digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at foxnews.com —

Hurricane Expert: School Silencing Me Over Global-Warming Vi

foxnews.com — Bill Gray, pioneer of hurricane forecasting, says Colorado State is scaling back support of his yearly storm predictions because of his unorthodox views on climate change.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • oldhick, on 04/30/2008, -21/+30Oh man made global warming... "Its super cereal!!!!"
    • 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.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -7/+6Yeah and you don't find that new "clarification" more than a coincidence?

        Maybe we're just all idiots for not being so naive.
      • nick111, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2Climate Change denial on Digg is fairly chronic - they're not idiots, they're just ***** cowards - to weak to stand up to their responsibilities

        The global peer-reviewed scientific community is saying one thing - and that include Nasa and the Pentagon... but they decide to go with George Bush and Fox news and a load of easily traceable industry shills.

        These are people who (even after the last 7 years) still think the red country is right and all the others are wrong:
        http://bluree.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/800px ...


        It's pathetic.
      • oldhick, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1When did I question the Liberal Conspiracy? Don't be so cereal!
  • Galume, on 04/30/2008, -30/+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!
    • nick111, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2Actually - I think you'll find that the flat-earthers are the climate change deniers. That's why George Bush and Fox News and a handful of crackpots are one one side and the global scientific community is on the other.
    • monoa, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2He can 'dispute' the global scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... all he wants, but if he wants anyone to listen he needs to publish evidence that supports his contrary claims. He hasn't done that. He's just plucked out a few data points that he thinks supports his claims, while ignoring the mountain of other data points that prove him wrong.
  • tfox2k1, on 04/30/2008, -43/+44Of course the brainwashed youth on Digg won't acknowledge this story. If Hitler was as effective at brainwashing his youth as our libreral teachers and professors, we would all be speaking German. I see the global warming fanactics such as, Al Gore, as being almost as dangerous to the world as a Hitler. They want all the masses to huddle in caves while they rob the world blind.
    • lhbaker, on 04/30/2008, -6/+19Yeah. Those Germans were sooo Liberal.
    • csw1342, on 04/30/2008, -6/+16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques
      Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. This is a form of Bad Logic, where a is said to equal X, and b is said to equal X, therefore, a = b.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Ok, that's hard to follow. So is Hillary for or against NAFTA then?
      • EIderofzion, on 04/30/2008, -5/+1Are you a false flag operation making liberals out to look like uppetty asshats?
    • 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.
      • warsql, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3I would like to debate you on that, but "the debate is over."
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Please, don't put down tin-foil-hats, the NeoCon blogger brigade has made this term a sign of credibility and astute observations. If you say anything that lays out facts in a rational, well thought out manner -- you are sure to be wearing one.
    • aaronbourret, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3"I see the global warming fanactics such as, Al Gore, as being almost as dangerous to the world as a Hitler. "

      I hate people that misuse commas.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Al Gore will cause a lot of people to voluntarily throw themselves into dungeons. That, is, amazingly, diabolical.
        Oh darn -- I think I misused commas too!
    • AriseNow, on 04/30/2008, -0/+4Who Godwins himself with AL GORE!! Dammit man, you're trying hard, ain't ya?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Wait -- Hitler was effective.
      And of course, you can tell that it has been corporate brainwashing, because people like yourselves are trained to believe some high paid shill on a GM run TV station rather than a group of scientists who have 10 more years of college than you, so that they could be as smart as they could be, just to earn about half as much as you in their profession. What an amazing Liberal conspiracy!
    • monoa, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Wow. How many types of stupid can you fit in one paragraph? Impressive.
    • elcob32, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Its not that those of us on Digg won't acknowledge the story due to being brainwashed. The fact is the story appears on the Fox News website, and in an attempt to avoid being brainwashed we will fail to acknowledge it.
  • momofour, on 04/30/2008, -24/+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.
    • londubh, on 04/30/2008, -6/+5are you retarded? I doubt it. You just play one on TV. You no ***** clue as to how science works. You won't get it. If I thought there was a chance you would I wouldn't be calling you a moron.
    • monoa, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1So, you evidently do not consider yourself part of the 'scientific community' (aka 'reality-based community'). Somehow, without the aid of science, you and a few other xian, Republicons from the USA have decided the rest of the planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... have joined in a global conspiracy or that they're all stupid or mad.

