The 2007 National Hurricane Conference ended in New Orleans on Friday with its principal speaker unleashing a fiery indictment of former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, climate change science and the mainstream media.
On the same day that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report, professor of atmospheric science William Gray, a hurricane forecaster at ColoradoStateUniversity, dismissed the scientific consensus that global warming is a real problem, that it is caused by human activity and that it will lead to more intense storms like Hurricane Katrina.
His speech made headlines around the world and overshadowed a week of courses and workshops on advances in disaster management, public preparedness education and emergency communication systems.
“You’ve heard a lot of foolishness over the last couple years,” said Dr Gray. “I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring … I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern.” He believes the earth has been in a natural warming cycle for 30 years owing to fluctuations in ocean currents and that temperatures will cool down in another five to ten years as the currents shift again.
He singled out Mr Gore as a “gross alarmist” and said: “He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
Yet the latter charge is one that Dr Gray has had to increasingly defend because his theories on climate change have isolated him in the scientific community. He might have problems receiving government grants to conduct his research, and his views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of his peers. His conference speeches are notable for their quotes from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and science fiction author Michael Crichton, while lacking in references to scientific research.
Critics have said that Dr Gray has not allowed his claims about global warming to be evaluated by the scientific community.Dr Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Palm Beach Post that the merits of scientific theories must be tested by being published in leading journals such as Science and Nature, yet “I have not seen any refered publications written by Bill Gray on this topic during the last few years. Research scientists conduct their exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature and at professional conferences, not through the media.”
Dr Gray also took aim at the news media for reporting the IPCC’s findings, and suggested that the scientific consensus only gets coverage because it “makes a hell of a good story”. On the other hand, media ethics experts insist that it is incumbent on journalists to report evidence-based scientific findings while treating untested fringe theories with caution, which is especially important when science meets politics.
Journalist and author Chris Mooney, who has written extensively on science in politics, has argued in the Columbia Journalism Review that “… scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism. At the very least, journalists covering science-based policy debates should familiarize themselves with this professional proving ground, learn what it says about the relative merits of competing claims, and balance their reports accordingly.”
THIS JUST IN: EARTH HAS MOLTEN CORE, ORBITS SUN
<p>
AP – Al Gore has for a long time been full of hot air. He has a vivid imagination about the world. His mistrust of the seasons stems from an episode of the Twilight Zone, in which the Earth gets too close to the Sun. Summers are hot, and Al is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures needed to create a more effective global deodorant.
<p>
If college roommate Tommy Lee Jones, could save the City of Los Angeles from errant magma (Volcano), and the world entire from a giant cockroach (Men In Black), then Al Gore deserves a prize for his initiative to combat global wetness. The same trusted formula that kept our leaders dry during the Cold War. As the planet heats up, you don’t have to! Clinton tested: guaranteed to leave no trace.
<p>
The Earth does have a molten core and revolves around a fiery orb. The committee that awarded Al Gore’s prize included a university president, a theologian, and a consultant. And, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with whom Gore plans to share the prize, does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. However, given the newfound legitimacy for Global Warming, a “private group” out of Monterey, California, vies to seed the North Atlantic with iron oxide pellets to help plankton absorb carbon dioxide (greenhouse gasses). Strategy: “cleanup the planet and make a buck on the side.”
<p>
So, to whom did Al Gore donate the $1.8 million dollar Nobel purse? Who is the Alliance for Climate Protection? Perhaps not coincidentally, Al Gore is the founder and chairman of the § 501(c)(3) alliance. Three guesses who the IPCC - the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis - a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years during this true planetary emergency are: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Written by Peggy McGilligan
on 10/21/2007
I like this listing by number one of the posters does. So:
1: We make a big deal about the great number of scientists on each side of the issue. Can anyone tell me how many real scientists are on each side of this issue?
2: Having solved that problem can you tell me what the heck it matters how many scientists are right or wrong? When you get right down to it, the majority of scientists at some point in history were convinced the earth was the center of the universe. Not to mention the "scientists" warning us today of global warming are the same scientists who warned us of the ice age in the 70s.
3: Can anyone show me any evidence that the oceans have come up anymore than 2.5mm? That is the only real figure I have ever found and it is inside the margin of error.
