‘Top Meteorologist’ Hailed By Traditional Media Once Compared Gore To Hitler
‘Top Meteorologist’ Hailed By Traditional Media Once Compared Gore To Hitler
On Friday, Dr. William Gray, a professor at Colorado State University, joined a long list of right-wing skeptics who have hurled baseless personal remarks at Gore and the Nobel prize committee. Gray spoke in North Carolina and attacked Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win, claiming that the former vice president is “brainwashing our children.” Watch this morning’s MSNBC’s report of his comments:
MSNBC called Gray a “top meteorologist.” McClatchy referred to him as a “pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts.” The Washington Times coined him one of the “world’s foremost meteorologists.” But all failed to note that Gray has a long history of climate skepticism and attacks on Gore.
In May 2006, a Wasington Post magazine article quoted Gray directly comparing Gore to Hitler:
Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.
In April, Gray told the Associated Press that Gore is “doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” He added that skeptics have had to endure “mild McCarthyism.” In July, Gray indicated that he holds a grudge against the IPCC as well, because the members have never “come to me.” “I have just been isolated,” he said.
Gray also claimed that the reason other scientists haven’t publicly questioned manmade global warming is because “they’d never get any grants if they spoke out.” But even skeptics are skeptical of claims by people like Gray. The journal Energy & Environment, “known for publishing work that denies a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change,” recently rejected a paper “claiming to show that the scientific consensus on climate change is not in fact a consensus.”
RealClimate has debunked Gray’s scientific “facts” on global warming HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Paging Dr. Gray’s gray matter, paging Dr. Gray’s gray matter…
No reply.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWe’ll look back on this in 10 to 15 years from now and realize how foolish it was.
Or, we’ll look back on this in 10 to 15 years from now, when reversing the affects of GW will be too late, and say “why didn’t we see this coming”?
I don’t care if there is even the slightest chance that GW is not what is going on with our mother earth, I am still not willing to bet the lives of my children and grandchildren to find out I was wrong. I really can’t fathom how any thinking human being could not recognize that pumping harmful chemicals into our atmosphere must be having a negative affect on our planet.
Actually what is happening now is that we are finding that the Global Warming community was too conservative in their estimates and we are seeing the affects today. If we don’t start doing something soon, it will be too late. Most of the world recognizes this and most of the people in the US recognize this.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pmRU’s post at #3 pretty much tells the tale. This guy is certifiably looney.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmfrom the debinking article
October 15th, 2007 at 3:04 pmGray’s statement that “The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2″ is a scientific absurdity
Perhaps Dr. Gray should be confining his experience to the other THC.
debinking, debunking, whatever..
October 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThe bottom line here and where these nutcases lose credibility is “why not conserve?” Why the hell not? Obviously, the smog over our cities is killing our lungs so why the hell not? These “Gore Enviers” need to get over their faltering egos and move on!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:05 pmThe old Repukian Fascist Pigs using the, “Let’s compair him to Hitler” routine, how predictable was this?
And speaking of “Brain Washing”, just take a look, the Fascist, Brownshirt, Lockset Lemmings are eating it up like Chocolate Cake on Sunday.
They have no facts, we have facts, they hate facts, so attack the messenger of said facts.
Just so simple to do for the simple minded that need to be told what to think.
Buck Fush
October 15th, 2007 at 3:07 pmAnd reducing our dependence on foreign oil is in direct proportion to our “national security” – not to mention our economy so why not have more fuel efficient vehicles? Of course, Bush rolled back all of any progress we were making and kept his Big Oil Cronies happy by continuing to product gas guzzlers, which, BTW, is taking a nice bite out of our disposable income.
So one has to ask – why not conserve? Why not do as much as we possibly can to ensure that this planet is healthy and safe for our children and our grandchildren?
Only a very twisted misanthrope would find conservation to be worthwhile.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pmBuckie boy: I guess he’s really comparing him to Bush who is Hitler Redux.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pmRepubli-scumbags can’t comprehend facts especially when the facts fly in the face of their ideologies. Their panties in a wad over Gore’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is really becoming quite comical.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:09 pmCrybabies, all of them. Let’s corral them all up and take them to the nearest nursery school.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:10 pmRU: I think they just found Dr. Gray’s gray matter in Bush’s codpiece.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pmReally you can’t expect people who can’t grasp evolution to understand global warming. How delusional do you have to be to believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with cavemen. The only question is, should these idiots really be allowed to vote.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pmSo true, so true Veritas. GW666 is Hitler reincarnate.