      Have you been to see 'Expelled' yet? You'll love it.
  • drachemorder, on 04/30/2008, -34/+21Just a bit more proof that Ben Stein was right.
    • Azerael, on 04/30/2008, -10/+12Those goddamn darwinist liberal scumbag fascist pinko atheists are suppressing us, holding back the truth! The day I believe anything scientists overwhelmingly agree on is the day I accept my son is a homosexual.

      The Bible is the only "general consensus" I need.
      • VirtualRichard, on 04/30/2008, -8/+3hahahahahahahah down you go my fellow, way down in the dug down!
        • Azerael, on 04/30/2008, -2/+8I suppose I should have put a sarcasm tag.
        • coyote1284, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Your sarcasm meter is FUBAR, get a new one.
  • momofour, on 04/30/2008, -16/+41I have a question--why is it that Dr. Gray's position is the one that is 'controversial'?!
    • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -11/+13Because it goes against the general consensus of the scientific community.
      His position would be just as controversial if he insisted that our entire population originated from two individuals, the earth was only a few thousand years old or that adulterers be given the death sentence.
      • SuperVepr308, on 04/30/2008, -11/+10You mean the "scientific community" that is bathing in grants if they will only follow The Goracle? Yeah, those must be the ones.
        • 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.
        • coyote1284, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"Coal! The power of the future, TODAY!"
        • andyd273, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1I think that people are use the names of Big Oil and Coal the same way that some people use Hitler.
          Yeah, they have a lot of money, and yeah they want to keep their power, but they are not the only ones.
          There are environmental concerns that have just as much money, and just as much interest in power, and are just as likely to twist facts to archive their goals.
          He shouldn't be persecuted just because he wants to ask questions instead of bowing to the party line.
          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1People use the names of big oil and coal the same way they use Hitler? That one needs some explaining, Andy. Yeah, the energy business has money, lots and lots of money and lots and lots of power (both figuratively and literally). There are lots of reports (including their own annual reports) that demonstrate this. Now, what are these environmental concerns that have just as much money? As to their goals, big oil wants to make more money, pure and simple. Nothing wrong with making money, eh? Environmentalists want to prevent the environment from being harmed. Very noble, yes? They're not mutually exclusive. I don't want big oil polluting the environment to make money. That's not too much to ask, is it?
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Yes, we all know that people go into the Science profession so that they can sit back and make the big bucks.
          /sarcasm
      • ponchietto, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4I also would like to remind you that in Europe and the rest of the world scientists come to the same conclusions,
        and financing methods are quite different from the States.
        • Mahstah, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Hey, just like how the world governments all agreed on WMDs in Iraq!
          • apetrie, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Uhm, no they didn't.
          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2And that's why they all those world governments joined the US in the invasion of Iraq?
          • 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.
    • Duositex, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I was going to say, "I think his position is the one that is highly orthodox, not the other way around."
    • monoa, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0Because he disagrees with the vast majority of the global scientific community. Denial of anthropogenic global warming is confined almost entirely to xian, evangelical, Republicon USA.

      Dr Gray may be an expert on hurricanes but that doesn't make him an expert on global climatology. He's published nothing to scientific journals that describes his 'theory'. He simply looks for 'evidence' that contradicts the global consensus, and that squeals when no one in the scientific community listens to him.
    • SnowCrashv5, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1b/c it's not in the King James version of the Bible.
  • TheCarbonator, on 04/30/2008, -23/+34Those 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!
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/30/2008, -15/+18Please...AlGore says the debate is over. Why would you want to muddy the waters with facts?

      ;-)
    • lhbaker, on 04/30/2008, -8/+12You call 'a few minutes' research? That explains a lot.
      • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3Yes, because if you spend hours and hours trying to justify the answer you want, that isn't very bright.

        I suggest you review this link from yesterday:

        http://digg.com/comics_animation/The_Scientific_me ...

        There's an analogy. Hopefully you won't require extended periods of study to discover it. Cheers!
        • 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)
    • 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.
      • floorman56, on 04/30/2008, -7/+3Whether it is man made is still up for debate but highly likely.
        I live where there use to be an ice sheet 2 miles thick ....Did man make that go away ?

        he fact is that Global Warming is taking place is irrefutable.
        Tell me then ...What is the proper temperature for the earth? are we maybe going to "normal" ?
        • 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.
        • jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Whether it is man made is still up for debate but highly likely.
          I live where there use to be an ice sheet 2 miles thick ....Did man make that go away ?

