OMG, did anyone else hear the anti-global warming scientist on Wolfie?

[hedda_foil]

Gray (sp?) from Colorado State University. Thinks humans have limited impact on climate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. There's no such thing.

That's like calling Michael Behe a biochemist.

[Gman]

2. Check that check stub on the floor of his car

it's from Chevron I'll bet.

[bloom]

3. They're probably paying him off. nt

[tives12]

4. I heard he would be on...

and completely forgot to watch. But I guess I should be glad I didn't see it.

[Richard Steele]

5. Gray is a lunatic-fringe 1-percenter...

Completely at odds with 99% of the Scientific community.

So, naturally, the CorporateMedia drags him out, and presents him
to the public as though he has some sort of valid
alternative opinion.

He doesn't.

He's just a schmuck with some letters after his name,
and his head in the sand.

[rainy]

6. Wolf always lets the rightie speak his mind but only

shows clips of the lefties. Lefties hardly ever get to acutally be interviewed on his show.

[Djinn]

7. He's hardly the only one

While the majority of the non bought scientists agree that human's are influencing climate change, there are completely legitimate, credible and ethical scientists who dispute this. Some believe that humans do have an effect but not one that is able to siginificantly alter the environment.

Dismissing people because they take an opposing stance isn't a good idea. Both sides can be accurately accused of hyperbole and exageration and both sides have their paid shills.

[bobbieinok]

8. give some names??????

[Djinn]

10. or you could try researching a bit for yourself

or you could perhaps provide the names of anyone who can state with authority that humans are causing climate change to an extent that has deliterious effects on the environment. There are a myriad of views within the scientific community; some say the earth isn't warming, others say it is but it is a natural process, others say we are helping the warming but not to deleterious levels amongst many other views.

Either way try googling: Prof Dennis Bray, Richard Lindzen, Prof Roy Spencer, Wolfgang Thüne, William M. Gray, Dr Chris Landsea, Dr Benny Peiser, Sallie L. Baliunas & Galina Mashnich just for starters.

For the record I side with the majority of scientists on this because I don't know enough about the myriad of fields needed to make any sense out of this complex issues, however I also recognise that it's a theory, something that isn't provable and something about which there is a wide range of opinion that I do not simply dismiss outright because it goes against the prevailing wisdom. Particularly when that prevailing wisdom is fraught with distortions (eg the published studies that claim there are no dissenting views -Naomi Oreskes) that have since been exposed.

Do you honestly think that everyone on the "we're causing it" side is pure of motive? do you honestly think that people on the "no we're not" have to be paid by oil co's?

[Rex]

9. CNN u-boats run on methane, something Cpt. Blitzer's guests have in

abundance. Wolf if like Rush without all the pain-killers.