Top meteorologist: Al Gore's Nobel Prize global warming theories "ridiculous"

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Little-Acorn, Oct 14, 2007.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,384
    Thanks Received:
    2,028
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,885
    More and more scientists are pointing out what most of us already knew: Mankind is not the cause of global warming, and humans can't do anything to change it. Hysterics like Al Gore are merely pandering to those who want to exert increasing government involvement and control, and are using "global warming" as an excuse to forward their agenda.

    -------------------------------------------------

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

    Gore gets a cold shoulder

    by Steve Lytte
    October 14, 2007

    ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

    [​IMG]

    Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

    His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

    "We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

    At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

    Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

    But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

    However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

    "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

    During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

    He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

    "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

    He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

    "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
     
  2. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Well, meteorology and climatology are different disciplines with distinct focuses, but alright.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Though neither has much in common with political science, sociology, anthropology, etc.
     
  4. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Maybe we need some gaming theory as well.
     
  5. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    We always need more Game Theory.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Funny, we agree. Anyone with an open mind will read beyond the author's pov, as far as skeptics go. Shouldn't we always listen to 'opinion' with some questioning? Isn't that what our college educations were all about?

    I know I question 'authority', I thought you were all about that, Jillian.
     
  8. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    Ouch!:eusa_silenced:
     
  9. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Let's say there are two camps of opinion, both with equal credibility.

    One camp we'll call the Doomsayers, they believe our planet's climate is in crisis and we must act to reduce the risk of highly adverse climate change.

    The other camp we'll call the Naysayers, they believe our planet's climate is not in crisis and we need to do nothing to reduce the risk of highly adverse climate change.

    Now let's assume they're both wrong. What will be the effects of their errors?

    The Doomsayers will have egg on their faces and all the work we would have done to reduce our alleged impact on global climate is a big waste of money, time and effort.

    But if the Naysayers are wrong, our planet will eventually become uninhabitable.

    On balance I'll listen to the Doomsayers. The cost of ignoring them is potentially too great. The cost of ignoring the Naysayers is much less than the loss of our planet.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726

    A common argument and not at all accurate. The opposite would be let's assume they're both right. What if the doomsayers are right and we act accordingly. What will the impact on society be? If they really are right and we need to take the drastic steps they say we do (some claim that what we have done is already irreversible) where will that put us? think about it.

    It just doesn't make any sense to be worried about this warming trend. the Earth has been warmer than this. Significantly. Greenland used to be predominantly pasture for sheep and potato growing and is now mostly glaciers. The upsides of a warming trend far outwiegh the negatives. Longer growing seasons, thus higher crop yields. The worst case scenarios say temp will rise 4-5 degrees celsius at most. And sea levels could rise 1 foot at most.

    But we're worried about warming, when we should be worried about when the other extreme happens. Why we're worried more about a couple degree increase more so then say the next ice age (which will happen at some point) is beyond me. That is when you will see you billion deaths and a significant portion of earth population wiped out.
     

Share This Page