          I don't know about that specific example as you haven't given me much info but just because it happened before for different reason dosn't mean man made global warming is taking place now.

          he fact is that Global Warming is taking place is irrefutable.
          Tell me then ...What is the proper temperature for the earth? are we maybe going to "normal"?

          Did i say anything about the earth having to be a "normal" temperature? I was simply talking about temperature trends. At one point the earth was a molten ball of liquid iron without a crust or atmosphere and at another point it had no meaningful oxygen content for millions of years. I personally prefer the environment as it is. It may not be normal but it is certainly preferable.
          • floorman56, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Did i say anything about the earth having to be a "normal" temperature? I was simply talking about temperature trends
            If the temperature trend is to "normal" IE hotter there there is NOTHING we can do to stop it
            that means we have to deal with the effects of the heating and stop spending TRILLIONS trying to prevent it
            You may as well try to prevent a volcano from erupting
      • temjrpgh, on 04/30/2008, -5/+3Post something supporting your claim that the current trend is not in correlation with solar cycles.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2"
        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.
        "
        >> When ringing a bell. Pavlov's dogs drooled. Either these folks are products of commercial education, or they are paid to be this dense. Do a search about "paid bloggers" -- it really is being paid for, and there are groups from the military, CIA and think tanks which are used to try and steer Americans towards a certain way of thinking. I don't doubt that, after watching Sean Hannity, there aren't people who think this way, because some "Heroic" figure told them that the sun heats the earth -- but I also think that the reason Global Warming is controversial, is that there is money to be made by holding America back from progress.

        I consider these people fools or traitors.
    • 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!
      • 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.
      • floorman56, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Why do you keep dredging up things like solar variability
        because its a variable in a very complex system that you guys try to say " has no effect"
        Scientists have already shown that it has nothing to do with the current warming of the Earth
        See?
    • 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.
    • monoa, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...

      Why is denial of anthropogenic global warming confined almost entirely to xian, evangelical, Republicon USA? Is there a global conspiracy? Has the rest of the planet made a mistake?
  • Barbrady, on 04/30/2008, -12/+24We must kill ManBearPig!
    • londubh, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Finally a comment I can agree with. You are totally cereal, aren't you?
  • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -27/+26Liberals are fascists. Regardless of your personal position on Global Warming, to simply shout out it's detractors is immature and down right ignorant.
    "School officials denied that Gray’s stand on global warming was an issue, and said that they are cutting back on media support for his forecasts due to the strain it places on the school's lone media staffer."
    Right, so you're telling me a school like CSU with an Institution as popular as Gray can't hire another media staffer, hell hire Dr. Gray his own media staffer for all the exposure it gets your University.


    • 4wheel, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/10/20 ...
    • lhbaker, on 04/30/2008, -7/+13I'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.
      • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -9/+9No, it isn't ironic. Supressing people, who don't conform to a generally held or popular beleif is fascist pure and simple. Liberals engage in this kind of activity everyday, and this story is just another example. Liberals love to supress people and speech they don't agree with.
        • 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.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1I didn't claim anyone was suppressing me, I was talking about the news article that this post relates too. You're a complete moron.
        • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4Yup, it's irony all right. Fascism is all about government and big business in cahoots. Liberalism is about liberty. If someone is suppressing you, they're NOT a liberal.
        • govsucks, on 04/30/2008, -4/+3Yeah Jezsik, nothing says liberty like a liberal. Force people to participate in Social Security = freedom, force people to participate in Medicare = Freedom, force people to participate in government healthcare = freedom, force people to (in most cases) send their children to be educated by government = freedom. //Sarcasm One thing is for sure, Liberals don't understand the difference in the definitions of Force or Freedom.
          • 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.
          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Govsucks, where you home educated by any chance? As Jimmy17 pointed out, all those things are socialist, not liberal. As far as "forcing" people into social security, Medicare, education, etc., would that really be so bad? I'm forced to pay for an enormous standing army (AND an enormous mercenary army). I'd prefer those funds go to helping our citizens.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1jezsik and Jimmy17, you're both wrong. Liberalism in, its classic definition doesn't mean those things; However in present U.S. politics, liberal has become synonymous with socialistic ideals, anti-capitalism and increased government regulation. Only an ill informed person, or someone in a coma for the past 25 years would say that it hasn't. So getting back to the original topic(something liberal diggers can never seem to stay on), liberals(read fascists) will stop at nothing to push the global warming(read anti-capitalist)agenda, and anybody who disagrees with them be damned.
          • jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Arguing semantics will get you nowhere. I know plenty of liberally who are libertarians too, and the only people who have related the two (liberalism and socialism (which surely would be more accurately related to communism as fascism is all about big business)) are the far right who often oppress people for their personal beliefs, sexuality etc. and also happen to be libertarian with respect to their stance on capitalism.

