to be in denial.

      And you, my incontinent little friend, are firmly in the Sarah Palin camp. Good luck with that.
      • RonPaulTOLDu, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1lol yeah right fool. its a cult belief and the main people running the cult just want a global carbon tax. wake up, infowars dot com. IM NOT INCONTINENT! YOURE INCONTINENT! ***** sarah palin i hope her dad rapes her and shes strapped down and forced to give birth to it. And ***** thewack hussein obammer too
  • ratexla, on 10/10/2008, -2/+5This FREE PDF BOOK contains interesting information on how environmental degradation affects the economy:
    http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm
    "Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to save civilization" by Lester Brown. One quote from the book:

    "In a late 2006 report, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern projected that the long-term costs of climate change could exceed 20 percent of gross world product (GWP). By comparison, the near-term costs of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize climate, which Stern estimates at 1 percent of GWP, would be a bargain."

    Some of you may also be interested in "Anti-global heating claims - debunking"
    http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/ ...
  • HeavySausage, on 10/10/2008, -8/+3Having 10 very attractive women touch my penis every night for 1 year will solve the world bank problems as well.

    Give a hand girls.
  • ratexla, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Please, take on this challenge. A piece of cake for you climate change deniers!
    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/climate- ...
    • Phaedryn, on 10/10/2008, -2/+3Im just going to copy/paste a post I made yesterday (for simplicities sake)

      Enjoy the free education - You are welcome

      ==========================================
      The only people that don't believe in man-made global warming are the uneducated or mis-informed.

      errr...wait....

      http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_a ...

      http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...

      http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

      http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2007/12/m ...


      Dammit!


      Well, at least those IPCC folks are all scientist interested only in the science, and not forwarding any kind of agenda...


      http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/co2/climatepanel. ...


      Tell ya what, google "Global Warming Scam", or hell...even just "IPCC" and get back to us, ok?


      ----------------------------------

      IPCC Info:

      "INTRODUCTION

      As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning. I have submitted thousands of comments to all of the Reports. My comments on the Fourth IPCC Report, all 1,898 of them, are to be found at IPCC (2007) and my opinions of the IPCC are in Gray (2008b)

      I am therefore very familiar with the arguments presented by the IPCC, many of which have now been copied by the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the responses to them.

      I will first comment on the Introduction

      to make absolutely clear what the evidence is for climate change and anthropogenic (human-induced) causes.

      The climate has always changed and always will. No evidence whatsoever for a human contribution to the climate is given in their following statement."


      http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_c ...


      "In response to the Climate Committee’s statement, a longstanding member of the Royal Society, Dr. Vincent Gray, resigned. Dr. Gray, a climate consultant and expert reviewer of all four of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, said his resignation was in protest against major inaccuracies in the society’s climate statement."

      http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment% ...

      "1. The Science

      • There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause damaging
      climate change. Claims that there is mischaracterize the scientific research of
      bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

      • Scientists do agree that: (1) global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or
      just over 1°Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago; (2) atmospheric levels
      of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen by about 30 percent over past 200 years; and (3) carbon dioxide, like water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.


      * Iain Murray is a Senior Fellow in International Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in global climate change and environmental science. Mr. Murray writes regularly on scientific and statistical issues in public policy for outlets like Tech Central Station and National Review Online. He is also an Associate Editor of The American Enterprise magazine and owns and runs The Commons Blog (www.commonsblog.org), a web log promoting the cause of free market environmentalism.

      (more at link)"

      http://cei.org/pdf/4691.pdf

      "Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

      Landsea's announcement is the second recent major embarrassment for global warming alarmists, whose "hockey stick" representation of world temperatures during the past millennium was recently exposed as being based on faulty data and misleading statistical methods. (See "Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data," page 9.)

      Landsea is one of the world's leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.

      In his resignation letter, Landsea documented how the IPCC had sanctioned a "misrepresentation" of hurricane research and issued "unfounded pronouncements" to the media that "subverted and compromised" the scientific assessment of the IPCC's hurricane researchers. According to Landsea, statements made by the IPCC to the media demonstrated "preconceived agendas" that are "scientifically unsound."

      The text of Landsea's letter is reproduced below."

      http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?ar ...

      And another resigns in protest...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter

      The IPCC papers which were were all supposed to believe showed a "consensus" in the scientific community that global warming was in fact caused by man. As it turns out Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. many of the members of the IPCC resigned in protest because thier names were submitted when they clearly did not agree with the panels assumptions.

      And finally...

      http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/energy/GlobalWarmingFAQ ...


      But yeah...there is a consensus... (that is sarcacasm BTW)
      ==========================================
  • kiwiboyus, on 10/10/2008, -1/+7Way to miss the point people, clean energy is the new market. Instead of sitting on our asses America could lead the world in developing new clean energy and then sell the technology you know? Create jobs and money? Or you could just keep bitching about it being a scam and continue to pay and pay for oil.
    • Kenzan, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Exactly.
      It's easier to point a finger than to lift a finger.
  • Virtualwombat, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5In 1859, John Tyndall tested a number of gases for their transparency to infrared radiation and found surprising differences. Whereas the main gases in the atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen, are indeed transparent to infrared radiation, methane and carbon dioxide are not. These gases absorb infrared radiation, so that although light from the sun can travel through the transparent gases of the atmosphere to heat the earth, some of the heat that might escape back to space is intercepted and radiated back toward Earth. There is no dispute about this fact; one only has to look at the IR spectrum of CO2 to see large absorption bands in the infrared.

