-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau
The Folly of Al Gore
Dr. William Gray is reputed to be one of the foremost meteorologists in the world and probably the foremost meteorologist concerning hurricane forecasts and is considered to be a “pioneer” in that field. If you have heard any annual predications of hurricanes you should know that it is most likely Dr. Gray’s publications from which this is drawn.
Dr. Gray considers that the theory behind Al Gore’s thesis on Global Warming is “ridiculous” and was the product of people (scientists) that according to Dr. Gray “don’t understand how the atmosphere works.” Dr. Gray believes that the Earth is currently going through a “normal” warming cycle but that the impact of humans on that is “simply too small to have a major effect.”
Dr. Gray addressed the University of North Carolina on the same day that Al Gore received in part the current year award for the Nobel Peace Prize. He commented that we were brainwashing our children and described the presentation of Inconvenient Truth to school children as “being fed all this.” He stated that a natural cycle of ocean water temperature was related to the content of salt in the water which was responsible for rising temperatures, which he acknowledged, but he said that same cycle meant that a period of “cooling” would begin soon and last for several years.
He went on to state that those that linked Global Warming to the increase in Hurricane activity were wrong. He says that we will look back in 10-15 years and see how foolish this current proposition is. He also says that he realizes that his viewpoint has made him an outsider in popular science circles, but that “It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong.” ”But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.” Of course when that (cooling cycle) occurs, the left will claim victory resulting from their diligence on the matter now………. J
For additional support for Dr. Gray’s position see my post titled It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming) referencing work by Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin and widely know as the “Father of Scientific Climatology.”
comments
13 Responses to “The Folly of Al Gore”
Leave a Reply
Obviously Dr. Gray is not informed on the science of global warming and the 90% scientific pobability that humans are contributing to this observed climate change as demonstrated by the scientists on the IPCC. I suggest that he review the science before speaking to college students so he will not appear to be so ignorant. While I agree that the increase in Hurricane activity cannot be scientifically linked to global warming, the hypothesis deserves further study. But to deny the human contribution to global warming demonstrates unfamiliarity with the science that has been published.
JB Sullivan MD
Dr. JB………..Not sure if you are stating that the scientific probability of human contribution to GW is 90% or 100%, then I guess the next question would be degree. The post in short responds to the general presumption that Al Gore’s contribution is beyond reproach. Just last week the judicial system in one district found that there were 9 material errors in his production that he claims is “settled science.” I am more impressed with the pioneering voices of those such as Gray and Bryson as opposed to the multitudes that are dependent on grants.
I find it humorous that each time a scientific panel comes out stating that we can drill Anwar safely the opposition can only dispute it by referencing the source of the funding. I think that Gray and Bryson would question that the source of their funding might be the source of their conclusions. But their opponents don’t recognize this same line of reasoning.
They (Gray & Bryson) certainly claim to have reviewed the science related to Global Warming and I believe that they and others like them call into question claims that virtually all scientists agree with the “settled science” thesis of Al Gore. His production is alarmist and inaccurate and his self described mentor disavowed the conclusions drawn by many from his work.
I remember this type of debate when the majority of the same community were touting the global cooling theory. It is clear to me (at least) that we are in a period of global warming and have been so ever since the last Ice Age which represent probably a single leg in this repeated cycle. …….steve
I must second JB’s comment.
Dr. Gray obviously doesn’t know that 100% of climate scientists agree with Al Gore’s theory of global warming. The only ones who disagree are either crazy or they engage in pedophilia.
Certainly the Earth couldn’t be warming on its own. After all when was the last time something like that happened!
John……..well you have a good point there. I forgot to figure in the pedophilia factor, except I do believe that those that fight the tougher laws against pedophillia (re: the legislators in states that O’Reilly points out) are more sympathetic to the political leanings of Al Gore than otherwise…..so that is a conundrum…..steve
NOTE: Before anyone gets started, this is not a statement that Liberals support pedophillia, just that they are more likely to fight stronger penalties for offenders. Not opinion, just statistics.
Thanks for this post. We are proud to say that Dr. Gray is a Coloradan!
bob…..your welcome and thanks for coming by…..steve
So you’re rolling out another (this time 76 year old), old-school meterologist who prefers observational data to computer modeling.
Nice Steve… You go man… You go!
M2……by computer modeling do you mean forcasting and is that an art or science as in GIGO? ………..steve
Did you see what the CNN weatherman said about the Al Gore film? And he is much less than 76. Who knows, maybe he likes little children though? Maybe he should be committed to an insane asylum for speaking such reviling heresy before the alter of Gaia.
http://pursueliberty.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/41/
Patrick:
Maybe he should be committed to an insane asylum for speaking such reviling heresy before the alter of Gaia
He will be committed somewhere. No good deed will go unpunished………steve
“The CNN weatherman” … Nice
But wait, isn’t CNN the “liberal media”?