            Anyway, getting back to topic why don't you argue the science rather than the peoples motives. The fact is (and im not gonna do your research for you cos im getting bored of doing that today) man made global warming has a massive body of evidence to support it and all you do is criticize the motives of the people who publish it. Thats rather intellectually dishonest.

            Secondly (addressing your first comment) the fact is this is a fuax news story and as usually has, for want of a better word, lied about the issue. Both the man in question and the university have denied the story. But even if it were true refusing to hire somebody a media staffer != oppressing free speech.

            Final word. Just because you seem to think that global warming science is anti capitalist (which it isn't as an initial capital investment into green tech pays for itself over time and is cheaper in the long run) doesn't mean its not true. Truth is not determined by what you would like to be the case.
          • govsucks, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Jimmy, jezsik,

            Either you believe you have the right to tell others what to do or you don't. Either you believe in freedom or you don't. That is the line in the sand gents. Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Democrat or Republican its just another person that thinks they have the right to deprive others of their freedom. Do you or do you not believe that "the people" or the mob in control should have the right to force other people to participate in things like Social Security, Medicare, universal healthcare and other things or do you believe people should be FREE to make those choices themselves? Do you or do you not LITERALLY believe in freedom? That is the line, do you cross it? I don't give a ***** what your personal label is.

            I don't think I have the right to tell you how to live your life, do you pay me and my freedom the same respect or do you simply play lip service to "freedom" to appear civilized?
          • jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Yup i believe in freedom but i'm not so narrow minded as to think that the be all and end all of freedom is property and money. If im born in the gutter and have no money to pay for health care and thus cant work how "free" am I compared to the person who is given all the benefits of his parents health insurance.

            I would love to live in an ideal society were everyone is perfectly free but these things cant exist in the real world. No governance leads to anarchy and people ending up governing others by force anyway (see sectarian violence in the middle east in the absence of government) governance supported by private donation is open to abuse and regulation of private donations to prevent such abuse or taxation to support governance is not "free" by your definition so what do you suggest?
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1jimmy17 "man made global warming has a massive body of evidence to support it " - Completely inaccurate, there are plenty of scientists in the field who are skeptical about "man made" global warming. Man in this news article is one for example.

            "But even if it were true refusing to hire somebody a media staffer != oppressing free speech." - I didn't say that either, you're still a complete moron. This man has been under attack since he expressed his thought on global warming. The school is trying to get rid of him and the media staffer excuse was complete *****, I think most intelligent people got my point on that.

            Final word. Just because you seem to think that global warming science is anti capitalist (which it isn't as an initial capital investment into green tech pays for itself over time and is cheaper in the long run) - "green Tech" hasn't been around long enough to make any kind of "long run" claim about its financial prospects. I am all for green tech, but I am not for the government forcing me into it. Lastly, in the U.S. the left and those who label themselves liberals have become synonymous with fascism.
          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Freedom isn't an all or nothing proposition. Like it or not, Govsucks, you're part of a society. If you want to find an island and live there, you'll have your ultimate freedom. However, so long as you must live with other people, you have to abide by a set of rules (and while I find some aspects of anarchy appealing, I recognize that "some rules" are better than "no rules"). Does the "mob" (as you call it) have a right to force other people do do stuff? Welcome to democracy, my friend (preferably one with a good constitution). Would you prefer one person or a small group of people force you to do stuff? That would be a dictatorship or an oligarchy (which is pretty much what we have now). Personally, I'm all for individual freedom so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others. That's why I'm opposed to individual or organizations dumping waste into the land, sea and air, as it interferes with my freedom to live in a clean world. I'm in favor of a government that will restrict those organizations who pollute.
          • jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2"Completely inaccurate, there are plenty of scientists in the field who are skeptical about "man made" global warming. Man in this news article is one for example."