Buck Fush
October 15th, 2007 at 3:14 pmLunatic. They should lock him up with the rest of the loonies, the flat-earthers and the Holocaust deniers — and let them babble to each other.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:16 pmOff topic but important: Looks like Frontline will be airing “Cheney’s Law” – how Cheney has masterminded the conversion from president to dictator. On tomorrow – check it out:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
October 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmSend the link on PBS special “Cheney’s Law” to absolutely everyone you know!!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pmShayne
“Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with cavemen?”
That should be a question put before the Repukians that are running for President or any politican running for any office. If they believe that is true, then they should not be allowed to run for office, any office for that matter.
Buck Fush
October 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pmveritas, I would question whether the special shouldn’t be named
Cheney’s Lawlessness???
October 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pmTCDon sez:
Anyone can do it, TCDon…it’s just usually more accurate when libs do it. It all goes back to reality having a liberal bias.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm.†But all failed to note that Gray has a long history of climate skepticism and attacks on Gore.
******Do you really expect the Oligarch that runs this country to accept Gobal Warming.Just remember folks most of the Dems & all the Repukes are in the pocket of big business.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pmAsK yourself, if 75% of Americans want the troops out how come our Representatives in congress can’t convey what most americans want?
Oh, but they have to have these people on to present “both sides of the story”. “Fair and balanced”, you know. The Earth is spherical, but OTOH, there’s some guys in Iowa that think it’s like a big donut. “Teach the controversy”….
Cheers,
October 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pmThat should be a question put before the Repukians
As well as “exactly why is carbon dating an inaccurate method of determining the age of geologic rocks?”
October 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pmTo be fair, Gray did say “almost” as much as Hitler.
Hmm, nope. Don’t change things. Still a d!@k.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:21 pmThe first poster hit the nail on the head with regards to Dr Gray. Although he did pioneer SOME techniques used today to form seasonal predictions of ATLANTIC hurricane activity (the only basin he really ever studied), his view are currently considered to be far out of date. As the post indicated, Dr Gray simply rejects out of hand anything which comes from dynamic modeling; he simply does not believe in them.
Unfortunately, without dynamic modeling, you simply could not get the kind of life-saving forecasts used by the NHC and other agencies. The kind of techniques used by Gray for the large scale (mainly climatological, read statistical for the non-techie) are completely useless in the small scale. Even he admits that much.
But he claims that the reverse is true in the large scale. And if he could prove that assertion in any way, he might have a point. But his only argument, that long term forecasts are better done using statistical tools rather than dynamical modeling (which actually build a model of the atmosphere and simulates the changes occuring with time) is simply not supported by the facts. His own forecasts (which are actually done by his student) have been pretty awful in the last 3 years, while the dynamic forecasts used by the UK Meteorological Office (UKMET) have become more and more accurate.
Dr Gray is a dinosaur.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:26 pmGray is old enough that he will check out of here before he realizes how wrong he has been.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSo, when 95%+ of the WORLD’S climatologists agree that man has made a significant contribution to the accelerated carbon footprint, we find a few that disagree, and THEY are considered correct?
Why am I not surprised that the Repugs will say whatever will most benefit Big Business/Big Oil and, in turn, the BushCo agenda.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:27 pmSend the link on PBS special “Cheney’s Law†to absolutely everyone you know!!
Comment by Veritas
Thanks for the head’s up. I’ll put it into TIVO when I get home from work!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:28 pmGray is also a hit at Colorado g.o.p. functions. Read his bio on Wikipedia.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:29 pmHe’s on the fringe, with almost all scientists disputing his views.
The PR problem here is that you can invite ONE unhinged lunatic onto your TV show to “contradict” the findings of an entire scientific community, but you can’t invite 9,000 climatologists onto your show to talk about how freakin’ stupid these pseudo-scientists are.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pmYeah, he’s a scientist all right.
Just like Jeanne Dixon is a scientist.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThe bottom line here and where these nutcases lose credibility is “why not conserve?†Why the hell not? Obviously, the smog over our cities is killing our lungs so why the hell not? [...]
Comment by Veritas — October 15, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
I must concur. These right-winged loonies are just trying to protect the big businesses and corporations. Regardless of whose right or wrong, Gore is sending out the right message: we need to do something better for our own sake. How he convinces people, is an entirely different debacle.
