What is Digg?168 Comments
- momofour, on 04/30/2008, -15/+41I have a question--why is it that Dr. Gray's position is the one that is 'controversial'?!
- momofour, on 04/30/2008, -23/+43Sorry, Dr. Gray--it's not our just children who ARE being brainwashed--it's already happened. The 'scientific community' has climbed on board the la la train and it's left the station. Anyone else see a naked emperor? No one will admit it.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -17/+35Listen up, buddy. When AlGore says the "debate is over" on global warming, it's OVER! Don't you get it? If you DARE to question global warming, discuss your views or opinions, or offer additional explanations (even if you ARE an expert!) you will be vilified, rectified, and sissified.
How DARE you question the unquestionable...the sanctified Gods of Liberalism...what are you, a Fox News watcher or something?
You freakin' HERETIC!
;-) - Galume, on 04/30/2008, -29/+45How DARE you dispute the established dogma old man! How DARE you! Next thing you'll be saying is that the earth is round...blasphemer!
- ahernjn, on 04/30/2008, -7/+21Fox should remove the original story. The editor included a link to a further development in which the author of the original article admitted to not having interviewed the climate scientist and that both he and the University have stated that his relationship with the university and and the funding of his forecasts have remained unchanged. THERE IS NO GREAT LIBERAL CONSPIRACY. It is a disingenuous attempt by the right to pretend they are the victims rather than the victimizers. Always is.
- permawash, on 04/30/2008, -2/+15Buried as inaccurate...
FOX News has essentially retracted the story.
See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353266,00.html - Barbrady, on 04/30/2008, -12/+24We must kill ManBearPig!
- lhbaker, on 04/30/2008, -6/+18Yeah. Those Germans were sooo Liberal.
- ahernjn, on 04/30/2008, -7/+18Seriously, is everyone on this post an idiot? The editor included a link to a further development in which the author of the original article admitted to not having interviewed the climate scientist and that both he and the University have stated that his relationship with the university and and the funding of his forecasts have remained unchanged. THERE IS NO GREAT LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.
- oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -20/+30Oh man made global warming... "Its super cereal!!!!"
- TheCarbonator, on 04/30/2008, -23/+33Those who are interested in climate change may want to do a bit of research. Global warming and cooling cycles are highly dependent on solar activity. Currently there very low solar activity indicating that a solar cooling cycle may be starting.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/wh ...
If you look back at history there were many cycles of cooling (ice ages) which coincide with solar minimums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporer_Minimum
I did a few minutes of reasearch for you folks. Now try to bother and read it to understand how complex this issue is. Simply screaming global warming and shutting off our scientific debate will solve nothing! - KnightMareInc, on 04/30/2008, -15/+23hey look its the fox news brigade.
- idontlikeyou2, on 04/30/2008, -7/+15Wow talk about your leaving your tin foil hat at home. I find it funny that the republican and the right wingers are typically against global warming, evolution or basically anything that is scientifically based and against their belief. There are always legitimate debates about climate change or any scientific theories but as long as there are testable / logical theories to drive the discussion. but I've rarely seen climate denier providing any solid theory or data to backup their claims and they typically fall back to their cry baby status about how the world is against them, there is a conspiracy yadda yadda. Go back to school and stop embarrassing yourself.
- jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -8/+16Yes, the temp of this planet is HIGLY dependent on solar cycles. BUT solar cycles are very well understood and this current trend is not in correlation with them.
I find it strange that so many on digg will support science over religious dogma but as soon as it come to climate change all i hear is what people would like to believe over the actual evidence. claiming its some big tax conspiracy or scientific dogma. Then you drag out some outdates and disproven idea of natural cycles which is known to be garbage.
The fact is that Global Warming is taking place is irrefutable.
Whether it is man made is still up for debate but highly likely.
I personally wonder however if it would be more sensible just to burn the last of the oil and coal and deal with the consequences as they come. - Azerael, on 04/30/2008, -12/+19So, uh, since when was Digg dominated by neocons?
- poihead, on 04/30/2008, -3/+10Since when do we acknowledge anything from fox as real news?? Come on! An accurate fox piece on global warming (or on anything) is a contradiction in terms.
If you are going to post anything on digg from fox, place it in the right category: entertainment, offbeat, BS corporate propaganda, etc. But never place it in the 'News' category. - jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+8I think he was implying that it often takes longer than a few minutes to do proper research.
All you have done is successfully prove that in the past cooling and warming has been liked to cycles in earths temperature but you display no research that that is the case now.
is it because you haven't bothered to look or is it that you know of the research that refutes it and you are simply being intellectually dishonest and are strategically omitting it. In which case id like to link you to a rather apt cartoon strip:
http://digg.com/comics_animation/The_Scientific_me ...