            How does the fact that there are a few people who disagree mean that there is no evidence for global warming. Plenty of people disagree with evolution. Anyway argue the facts don't just point at others. I bet you don't even know why this guy refutes it.

            "I didn't say that either, you're still a complete moron. This man has been under attack since he expressed his thought on global warming. The school is trying to get rid of him and the media staffer excuse was complete *****, I think most intelligent people got my point on that."

            And thus you prove the vast liberal tax conspiracy with a case study of one. I see. /s
            Incidentally the personally attacks get you nowhere, I think you need to calm down and wash the sand out of your vagina.

            ""green Tech" hasn't been around long enough to make any kind of "long run" claim about its financial prospects."

            thats strange, ive studied green tech in quite a bit of detail and was even offered a phd in the subject but anyways i would have thought that many companies have willingly taken it on board would suggest that.


            "but I am not for the government forcing me into it"

            So its not ok to force companies to regulate their emissions but it is ok for them to force me to breath it? hypocrite.

            "Lastly, in the U.S. the left and those who label themselves liberals have become synonymous with fascism."

            In the US the left is synonymous with fascism? Well Then you need better history teachers mate because thew two terms are quite different. Or maybe you need to stop watching fox news and falling for their right wing nonsense hook line and sinker.



          • govsucks, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Jimmy, Jezsik

            Neither of you believe in freedom. If anything you believe the state will be a benevolent master, it won't.

            Jimmy, property most certainly has a great deal to do with freedom. If you are not free to keep the things you struggle to achieve what is the purpose of achieving them? Are you free if you can't keep what you have worked to refine? Should the little red hen be able to keep any of the bread she worked to make?

            Jezsik, if the democracy said that you had to attend church twice a week how would you feel then. What if the democracy said they needed 80% of your salary to start war with Iran, still OK? In a democracy, we could, by MAJORITY still have slavery. I choose rule of law that says all people are created equal and will be treated EQUAL under the law. Equal, yet another word LIBERALS don't seem to understand.

          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"I'm all for individual freedom so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others." How, exactly, does YOUR freedom work, Govsucks? Are you free to produce pollution, corrupt your children, kill your neighbors? Yes, a democracy can force people to do things they don't agree with (which is why I prefer a democracy with a good constitution preventing most abuses). I don't like the fact that my taxes are being abused by war mongers, but that's the price I must pay to live in this society.
            You say you want equal treatment for all, but even with that you could still be forced into church and war. What are you trying to say with your last two sentences?
          • jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"I'm all for individual freedom so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others."
            This would be ideal but is impossible to achieve. No mans actions are completely isolated from another. For example do you believe you have the tight to drive your car if you want to? And I cant stop you. Well then you are infringing on my right to breath clean air. Who's right is more pressing. You have to make decisions that society agree on not.

            Like i say, Id be all for freedom on you terms if if were practically possible but it isn't. We live on a limited planet with limited resources so we have to accept that our actions ALWAYS affect others.

            Also how do you deal with the problem I asked earlier? Would you support:

            - No governance - This leads to anarchy and people ending up governing others by force anyway (see sectarian violence in the middle east in the absence of government) You cannot deny this it can be seen again and again throughout history. Power vacuums never exist for long.

            - Governance supported by private donation -This is open to abuse and regulation of private donations to prevent such abuse is not"free" surely?

            - Or would the current state of taxation to support governance be ok. Well we already know you disagree with that.

            What else do you suggest, Please tell me because i like freedom too but I also realize that the idea is impossible. Something to strive for but in absolute terms full of self contradictions when you factor in human nature.
          • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1@ jimmy17, again you give knee jerk responses to my comments instead of reading them. I didn't say there was no evidence for global warming, just that those who disagree are supressed(visave the article). You haven't been offered a PhD in anything, green tech hasn't been around long enough to prove profitability of jack. Go eat some bangers and mash and drink some warm beer you limey nit wit.
          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -1/+110ofDiamonds, based on your comments I can conclude that you do not have a degree in business (otherwise you'd know something about long-term investment strategies by corporations) and, if you DO have a degree, it's likely an undergraduate degree (otherwise you'd know that profitability has nothing to do with PhD studies).
          • jimmy17, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1lol, well im afraid i was but i decided to go more down the chemical biology route. Much more interesting. Anyways the phd was funded by the EPSRC at Imperial college. Not all phds are funded by companies looking to make a buck. And yes green tech has been round for a good number of years now it just hasn't been as controversial.