I think that we need to do something about reducing our carbon dioxide levels anyway; I mean seriously, the only thing that the right-wing has on us is that global warming doesn’t exist. Does anyone else notice that they never talk about the benefits of reducing our carbon emissions, like taking away the smog of our great cities, and providing our citizens with cleaner air? What’s wrong with that?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pmYeah, he’s a scientist all right.
Just like Jeanne Dixon is a scientist.
Let’s not forget Edgar Cayce!!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmIf they believe that is true, then they should not be allowed to run for office, any office for that matter.
Buck Fush
Comment by Buckie Boy — October 15, 2007 @ 3:19
Well BF, it’s already been asked and answered of the Rethugs and they all believe in the literal translation of the bible and therefore should be unable to run. Too bad they are supported by people crazier than they are. Look at any of the trolls for an example.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:43 pmWhatever.
The world is moving on
October 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pmAs well as “exactly why is carbon dating an inaccurate method of determining the age of geologic rocks?â€
Comment by RUCerious — October 15, 2007 @ 3:20
Didn’t you know, “The jury is still out on evolution and global warming.” As Lewis Black says, “What jury, where?”
October 15th, 2007 at 3:47 pmWhatever.
The world is moving on
Comment by Juan C. — October 15, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
And it looks like the US states and cities are having to step up to the plate regarding GW because BushCo chooses not to. Just one more “Inconvenient Truth” we will all have to remind the sheeple of when they vote in 08.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:51 pmYeah, he’s a scientist all right.
Just like Jeanne Dixon is a scientist.
Let’s not forget Edgar Cayce!!
Comment by RUCerious — October 15, 2007 @ 3:43
How about L. Ron Hubbard?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:52 pmUpside99, I think California is doing a good job at that, though.
But I couldnt say for sure.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:55 pmMaybe Dr. Gray is confident of his theory because Colorado will be the last place in the USA to go under water.
Ya know, Dr., when you’re the only scientist supporting your theory today
you may want to admit you’re wrong.
Oh, & you may want to catch up a little about these computer thingies, they are catching on, ya know.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:56 pmHow about L. Ron Hubbard?
Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Don’t forget L. Ron Hoover of the First Church of Appliantology! ;)
October 15th, 2007 at 3:57 pm(We miss you, FZ!)
How about L. Ron Hubbard?
Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Welllll, if it’s called Scientology, it must be scientificacationally sound!
October 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pmComment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Petty funny Hill Billy, what are you doing with the koolaid now? Mainlining? Freebasing?
October 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pmGlobal Warming Bush
October 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pmHillbilly rednecks seem to be completely lacking in the humor department, especially when they self identify as a Demo-cretin.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pmWelllll, if it’s called Scientology, it must be scientificacationally sound!
Comment by RUCerious — October 15, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Well he did start with science fiction too. He must have known everything.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pmWell he did start with science fiction too. He must have known everything.
Comment by Shayne — October 15, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
What a visionary, or was it hallucinatory??
October 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pmUpside99, I think California is doing a good job at that, though.
But I couldn’t say for sure.
Comment by Juan C. — October 15, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Yes, and so is Mass, Vermont, and now my state, Colorado is as well. Plus many cities are doing things at their level, too.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:01 pmBesides Dr. noGraymatter is a meterologist not a climatologist. Isn’t he really confused, maybe he can’t get enough grants to get his meds.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI thought only Liberals were allowed to compare people to Hitler. Didn’t you Libs secure a copyright on that? You should hire one of your trial lawyer friends to sue! Comment by TCDon — October 15, 2007
Well Don, your getting better, this time out of 3 sentences there are only three ad-hominem attacks and one debatable point and none on topic.
Lets take the first off topic sentence, shall we?
1) I thought only Liberals were allowed to compare people to Hitler.
Lets debate ‘I thought’ cause anybody that can think would think this is just silly. Can you back this statement up? A rule in a book somewhere? A law?
2) Did you libs secure a copyright on that?
Another silly statement, not worth debating. I guess thats supposed to be Coulter poison a judge type humor. I dont think even Pee Wee Herman would laugh at that.
3) You should hire one of your trial lawyer friends to sue!
Another statement not worth debating. Albert Gonzalez, however, would probably believe their is such a copyrght and try to sue, seeing as he cant properly interpret the constitution.