    Now tell me why global warming should NOT happen...
  • choppasizzle, on 10/10/2008, -2/+2what the hell? a carbox tax is gonna save us? orwell would be proud.
  • Phaedryn, on 10/10/2008, -2/+3EDIT: This was in response to ratexla above, apparently I fail at Digg today...lol

    All of that information and that's the best you can come up with? Ok, wow...voluntary ignorance is no way to go through life.

    BTW - I have seen that site before, have read through it...yet it's obvious you didnt even take a few minutes to look at any of the information that is readily available that shows it for the propaganda it is.

    Try one, just one...it wont hurt, I promise...

    http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

    If you still believe that nonsense, there is no helping you...
  • tufftugg, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4 49 Species go extinct a day. Humanity can't even look after the Animals right.
    • ratexla, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3It's not just animals... But yeah, we act as if we can't. :(
    • partrow, on 10/11/2008, -1/+2Who suggested that it is the responsibility of humans to "look after" the rights of other animals?
      Animals have been going extinct since they first existed. That is the nature of animals, and is part of evolutionary process. It is good, it is efficient, and it is completely natural.
  • Ricemanstm, on 10/10/2008, -6/+3Actually, if we got rid of most of the Democrats, we could eliminate 90% of greenhouse gas emissions from Washington D.C.
    • miggyb, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1If you got rid of the Democrats, you'd have a single-party state, dumbass.
      • Ricemanstm, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1Uhmmm...if you re-read my post you might notice the words "most" and "of" which, when put together means "not all".......dumbass...jackass...
      • miggyb, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1"Most" implies more than 50% of the Democrats, which would make Republicans have at least a 75% majority, effectively making it a one-party state. My point still stands, and you are still a dumbass.
  • randumbusername, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2are you serious????????????????????????????????????????????

    well....i don't have much faith in the economic experts as none of the "experts" shouted any warnings prior and those that did are called kooks so maybe the enviro-experts have a point.

  • omaryak, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4This sounds like it could serve as a Works Progress Administration for the 21st century to keep people employed if things get too much worse. These are things we need to be doing anyway; government assistance would be just one way to get it done.
  • Yarmin3, on 10/10/2008, -2/+5There's no more excuse that switching to clean energy will ruin the economy, we managed to do that anyways. Now is the time to take dramatic steps. If you think global warming is a hoax, then call it energy independence or something else, but if we achieve this goal we can solve so many problems:

    1.Cut off revenue streams from rouge countries like Russia, Venezuela the whole Middle East. Did you know there's a negative correlation between democracy and oil revenue?

    2.Reduce environmental damage from emissions, mountain leveling, river pollution, oil spills

    3. Reduce energy prices long term because fossil fuel is finite and it will only get more expensive to tap into harder to reach resources. Clean energy is already cheaper but upfront cost are cheaper for fossil fuel because we all pay more in taxes to keep our energy supply coming (Iraq Wars I & II, military spending to keep shipping lanes open).
  • jinsundo, on 10/11/2008, -1/+1I must say that the idea of changing the climate along with heavy carbon taxes is the best idea I heard yet in order to counteract the negative effects of a screwed, blued and tattooed economy, But an even better idea might be if we can find a savior who can get us out of this mess and who likes to raise his hands alot while using the phrase Hallelujah!!
  • zeropoint51, on 10/11/2008, -4/+2Buried for being enviro-propaganda. Statements like these expose the anti-humanism anti-modern agenda of these evil creatures.
  • partrow, on 10/11/2008, -2/+2And who was it that convinced you that humans could alter the climate of an entire planet in a few years of geological time? Maybe your pastor, or ?
  • biogears, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Wait, there was just an article saying that the financial crisis could help global warming....
  • kakapu4u, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1So I'm the only one who thought that light bulb image looks like someone bending over?
  • Oatlord, on 10/11/2008, -0/+0This article never proved or gave any facts or figures that proves its tag line: "US climate fix could help solve world financial crisis." I'd so much rather see the billions in aid that we send countries (hello anyone in Africa) be used instead to research clean energy, but I just don't see that investment solving any financial crisis.

    I'm all for clean energy and environmentalism, but not at the cost of my country or livelihood. It's a worldwide problem and it needs to be solved by everyone, not just the West (America).
  • cezx, on 10/11/2008, -3/+0How is fixing the climate, if that even makes sense, gonna solve the economic crisis? how is it gonna make money?? Powerful ppl dont give a ***** about wat air your trying to fix
  • Catspaw, on 10/12/2008, -1/+1 The elite have said they want to con us into thinking global warming is a real problem caused by humans because they want to bring in Agenda 21 and their global government. Tell them to get stuffed - we don't buy this *****! And show people who still believe the Gore propaganda to watch this:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905 ...
  • stonewall123, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Its really simple... generate our own energy here ( sustainably ) and kill off the net loss of $750 billion per year that we pay for oil abroad. That's 7 1/2 trillion dollars of ten years. That would buy a ridiculous amount of wind, solar, etc and would provide virtually free energy after the initial investment. That could put a serious dent in our national debt which is currently at over 10 trillion. If you naysayers don't care about the environment you should at least care about the solvency of your country. Many big companies are not switching voluntarily to renewable energy sources out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to be more profitable.
  •  

    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.