Oh and here is an article which sheds more light on the subject (excuse the pun and the fact that its new scientist but it does link to papers) - secrity, on 04/30/2008, -5/+12The whole article is FULL OF *****:
FTA: Editor's note: William Gray and university officials have come forward to dispute that Gray's status at CSU had changed. - Logicexe, on 04/30/2008, -2/+9Shhhhh, it's too much fun to watch diggers blindly accept an article from Fox News as 100% accurate despite the fact that most digg users rail on their poor journalism standards and have seen the evidence of their dishonesty first hand. It's ok though, smearing Obama? Faux News! Exaggerated claims about a scientist being silenced? OMGZ Hard hitting journalism! Fascist Liberals!!
Doublethink at it's best. - Azerael, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8I suppose I should have put a sarcasm tag.
- jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -1/+7Well, give them credit. They're very well organized, they stay on message, and they're experts at propaganda.
- lhbaker, on 04/30/2008, -7/+12I'm sorry, do you mean to say that calling Liberals fascists is anything other than 'immature and downright igorant'? That's irony at it's worst.
- masamunecyrus, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5Just the same "scientific consensus" that was saying that hurricanes would become super-power, and we'd start having dozens of hurricanes a year, and 5+ major hurricanes a year, etc... It'd be like Katrina or Andrew every year!!
Except, the whole time, Dr. Grey was saying that it was wrong. Do you know who Dr. Grey is? He is THE man who has done the hurricane predicted for the entire country, more or less since we've been predicting hurricanes. When the NWS releases their hurricane forecast, it's Dr. Grey that forecasted that. He has been predicting the hurricane seasons for nearly half a century, and he is THE world expert of hurricanes. But, of course, any number of climatologists, whose specialities aren't even in hurricanes, are more correct than the man who created the field.
And do you know what happened the immediately following year when hurricanes were "predicted" by the world scientific community to become super-storms and destroy the east coast? We had a year with ZERO major hurricanes. None, at all. That's only happened a handful of times in recorded weather history. - bobfuk, on 04/30/2008, -5/+10what consensus? do you mean that UN report which claimed to be compiled by over 2000 scientists, but was later outed as including editors and technical writers in that supposed 2000, and quiet a few leading climatologists demanded they have their names removed from after seeing the final report?
or do you mean your precious computer models, which were found to have a y2k bug?
news flash idiot, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas, and we contribute only 0.28% per year to that. so why do douche bags like Al Gore push it? power and money my friend, power and money. - Logicexe, on 04/30/2008, -1/+6What part of "this current trend" did you not understand? You just proved his point by bringing up past warming instead of addressing the evidence behind current warming.
There is no "normal" temperature, and even if there was it wouldn't matter. What we do know is that our current land use is heavily dependent on our current climate. A change in climate drastic enough to render much of our current farm land useless would be disastrous. Sure, some soil up north will free up and become arable, but up north you get less sunlight, which means that crops will not grow as quickly and effectively in northern climates even if the temperature increases. Then you have winter, which climate change may make more temperate, but will still be bad enough to forbid farming for maybe less than half the year. - jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -4/+9No, I'm referring to the scientific community that is dedicated to understanding the universe in which we live. If you want to make big bucks in science, you need to work for big business - like big oil and coal companies, they provide money to people who can cast doubt on global warming. They learned this lesson from big tobacco companies who hired scientists who could cast doubt on the harmful effects of smoking.
- SOS84, on 04/30/2008, -2/+6Healthy skepticism is a good thing. However, Dr. Gray's skepticism borders on irrational. His position has very little scientific backing. His opposition is based on a grant conspiracy theory. He has stated as much on several occasions. He is one of a group of aging climate scientists who are bitter because they opposed the hypothesis when it was first was presented and were proven wrong. Now that global warming has joined gravitation, relativity and evolution as accepted science, he has become jaded. He has become further distanced from reality as most climate change deniers are and like them allege that funding dollars are the only thing driving climate science, never mind the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it. Why should we take him seriously in this regard. He is a nut-job akin to the flat-Earthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. So in a word, he is right up faux news' alley.
- londubh, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7Why do you keep dredging up things like solar variability? Scientists have already shown that it has nothing to do with the current warming of the Earth. You seem to think that because there were natural warming and cooling cycles in the past is mutually exclusive with man made increases in carbon dioxide are warming the climate right now. It's all about the C02 baby!
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -14/+18Please...AlGore says the debate is over. Why would you want to muddy the waters with facts?
;-) - smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5Let's not forget that the two things that don't belong with science are religion AND politics.
We need to learn the truth, not just "agree" with each other through peer review and a general consensus. That isn't where you stop in the scientific method. That's the point where you back to the drawing board and start eliminating things and refining theories, all while constantly testing them.