This is why you get flamed, TCDON.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:05 pmGray is NOT a “Top Meteorologist,” nor is he a “pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts.”
He is just a poor person who suffers from what is accurately described in another thread as, “The right wing’s ‘Gore derangement syndrome.’”
See: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/15/the-right-wings-gore-derangement-syndrome/
October 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pmI, as a Democrat, will be really mad and upset if in 10 years millions of people will not have been severely effected by global warming. I will be really pissedif the US is winning the war on terror. I will be livid if the economy continues to prosper. I hate low unemployment. I become ill at the sight of Bush. I cant control my anger when I must admit that lower taxes make for higher revenues. I loath corporations that pay employees high wages, provide them great health care, contribute to their 401Ks and have a retirement package. And most of all I hate myself for becoming successful under a Republican congress and president.
Comment by Billy Hill
Reality Check!
1 – Animals and humans already are being affected
2 – The US will be stopped at China and/or Russia’s borders, because Imperialists do not know when to stop. Witness Ramses II, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Dumbya. The “War on Terror” will be won when the US stops meddling in other people’s business, including it’s own citizens
3 – The economy is being prompted up by China and Japan loans, while the dollar is collapsing against the Euro. Gold and metals, of which Wall Street has ZERO interest is rising in price.
4 – Lower taxes and higher revenues for corporations…not citizens
October 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pmI become ill at the sight of Bush. -Billy Hill
Oh Jebus, another stall-wart Republican foot tapper.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pmI…will be really mad and upset if in 10 years millions of people will not have been severely effected by global warming.
Comment by Billy Hill
Well, millions, who we went to free In Iraq, are already severely affected without global warming. Happy Now?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#45 Billy Hill:
I cant control my anger when I must admit that lower taxes make for higher revenues. I loath corporations that pay employees high wages, provide them great health care, contribute to their 401Ks and have a retirement package.
Shorter Billy: “I have access to great drugs….”
Cheers,
October 15th, 2007 at 4:13 pmI will be livid if the economy continues to prosper. Comment by Billy Hill
You should be livid that the fed, that place that gets your tax money, hello, bailed out investors to the tune of billions in the sub-prime crash. But why be livid then if you can be livid now?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:14 pmI cant control my anger when I must admit that lower taxes make for higher revenues -Billy Hill
None of your bleatism, so far, has anything to do with the topic at hand.
The Bush tax cuts are backloaded and are basically a tax shift. Our largest creditor is China, who, last I heard is communist, that we borrow from to help pay for this Iraq debacle, which is off the books, because its been paid for thru emergency supplementals. Go ahead, have a hissy fit now, save your energy for later.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:17 pmFrom 2005:
China Passes Renewable Energy Law
From 2006:
Sweden Plans on Being the First Country in the World to Be Free From Oil in 2020
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/sweden_raises_t.php
From 2007:
New Zealand Commits to 90% Renewable Electricity by 2025
They dont waste time.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pmUpside, thanks for the info.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pmI loath corporations that pay employees high wages, -Billyhill
You mean you love disparity in wages because its the highest its been since 1920.
But tell me, Billy Hill, after you stop getting high on that propane bottle, how Adolph cared about global warming?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:20 pmON topic (and OFF the distracting trolls):
Gray is NOT a “Top Meteorologist,†nor is he a “pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts.â€
He is just a poor person who suffers from what is accurately described in another thread as, “The right wing’s ‘Gore derangement syndrome.’â€
See: http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 10/ 15/ the-right-wings-gore-derangement-syndrome/
Comment by hterrya — October 15, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:23 pmOh, and speaking of energy, which is on topic, Billy, why has the price of Gasoline nearly tripled since George took office?
We were told that the oil in Iraq would pay for the rebuilding of the infrastructure. So far, were some 500 billion into the hole because after nearly 5 years, their is still no oil law in Iraq?
And Billy Hill, if you want to debate, or you TC DON..
\/\/ made a campaign promise to reduce our need on foreign oil, how is that plan/promise working out?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pmShorter Billy: “I have access to great drugs….â€
Cheers,
Comment by Arne Langsetmo
You mean Crappy drugs….i.e. stupificients!