            Anyways im off for dinner and a beer (i mean proper room temp beer not the near freezing weak ass gnats piss you sell over the pond ; )
        • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1@jezsik, did't say it did, do you morons even read the posts or are you just responding to your anticipations?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3I've been blogging for about 6 years now. In that time -- most of us "Liberals" were very polite in the beginning.
      We've been round and round on numerous topics -- and always called Tin-Foil-Hat conspiracy theorists or Communists because we are worried about actually attacking the right country, about our country's honor, about globalization, education and jobs. We worry about our country staying competitive, our air clean, and not trading Liberty for a cheap shot at security. And in all that time, we have turned out to be right for our concerns and knocked down continuously by people on the Right.

      I can't be talking for everyone. A blog leads to the lowest common denominator -- so if you are looking for a mature discussion -- you can only control what you type. The definition of a Liberal, and the actual practice we go by, is anti-fascist. Is anyone on the left sticking up for corporations right to pollute? Do you understand what that word means?

      Over a decade ago, scientists determined that CFCs in air conditioners and hair sprays were destroying the Ozone layer. Without too much "controversy" we banned CFCs around the world. Today, that problem is diminishing. But, we have Fascists in control now, and they fire all the good scientists who speak up in the administration. By definition, the Bush administration is fascist, because they hire industry lobbyists to run various government oversight agencies and because they vote pro-corporation at every turn. They also privatize every government program they can get away with and we pay 10 times more in taxes to fund these ventures -- while having no agency with the ability to have oversight. Try going after some group like KBR, and you find they are getting funded out of the Fish and Game agency, and have a shell corporation in the Bahamas hiring their staff -- they aren't even an American corporation anymore.

      Transparency keeps the corrupt from abusing the system.
  • 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!

    ;-)
    • thcobbs, on 04/30/2008, -4/+2"rectified" ummm.... don't you mean "rectumfied"?
    • lolinyerface, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2I don't question it. I just let everyone else worry about it and alter their lives to make up for the change that occurs when I throw away aluminum/plastic/etc etc. Why should I be eco friendly? Government says so? lols
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I can predict with absolute certainty that people like yourself will have forgotten they voted for George Bush in 4 years and in 10, will deny having been against people trying to push the issue that we need to change our ways, and clean up our act for sustainable living on this planet. The real issue isn't Global Warming -- it is Sustainable Living and it is this centuries "Slavery Issue" -- conservatives are wrong on this one just as they were wrong and that one.

      So, from my point of view, people are being very patient with folks like yourself.
  • downs1, on 04/30/2008, -15/+9This sounds frighteningly like fascism, communism and liberalism combined. That is, if you disagree with the prevailing political speak, you are a dissenter and dangerous to the state. Therefore, you must be removed from any position where you can influence others to your heretical way of thinking. It doesn't matter that the real science is on your side. They say they are "open-minded" and "fair" and "understanding," but their actions certainly say otherwise. Dr. Gray has been condemned without a hearing. Wake up America!
  • KnightMareInc, on 04/30/2008, -15/+24hey look its the fox news brigade.
    • cheerio, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I wish i could have dugg you twice my friend.
  • batista86, on 04/30/2008, -21/+22So he is being penalized for believing in the truth? Come on guys, Al Gore created global warming for one reason, profit....it doesn't exist. The earth goes thru cycles.
    • SuperVepr308, on 04/30/2008, -6/+4Man, you nailed that one. A washed up politician needed a "cause" and he made one. Millions of dollars later he is smiling like a Cheshire cat.
    • temjrpgh, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4I think its about the few ruling the many as unelected officials. Submission to a one world, unelected, governing body that will levy taxes.
  • Acronym, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4"Hurricane expert" sounds so cool *shivers*
  • dOOBiEx213, on 04/30/2008, -8/+8Someone quickly! Call Al Gore!