The only consensus that is worth ***** is the one where everyone agrees that we need to learn the truth instead of a likely explanation that is the least disagreeable to the most people. - jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7I would consider myself a liberal and I think you are more than welcome to express anything you want but don't claim people are oppressing you just because they call you an idiot for saying it (as I have every right to say so if i want to).
Persecution complexes are boring and emo. - Klainmeister, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4what? do you have multiple accounts to get your comments dugg up? you already made this comment under a different username above...
- Logicexe, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4A general summary with references.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.ht ...
You can also go to Realclimate.org. It's a blog run by an actual climatologist. Search through his index, you'll learn a lot more about climate research and climate change than from anyone on digg and he has plenty of articles about solar activity. - Eddie74, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5Any one that looks that old knows what he is talking about. JK
You guys are missing the point the school should not pull their support because his views on global warming. - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5Sure, I bet all these scientists completely missed your 120 seconds of googling and just totally forgot about the sun. People like yourself need to get out more and perhaps meet someone who is a scientist, and find that your concept of SMART just isn't BIG enough.
All these Corporate Talking Points from Big Energy have been discredited -- just like when we were saying that there was no WMDs in Iraq, or that torture was being used by this administration as a policy. They sound just like the misinformation that Big Tobacco used to use. How many times do we need to step people through the debunking before it sticks? I've seen the same crappy, ill thought points made over and over -- these people never seem to remember having every point torn to shreds? Are you this dense or new here or just paid to be betraying the future of humanity? How much would it cost to get someone like TheCarbonator to endorse slavery? I'm just asking -- I'd like to know what job opportunities their are for misinformers like yourself. - Virtualwombat, on 04/30/2008, -3/+7Many uncertainties remain, and individual items of evidence can always be questioned. However, taking all the evidence into account, sufficient concerns remain that justify action to curtail the use of fossil fuels. Even if the whole global warming issue was set aside, the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is already changing the pH of the oceans so that corals and shellfish may soon be unable to produce calcium carbonate exoskeletons. Since our entire food chain depends on the ocean, this finding has very serious implications indeed.
Why is it that many people find it so difficult to accept science-based knowledge? I quote from the work of Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg “…resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy”.
This is why the attention paid by the media to deny-ers is so damaging. An article dismissing global warming on the basis of ‘common sense’ gives the false impression that the science is contested. And this is all that is required to prevent any meaningful action on this issue. Until it is too late of course. - AriseNow, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Who Godwins himself with AL GORE!! Dammit man, you're trying hard, ain't ya?
- jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4http://ieg.or.kr:8080/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6402/ab ...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR ...
I could post more but im a tad busy today. - dOOBiEx213, on 04/30/2008, -8/+11No one is saying it doesn't exist douchebag. The argument is whether it's man-made or a natural cycle. L2READ nub.
- Duositex, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Are you referring to the highly respected climate scientist that is the foremost expert on hurricane forecasting? The man responsible for saving lives through improvements in tracking and prediction? Fail.
- jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3***** heres the link:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ... - VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Yes -- we all heard from Australia, what was being published from the Lincoln Group -- an organization funded by the Bush administration. Oh, and we heard from about 50 former military officers, who were actually getting government funding for businesses that ended up profiting from the war and this is a huge scandal that is about to break -- if only the media would cover it.
We also heard from England a little bit -- and we had the After Downing Street memos, showing that the US wanted them to "go along" with whatever claims they were pitching for the war. Hey, we didn't stop their invasion of the Falkland Islands -- so they owe us.
Other than that, I heard the NeoCon radio telling us how the Canadians, France, Germany, and the rest of Western Civilization, were merely Socialists who could not be trusted -- or does anybody else remember 2003?
So, we did have the "world" according to well placed shills. We now know that ALL of the reports of WMDs, were based upon stories planted by the Bush administration. We know that anyone with another point of view was discredited -- just like they are now with Global Warming and by many of the same "credible" Conservative corporate lackeys. - jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3You're describing socialism mate. Often liberals are also socialists (again like me) but it does not mean the two are the same thing.
I live with a person who would decribe themselves as a liberal libertarian. - lhbaker, on 04/30/2008, -8/+11You call 'a few minutes' research? That explains a lot.
- Logicexe, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5Agreed, it's nothing but an attempt at misdirection. Instead of trying to learn about past warming cycles and the current warming cycle and why they're different they instead dismiss the current warming trend as being natural. Never mind the fact that a natural warming trend can be just as dangerous as an artificial one, at least we are capable of reducing our CO2 emissions and possibly curbing the warming trend, we are not capable of lowering the sun's energy output.
- Acronym, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4"Hurricane expert" sounds so cool *shivers*
- smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4Consensus. So mob rule=truth?
- SuperVepr308, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Right on.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is