October 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#45 Billy Hill:
Pay close attention Billy:
1. The U.S. Economy is tanking. You don’t see it, because you can’t even read the simplest of economic indicators: the exchange rate… The U.S. Dollar has lost 40% of its value against the Euro, the Pound and the Candian Dollar in the last 6 years; and there is no end in sight to the Dollars fall. The oil barrel at 80 dollars? Not really. The oil barrel is, in 2000 dollars at about 50 dollars a barrel… The barrel has gone up, but its really tagged to the Euro now, not the Dollar. The Dollar is dead as an international currency.
2. Good quality health care?? Where have you been dude? The quality of health care in the U.S., ON AVERAGE, is quite poor. There is little to none preventive health care; in most cases, it is simply NOT covered by most HMOs, which constitute the vast majority of health care plans. That is one of the foremost reasons why the U.S. health care system is by far the costliest in the world per capita. A small percentage of people have good policies, the rest must do with a horrendous HMO imposed by their employers, or go without altogether. Open your eyes…
3. I think all libs would be ecstatic to see a winning strategy against islamic terrorism (especially if it also targeted Christian terrorists like the Armies of God, responsible for Oklahoma City), to see a solid economy, good health care, good wages (wages are falling even faster than the dollar in terms of actual purchasing power), low crime, etc… But I for one have not seen a single Republican administration provide these. The reason is simple: Republicans hate government, they hate to administer. So they can’t provide any of these, because to do so would prove that government works…
October 15th, 2007 at 4:29 pm“In May 2006, a Wasington Post magazine article quoted Gray directly comparing Gore to Hitler:
Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.”
———————————————
Hate to break it to you, TP — but this quote doesn’t compare Gore to Hitler. It compares the strength of one belief to the strength of another belief.
For example, if I said something like “Martin Luther King believed in the power of non-violence with the same passion that Attila the Hun believed in the power of bloody conquest,” this does NOT mean that I am for a moment suggesting that Martin Luther King was anything like Attila the Hun.
Admittedly, Gray probably chose the Hitler comparison because just the mere mention of Hitler’s name evokes a rather incendiary reaction (which I’m sure was Gray’s goal.
Let’s not fall for the knee-jerk outrage triggers. That’s just what the right wants. There’s plenty of evidence to debate Gray’s global-warming position without that.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:30 pmwell said missmolly.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm\/\/ made a campaign promise to reduce our need on foreign oil, how is that plan/promise working out?
Comment by Xisithrus — October 15, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
——————————
About as well as his plan for democracy in Iraq. The best way for us to reduce our need for foreign oil is to use less of it. The sensible way is to conserve what we have, and to develop alternative energy sources (preferably renewable ones). An added bonus for using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels is slowing down the global warming.
Now, can you imagine Bush advocating such common sense solutions and shafting his oil buddies?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pmI think he ordered catalytic converters installed on all of the furnaces.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007
I guess this is another fake christian anti-semitic attempt at auschwitz humor?
But I will give you one thing, Hitler did help invent synthetic fuel from coal with the Frischer-Tropsch method albeit it was because of global warming. but lack of oil for his war machine.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pm*was not because of global warming
October 15th, 2007 at 4:36 pmHere in Florida we laugh his ridiculous hurricane predictions. He’s wrong as often as he’s right, and he continuously “updates” his forecast throughout the season. Of course, guessing is better than relying on those new fangled computers, right?
October 15th, 2007 at 4:36 pm“Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.”
except… there is global warming!
That is like saying
October 15th, 2007 at 4:40 pm“Christians believe in Jesus almost as much as children believe in Santa Claus.”
The best way for us to reduce our need for foreign oil is to use less of it. The sensible way is to conserve what we have, -Missmolly
I agree MM, and to tell the truth, when oil went above 75$ a barrel many forms of alternate energy becomes efficient. Oil has crossed the 100$ mark and will, at the current rate, hit 150$ a barrel, what OPEC is striving for/ To continue to burn oil at the rate we are now and not creating an alternative, global warming or not, is nuts.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pmdrobert_bfm, I noticed how Billy Hill is avoiding debate.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI am waiting for the US postal service to run UPS and FED-Ex out of business. Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007
Bwah. Your dont know what your talking about. The US postal service outsources much of its work to Air Freight companies, such as Evergreen or DHL. When I worked at a company in California, Sacramento, that was one of our main contracts to fly US MAIL.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm#80: Funny, you made my case about health care for me. Health is not about an illness you might or might not get in the future; it’s precisely that kind of thinking that makes Americans some of the least healthy people on the planet.