Written by MAJGross
on 6/3/2007
Redbob, let me explain something to you. Sea levels are going up; this has been measured repeatedly and consistently. This fact is not denied, and in fact, cannot be denied, by any reputable scientist. The land on which Harlech castle is located is in fact rising. You are correct about this. However, it is rising due to the process of isostatic uplift, where land that was once covered by continental glaciers slowly rebounds over time. Now I know just enough paleoclimatology to be dangerous; it's not my specific area of expertise, but I can tell you that there have been rapid shifts in the earth's climate (on the order of decades) and that the vast majority of qualified climate scientists believe that we are bringing one on now. Look, you're not going to find unanimity on this; there are thousands of climate scientists worldwide, so it shouldn't be surprising that you will find a dozen or so who deny it. Finally, maybe in north Texas you're not worried about global warming or sea level rise, but down here in New Orleans we sure are.
Written by Me
on 4/10/2007
"Next" = Text
"The TEXT still remains."
(It's getting late, and it's cold here in North Texas - 20 degrees below the average for this date, and 40 degrees below the record high set in 1963.)
Written by Redbob
on 4/9/2007
"Harbinger" thinks it's "difficult to argue with" a couple of carefully selected photographs from 40 or 50 years ago?
How about Harlech Castle, in Wales, which was built in the late 1200s with a covered passage leading directly to the sea?
The inconvenient truth here is that the landing at the end of this passage is now quite far from the sea, showing that the sea level has DROPPED 5 or 6 feet since that time, not risen as the global-warming chicken-littles would have us believe.
Of course, you can no longer see the photos of this at the Harlech Castle website; they wree much too "inconvenient" for the global warming weenies.
Oddly enough, though, the next still remains - as of this morning, anyway.
And the castle itself stands as a rebuke to those who claim to be scientists...
Written by Redbob
on 4/9/2007
1 If the earth warms 5 degrees in the next century are you really trying to convince me that is bad? Come on, I think we can handle it. So in Florida will hit 100 instead of 95. How do you know our current temperature is the planets optimal temperature? Do you want to trust people like FreeDem (second post) who thinks “Free Markets” are bad? Or Al Gore who has been wrong about everything he has ever said?
2 Ok, let say I buy Al Gore’s rants. Unless we can stop China from building a new coal plant every week for the next couple years, whatever we do is not going to help. If we conserve energy like no other country on earth, it is not going to make a difference in CO2 but it will in economic terms.
3 I will never believe in people like Al Gore unless he starts calling for the USA to build lots of nuclear plants (and we start building them). If it is a bad as he says it is, then you and me conserving cannot be compared to replacing coal plants with nuclear…period end of story. Sorry, wind farms and solar can’t do it. If we have to act in the next 10 years start building nuclear plants today. Another thing we could do is start killing people on death row faster; they are just making CO2 (with every breath). One last thing, think of all the CO2 Pres. Bush has stopped with all the Iraq’s he has killed; he should start sell CO2 credits. (that one’s for you FreeDem)
4 If you think that Global Warming (or climate change or whatever PC term you come up with) is the end of the world, feel free to conserve all you want, but don’t make me unless you solve the two above problems first. Good luck. Personally, I looking forward to warmer days, because if it is true we are cause Global Warming, one thing I know, we are not going to be able to stop it.
Written by Brian from Ohio
on 4/9/2007
1 If the earth warms 5 degrees in the next century are you really trying to convince me that is bad? Come on, I think we can handle it. So in Florida will hit 100 instead of 95. How do you know our current temperature is the planets optimal temperature? Do you want to trust people like FreeDem (second post) who thinks “Free Markets” are bad? Or Al Gore who has been wrong about everything he has ever said?
2 Ok, let say I buy Al Gore’s rants. Unless we can stop China from building a new coal plant every week for the next couple years, whatever we do is not going to help. If we conserve energy like no other country on earth, it is not going to make a difference in CO2 but it will in economic terms.
3 I will never believe in people like Al Gore unless he starts calling for the USA to build lots of nuclear plants (and we start building them). If it is a bad as he says it is, then you and me conserving cannot be compared to replacing coal plants with nuclear…period end of story. Sorry, wind farms and solar can’t do it. If we have to act in the next 10 years start building nuclear plants today. Another thing we could do is start killing people on death row faster; they are just making CO2 (with every breath). One last thing, think of all the CO2 Pres. Bush has stopped with all the Iraq’s he has killed; he should start sell CO2 credits. (that one’s for you FreeDem)
4 If you think that Global Warming (or climate change or whatever PC term you come up with) is the end of the world, feel free to conserve all you want, but don’t make me unless you solve the two above problems first. Good luck. Personally, I looking forward to warmer days, because if it is true we are cause Global Warming, one thing I know, we are not going to be able to stop it.
Written by
on 4/9/2007
Global warming is all about money, i.e. more taxes and control of our lives. Al Gore owns one of the companies who will handle carbon credits!!! It will be like one big stock market!! We Americans have to be punished for our way of living -- but China and a lot of other countries will have free rein. The anti-Americans couldn't do it the Communist way so now it's the climate control way. Ask the people in France and Germany how they like the Kyoto treaty. For starters, 25% more tax on gas.