Sure am glad the republican party has gotten the hang of this internet thing!
M2………of course it is, at least 90% of them claim to be and I couldn’t dispute that based on their reporting……………….steve
I also recommend an incredible podcast from Radio Free Liberty on this very subject. He thoroughly dismantles Al Gore’s claims and it includes a reading from a Newsweek article from 1975 telling of the impending doom from major climate changes in the near future. Presented as all scientists agrees, the climate change Armageddon we were about to face back then was global cooling. That’s right, an upcoming ice age.
I am old enough to remember adults talking about the coming ice age and everyone took it as fact. It is not that all scientists agreed back then, but the media liked to portray doom in this monolithic way. Perhaps for sales reasons, who knows? Point is, I don’t trust major media anymore when they say, “all scietists agree.”
http://radiofreeliberty.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=266498#
Patrick…………You would think that they would at least clear up the errors and overstatments as to cause and effect if they wanted to achieve “consensus” on this, but I suppose their goal is different from that, especially Al Gore’s “Carbon Offset Credit” business and its objectives. ….steve
The full Newsweek article from 1975. Remember, there can be no debate, the earth is sick, and is freezing to death rapidly.
How inconvenient.
———————————————
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
www.denisdutton.com
Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here.
A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here. — D.D.
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
[end]
————————————————-
resistance..is..futile
you..will..be..assimilated
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech
The demonisation of ‘climate change denial’ is an affront to open and rational debate
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/1782/
Plodon…………..Isn’t it CONVENIENT that scientists to day can measure the recent temperature rise from an anomalistic low baseline from the 45-68 period. I find this article extremely interesting that
I love this paragraph the best:
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
To think that the scientists then were as concerned as now that the political establishment wouldn’t upset the entire operational structure of the world to ratify their temporal conclusions. If we had followed the crowd that would be in the “Politically Correct” category today, we would have contaminated the polar caps with soot and melted them down to a manageable level. If we had complied then I wonder if the current hot period would already be fulfilling the drastic claims of algore and his comrades. At least Bryson learned from his misreading of the data in 1975. One thing for sure is that “all” scientists agree on the GW theory is false when you have leaders like Gray, Bryson and Patterson, director of the Ottowa-Carleton Geosciences Center at Carelton University strongly dissenting notwithstanding the hue and cry of only the younger, hipper and politically correcter (and grant recipients) can be believed. So it is no wonder they are alarmed along with many colleagues that they know when Gore claims it is “settled science” as well as Dr. Sullivan above. I wonder if he was around for the 45-68 Ice Age?
hiya Steve..let him enjoy his lil prize along with Arafat!
Haters…
M2……..I don’t get either the humor nor the op. here……..I’m just a little thick today I think……steve
Thanks for the compliment, M2. If not buying the junk the likes of Al Gore are pushing makes me a “hater”, then so be it. I think I’d rather be hated as a human-caused climate holocaust denier than be swept off my feet by the rising flood of panicky human-caused global warming disaster crowd-think.
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
From the same lot that were late (or still haven’t arrived) on anything progressive & forward thinking…
I guess you win some & you lose some? So stick to your guns on this one if it makes you feel better.
Keep fighting the fight…
I don’t think ANYONE is claiming that humans caused the majority of our climates problems (although I love the “human caused climate holocaust” tag, soooo effective)… I do think certain people feel that we not only had a bit to do with it but, more importantly, that we can do our part right now to combat the ill effects.
It’s precautionary… So yeah, stay away from Gores little carbon credit thing that has everyones panties in a wad (all while nobody seems to want to post on the private contracts in Iraq… Talk about getting rich… I can’t even imagine if this was Clintons war. Anyway, off topic..) but maybe do your best to kick in & help out regardless. It’s the RIGHT THING TO DO! Running around with 5 percent of the scientific community trying to deflect & denounce our climatic problems is massively irresponsible today (maybe not tomorrow) in my opinion… & believe me, I’m somewhat skeptical myself.
You know that being anti is as much an agenda now as being pro. Can we all stop being such political pawns? …
M2…….I’m running out now but I ain’t afraid to comment on the private contractors thing. We don’t know, you nor me, but I doubt we have had a fair report on it from the media. I’ll go on the limb and say I doubt the claims, this is a tough job in a hostile environment with everything on the line and I wouldn’t myself approach it from the same anti-easdropping mentality of the left…………maybe I’ll add more when I return……..steve
[…] Contact « The Folly of Al Gore […]