You clearly don’t know half as much about your own country as I do. Maybe it’s because you’re the 800-lb Gorilla in my backyard, maybe it’s just because you’re an idiot. dunno… But when someone pulls out the Laffer curve, I have to laugh my head off… A line on the back of a napkin does not an economic model make…
As for my point about the U.S. economy, I can’t see how your comment is in any way an answer to my point. But then again, my point referred to Econ 101 stuff, so it must have gone WAY above your head. (re: Laffer curve, above).
Anyway, back to the beginning:
Gray’s forecasts have been quite useful for a time. Gray has clearly identified one of the mechanisms affecting Atlantic basin activity (The THC). Unfortunately, like a lot of scientists before and since, he got stuck in a groove and is incapable of getting out of it. He’s more worthy of pity than scorn…
October 15th, 2007 at 4:50 pmI am waiting for the US postal service to run UPS and FED-Ex out of business. Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007
This folks, is your brain of neo-kool-aid. And the fact is folks, mothers dont let your children, we gotta stop this, grow up to be a neo-kool-aider..
October 15th, 2007 at 4:51 pmTHAT WAS PRECISELY what I was talking about…please try to keep up.
Comment by Billy Hill
No. you. were. not.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:04 pmComment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007
Mr P, another new name?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:08 pm37-41 Rome and Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus… Caligula.
Comment by Billy Hill
They had Jet planes and flew the mail and were related to some nutty professor that related Gore to Adolph?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pmThe UK government has likened the fight against obesity to be the battle for climate change. Gore is keen to help.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:27 pm#80 Billy Hill:
I am waiting for the US postal service to run UPS and FED-Ex out of business.
Let me know when UPS or FedEx delivers my letters for 41 cents, m’kay? Last time I looked, it ran more that ten times that…..
Cheers,
October 15th, 2007 at 5:46 pmFrom the Washington Post article:
LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.
Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free market capitalism. It’s bound to be not only politicized but twisted, mangled and beaten senseless in the process. The divisive nature of global warming isn’t helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.
…
Somehow Hitler keeps popping into the discussion. Gore draws a parallel between fighting global warming and fighting the Nazis. Novelist Michael Crichton, in State of Fear , ends with an appendix comparing the theory of global warming to the theory of eugenics — the belief, prominently promoted by Nazis, that the gene pool of the human species was degenerating due to higher reproductive rates of “inferior” people. Both, he contends, are examples of junk science, supported by intellectual elites who will later conveniently forget they signed on to such craziness.
And Gray has no governor on his rhetoric. At one point during our meeting in Colorado he blurts out, “Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.”
When I opine that he is incendiary, he answers: “Yes, I am incendiary. But the other side is just as incendiary. The etiquette of science has long ago been thrown out the window.”
You guys here are proving this last point.
I wish someone would read the whole article before ripping into Gray’s position – no make that his intellectual ability. The truth or error of his position is not seriously debated, he has simply been blasted as a stupid pseudo-scientist because he has a different belief.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:00 pmhe has simply been blasted as a stupid pseudo-scientist because he has a different belief.
Comment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Science and the scientific method are not about “beliefs”. They are about facts and evidence.
Fact is Dr. Gray has no evidence to back up his claim that the globe will “cool again” in about three of four years. None. Not to mention the harebrained notion that there is a wide conspiracy to silence global warming deniers.
Is he bases his position on a personally-held belief and not on evidence then, yes, he is a pseudo-scientist.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pmNo, as I previously pointed out (do try to keep up son), he’s being blasted because he thinks his ‘opinion’ trumps peer reviewed science! There’s no room for ‘belief’ in science (that’s called religion), there’s only room for science! If you ‘believe’ something, prove it. If you can’t then you aren’t right until you do! Dr. Gray is not right, in fact the entire scientific community calls him a quack, because he is one!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
The “entire scientific community”? This doesn’t help. You need to prove this.
Oh, yes, someone is only a “legitimate scientist” if they subscribe to the conclusion beforehand, then it can be said “entire scientific community” because all dissenters have been labeled as quacks because they reach a different conclusion from the same evidence.
And don’t call me “son” – I’ve seen the condescending tone and content of your posts. I may be a noob here in this forum, but I am neither that inexperienced nor as uninformed as you seem to think.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pmScience and the scientific method are not about “beliefsâ€. They are about facts and evidence.