    "Go Gore!"
    "By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!"
    Captain Planet, he's our hero
    Gonna take pollution down to zero

    "You'll pay for this Captain Planet!"
    We're the Planeteers
    You can be one too
    'Cause saving our planet is the thing to do!
    Looting and polluting is not the way
    Hear what Captain Planet has to say!
    • SuperVepr308, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Captain Planet was more gay than AquaMan and that is saying something. ***** Ted Turner.
  • dOOBiEx213, on 04/30/2008, -11/+6What I find the most shocking, is that foxnews is actually reporting this.
  • XTX7X, on 04/30/2008, -16/+9Because a bunch of ***** diggers are smarter than the AAAS, NAS, and every other academy of science which has released statements claiming the opposite. Just because it would be nice for it not to exist doesn't mean that your opinions can overrule what is pretty much the biggest scientific consensus ever..
    • 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.
      • XTX7X, on 04/30/2008, -5/+4If you would ***** do some research instead of your partisan toolery, you'd find each consensus I just mentioned says that it is- some assign percentages of 90% likely or higher. Since when have these institutions been wrong? Don't point to global cooling- that wasn't a consensus, it was a small statement which the media took and blew out of proportion for a story. There is no credible source to counteract their analysis... or if there is, please inform me of it.
        • thcobbs, on 04/30/2008, -6/+5ok, 90% of the world also used to believe that the earth is round.
          in the 70's a large portion of the scientific community came to a consensus that there was global cooling
          • jezsik, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1"in the 70's a large portion of the scientific community came to a consensus that there was global cooling." Wrong! It was a very small percentage who thought this MIGHT occur as a result of airborne particles (pollution).
          • DisposableRob, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2It was exactly 7 published papers and a Newsweek article. Not a "large portion".
          • repairman2003, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0The world isn't round anymore? What do the 90% of the world belive that the shape of the world is now?
        • XTX7X, on 04/30/2008, -3/+0Please cite this consensus, its signatories, and the supporting institutions.

          That's convenient, too. The earth is round. Even if you had worded it properly, that's still a ***** claim. Our scientific bodies are the best we've got- you can either follow their advice, or you can stick to your guns and conservative rhetoric that you are right. Since *when* have the majority of scientists been wrong?
        • Treoinmypocket, on 04/30/2008, -1/+5If you read your own consensus building research more closely you would find that where it points to man made influence on Global Warming is where every one of them veers away from science and into opinion. There is no scientific evidence that supports the man-made claim.

          That doesn't mean that is isn't true necessarily but it does mean that we need to be objective and do more research on the connection.

          There is money and economy and resources and peoples lives at stake here. Look what the simple uptick in using more corn (and other foodstuffs) for fuel has done to the world economy and the availability of food in one single year.

          The biofuels being shoved down our tanks are inefficient and costly - so no net gain for anyone but the farmers and the industry pushing them - but starvation of those already living on the edge is on the rise.

          Don't you think we ought to know what the hell we're talking about before doing all this?
        • smacksaw, on 04/30/2008, -1/+4Consensus. So mob rule=truth?
        • ponchietto, on 04/30/2008, -2/+0Consensus: a model that the large majority of scientists consider accurate enough.

          Your statement is as stupid as saying democracy = mob rule.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • Azerael, on 04/30/2008, -12/+19So, uh, since when was Digg dominated by neocons?
    • XTX7X, on 04/30/2008, -5/+6I was wondering the same.
      • 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.
    • thcobbs, on 04/30/2008, -7/+8LOVELY!

      Because we don't agree with a particular scientific theory, we're now NEOCONS?
      • Azerael, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4I suggest you seek to grasp a better understanding of what a scientific 'theory' is. Gravity, for example, is a 'theory'. Relativity, too.
        • lead2thehead, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1His understanding is just fine...

          #1 - Gravity is a LAW, not a theory... see "Newtons Law of Gravitation". The "theory of gravity" is an attempt to explain why gravity exists and what causes it. People love to compare the theory of gravity with the theory of global warming, but none of those people understand the theory of gravity.

          #2 - Do you honestly believe that relativity is scientific fact? If so, could you please explain to all of us how space and time interact with one another?

    • temjrpgh, on 04/30/2008, -4/+5You don't need to be a neocon to doubt the effect of man on the climate. When people make statements like that it indicates they have views on issues wrapped up in little packages assigned to political movements and it's like picking out a cereal box in the supermarket. All governments are representative of the few that want to maintain control, and they sell you compliance using fear. Only the young and gullible don't realize this.
    • geddon, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Suddenly, Faux News becomes the authority on climate change.
    • BevansDesign, on 04/30/2008, -1/+3Digg should block any submissions from fox, or at least auto-mark them as "inaccurate" like I do.
    • hoopy22, on 04/30/2008, -2/+0Wow, to leap from global warming dissent to .... Neocon????? That's a pretty broad brush there genius.
  • 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.
    • warsql, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I read the update. "Gray told the newspaper that since last year the university had "backtracked" on its position toward him."
    • 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.
  • alanr19, on 04/30/2008, -8/+2Aww did granddad poop in his pants?


