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

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
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".

algore_narrowweb__300x310,0.jpg


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."
 
Well, meteorology and climatology are different disciplines with distinct focuses, but alright.

Though neither has much in common with political science, sociology, anthropology, etc.
 
A more balanced view of Bill Gray and the "skeptics" who are basicly protecting the "free market" from the big bad people who want to control emissions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

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.
 
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.

Ouch!:eusa_silenced:
 
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.
 
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.


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.
 
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.

What do you think will happen?

Bern80: said:
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.

All very well but how does that relate to my point?


Bern80: said:
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.

Again, how does that relate to my point?

I made the point that if they were both wrong then we would have done less damage if we'd listened to the Doomsayers than the Naysayers. You haven't addressed that point.

The other thing is they can both be wrong, but they can't both be right.

The Doomsayers can be wrong, that there is no huge problem with human-influenced climate change. The Naysayers can be wrong as well, there really could be human-influenced climate change. Both scenarios are possible.

But taking your point - if the Doomsayers are right and there is a catastrophe looming for us then the Naysayers, by definition, have to be wrong and vice versa. There can't be human-influenced climate change and no human-influenced climate change. It has to be one or the other.

So it seems to me that after all that it's more judicious to listen to the Doomsayers than the Naysayers.
 
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.

Under the worst possible conditions, the most drastic to our society, the farthest extremes are all better than having an uninhabitable planet.

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.

1 foot means that Manhattan is under water. That might have just a small effect on the US I'd say.

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.

Because the couple degree increase is in the next 100 years. The next ice age is at "some point".
 

Forum List

Back
Top