Written by Lynne Graham
on 4/9/2007
"Yet the latter charge is one that Dr Gray has had to increasingly defend because his theories on climate change have isolated him in the scientific community. He might have problems receiving government grants to conduct his research, and his views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of his peers."
This is disgraceful reporting and insults Dr Gray's integrity by innuendo. He is not a lone voice on this issue in spite of Judith Curry and Kevin Tremberth's attempts to malign him because he won't validate their modeling.
The facts are that Katrina was a category 3 hurricane when it hit New Orleans and the disaster was one waiting to happen as a result of years of procrastination on the decisions pertaining to the levees.
To claim this as a result of global warming is opportunism of the highest order and an insult to the people of New orleans.
Written by Harbinger
on 4/9/2007
That is the good thing about Free Speech, if you want to say the moon landings were a hoax, there were bombs in the towers, or that Global warming is a hoax, there are unlimited web pages that allow you to say so, and make your case.
But free speech also allows folk to see the merits, or in this case lack thereof, of your arguments. It is tough to argue with a 1950's picture of a town at the base of a Glacier, and a 2005 picture of the same town with the glacier way up the valley, Or similar pictures of Kilimanjaro, or just about any place where older pictures exist.
A list of small towns crushed by growing glaciers might help the argument, but no such towns exist. Likewise tidal records exist that show a foot rise in sea levels, with the rate of change going up, also hard to argue about.
Are there forces cooling the earth? Yes there are, and the report lists them. But all that they do is mask the longer range problem, as they are fewer, smaller and shorter term, than most of the heating forces.
That Corporate forces are denying the problem rather than rushing to solve the problem with new Technology, puts the great lie to the "Free Market", as these Corporate Bureaucrats would rather ruin the planet than get of their obese comfort zones, even if doing so would increase profits, because it would increase the effort of their part.
Written by FreeDem
on 4/9/2007
The thing I found most disturbing about this story is just how much "play" it got. The MSM are so reactionary and so out for "red meat" that they miss really important stories to cover this kind of tripe. "Wow - there's one scientist who says Al Gore should shut up - I guess we don't have anything to worry about after all! Gas up the Hummer, Mildred!"
Written by Me
on 4/9/2007
"To me it is so obvious that 7 to 8 billion people on a tiny planet with only a 10 mile high atmosphere are going to have a major effect on the climate if they burn everything in sight. It boggles the mind that anyone could actually think otherwise." One sceptic said that the earth's temperature cannot be accurately measured because the cities create their own climate and weather, and thus we cannot be sure that climate change is caused by man. Of course! It's the cities, not mankind. Boy have I ever been fooled.
Another scientist:
“The worst stuff is not going to happen because we can't be that stupid,” said Harvard University oceanographer James McCarthy, who was a top author of the 2001 version of this report(IPCC). “Not that I think the projections aren't that good, but because we can't be that stupid.”
I guess the scientists can get it wrong sometimes. The worst is going to happen because mankind is that stupid. If we were intelligent we wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place?
Written by stueysplace.ca
on 4/8/2007
Well I didn't think anyone would thank me for listing the hundreds of thousands of links to pages which discuss the pseudoscience or the myth or the critics of global warming (screamed down for the most part, though they may be). I think bayoubuzz readers are sufficiently competent to do that for themselves. I just chose one that I found to be rather comprehensive.
The point was whether or not the notion of man made "global warming" is or is not science. And it isn't. It's political posturing, scare tactics and the mad frenzy for grant allocations that science has become. Sadly there are too many people ready to 'take the word' of computer modelers gone mad who pretend they're doing science. One would be well advised to try to understand the debate (like, what really is the so-called greenhouse effect) rather than just accepting that it must be right because alot of people (with vested interests) say it is. Dr. Gray should be commended for his inconvenient courage.
Written by Don Stevenson
on 4/8/2007
Don Stevenson seems to think that because he found a website that calls global warming a pseudoscience, that it must be true and accurate, while peer-reviewed journals and consensus of thousands of scientists from around the world is questionable. Or better yet, corrupt.
Sorry Don, but I'd rather take the word of reputable scientists than some website that devotes thousands of words into investigation of the term "greenhouse effect" and whether or not it is a misnomer.
Written by Markus Robinson
on 4/8/2007
Global warming - an official pseudoscience. Unlike the 'peers' the article refers to, Dr. Gray is more concerned with science than trendy grants and bogus science.
See also -
http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/gw_index.html
To
Buzz Right Back on this article