    .
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.


  • 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/+4Fox News only reports accurately when they agree with digg users. Obviously since this article agrees with the common paranoia amongst digg users about liberal conspiracies concerning global warming reality must be wrong, Fox must be right.
  • 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

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • nastronomical, on 04/30/2008, -7/+6Carbon Credits will "SAVE THE WORLD". BUY YOUR CARBON CREDITS!!!
    -Snake Oil sales Man aka Al gore.
  • pilgrim3970, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3"I find it strange that so many on digg will support science over religious dogma"

    Everyone has faith in something - just depends on what you put your faith in. Whether it is God, Global warming, or little green men.
  • nastronomical, on 04/30/2008, -8/+2So true............

    Listen 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!

    ;-)
    • 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...
  • IphtashuFitz, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3Is it just me or does this guy look a bit like Dr. Jack Kevorkian (aka "Dr. Death")?
  • Blasphemous88, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1Buried for fox news having anything to do with the article. Otherwise dugg for content.
  • 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, -1/+2Bill Gray is a great scientist. He just happens to be wrong on global warming (in that he denies it). Chris Mooney's Storm World gave him very good coverage.
  • aaronbourret, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4Typical Fox News. They have to retract the article less than 24 hours after they post it because it's entirely false and they did no research of their own. Of course they don't actually retract the article. They place a small, hard to notice note at the top that they have "updated" it with a link, leaving the original inflammatory article up. But they aren't blatantly trying to mislead us. No, not Fox News!
  • Flyingdebrisguy, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2He isn't denying global warming, he's saying that he doesn't believe in what the media is spitting out about us being its primary cause.

    Now granted, yes, i do believe earth should clean up its act, but we've got bigger fish to fry than co2 levels, such as pollution levels and running out of clean water. There's scientific data that indicates that the warming we are seeing isn't all that much related to co2 levels as it is solar activity and our weaking electromagnetic field. 2 things completely out of our control.

    The way it seems to me is that you've got a bunch of power brokers like Al Gore and world leaders all around that want to exert their control by indoctrinating as many as they can with all the co2 business until its not socially acceptable to disagree. I don't buy their *****.
  • dtzitz, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2I don't understand what that article had to do with Gary Bussy
  • TheMachine1, on 04/30/2008, -1/+0"Gray contends it's all a hoax contrived by scientists hungry for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and foreign powers seeking to create a single world government."

    I think the economic consequences of global warming have been massively overstated (the economy can adjust to slow changes). But this Gray sounds like a paranoid right-wing nut and is doing a disservice to global warming skeptics.
    • corbettkroehler, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Global warming will cost the world economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year or more starting very soon. The good news is that solutions to the problem represent trillions of dollars of new revenue. Check out Fred Krupp's new book for the specifics, EARTH: The Sequel (www.earththesequel.org)
  • sandersdamnit, on 04/30/2008, -2/+1i don't understand why they think gary busey's cocaine habit caused global warming hurricanes........


    because it was his butterscotch farts
  • qhor, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Curse you, emacs fans! If I want to use vi, I will use vi. Stop spreading these slanderous rumours, and pretending that you've never heard of C-x M-w M-greenhouse.
  • mntbikeracer1, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0I go to CSU and I haven't heard anything about this, but I am now very interested. I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not global warming is occurring, but the whole man made thing has to be the greatest marketing campaign of all time.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2The real issue isn't Global Warming -- it is Sustainable Living and it is this centuries "Slavery Issue" -- conservatives are wrong on this one just as they were wrong and that one.
  • malex, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"Gray contends it's all a hoax contrived by scientists hungry for research funding, media professionals thirsting for Pulitzer Prizes and foreign powers seeking to create a single world government."

    Yeah... it's at this point that he starts losing credibility.
  • jiludi, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1he must be pissed his hit and miss forecasts are overdone ... whatever
  • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Buried for being a Fox News article.
  • corbettkroehler, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1It's a shame when an otherwise accurate scientist goes off the deep end. More than a century ago, a British scientist proved that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise. There is no dispute that carbon levels are up. So, what's the confusion?
  •  

    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.