Fact is Dr. Gray has no evidence to back up his claim that the globe will “cool again†in about three of four years. None. Not to mention the harebrained notion that there is a wide conspiracy to silence global warming deniers.
Is he bases his position on a personally-held belief and not on evidence then, yes, he is a pseudo-scientist.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 15, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
You don’t seem to grasp that the point is not “Proof” but “Conclusions” The causes of global warming cannot be “Proven” because the entire planet cannot be put through rigorous scientific analysis, only through limited observations and theoretical modeling. You cannot even repeat the experiment to demonstrate a simple cause-and-effect behavior, as you can, say a tensile strength test of a sample of steel.
Scientists can only look at a set of limited (sure there are a lot of then, but in comparison to the size and complexity of the planet, they are still limited) measurements and draw conclusions. What is being overlooked is that there are not just two conclusions that may be drawn from the data, and that political pressures can and do affect which conclusion receives ‘official’ sanction. Global Warming has not been “proven” in the strict (scientific) sense – it is just the conclusion supported by most of the mainline scientific community. And there is a large minority that have come to different conclusions from the same data.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:39 pmOh, yes, someone is only a “legitimate scientist†if they subscribe to the conclusion beforehand, then it can be said “entire scientific community†because all dissenters have been labeled as quacks because they reach a different conclusion from the same evidence. Comment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Ah, classic strawman! You hate my argument, so you attack me. Classic wingnut!
Actually dissenters are welcome, but it requires they provide their own peer reviewed research. You can’t come to a different conclusion with the same evidence, that’s like saying because my block is flat, the earth is flat! That’s what you/they are doing! You aren’t coming to a ’scientific’ conclusion, you’re just spewing crap.
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
1. How is this attacking you? The quote that you used says NOTHING about you at all.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:59 pm2. How much do you know about the scientific method of proof? The earth cannot be put into isolation and be subjected to results-testing as a lab animal can be. The earth cannot be separated into various components and have each of the inputs controlled independently to see how each affect the outcome. As a matter of fact, we cannot even control the majority of the inputs by any known means to see whether or not they are even a factor in the observations. All we have are educated conclusions – not proof.
I am waiting for the US postal service to run UPS and FED-Ex out of business.
Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
But don’t you get your mail everyday? Or are all your letters and bills Fed-Exed to you? The United States Postal Service is not there to compete with Fed-Ex or UPS. It is there to serve the people. Frankly, I’d like to see Fed-Ex or UPS run the USPS out of business.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pmYet observations and experiments and calculations can be devised to understand and explain the situation. We can’t observe the sub-atomic behaviors that lead to a nuke, yet we can/did model and understand it well enough without doing so. You really don’t understand science at all – do you? Why again are you commenting on a thread you know nothing about, and understand nothing of?
I’ll only comment on this one item, just for brevity. In the development of the nuclear science, our scientists DID set up experiments to observe whether or not their mathematical models would be either supported or disproven.
Oh, yes, that’s right, I know nothing. Only years of devouring all the Scientific Americans and Science News issues I could get my hands on. Were they vacuous?
As well as the Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Geology, Calculus, Statistics, and Materials Science that were required for my engineering degree. I suppose these don’t count either.
BTW, I have said NOTHING about religion anywhere on this forum. Where did you get that? As for hypocrisy, what have I done for that label? Where have I been inconsistent? Bigotry? Where?
Back to your main point: I know now that I know nothing. I bow to your superior intellect. :p
October 15th, 2007 at 8:01 pmI am trying to think of a reason to go to my doctor to prevent SOME ILLNESS that I might get then my doctor can perscribe the magic pill AND I WILL LIVE FOREVER!
Comment by Billy Hill — October 15, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
The satire of this statement doesn’t even apply to the issue drobert was addressing. You are trying to think of a reason, huh? Why not to extend your life-expectancy, prevent the spread of an epidemic, or to just plain stay healthy?
October 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pm#106 richg:
I’ll only comment on this one item, just for brevity. In the development of the nuclear science, our scientists DID set up experiments to observe whether or not their mathematical models would be either supported or disproven.
They dropped Little Boy without ever testing it. They had enough indirect evidence to confirm their theoretical work so that they knew what it would do (even down to an approximation of the yield).
Oh, yes, that’s right, I know nothing. Only years of devouring all the Scientific Americans and Science News issues I could get my hands on. Were they vacuous?
Not peer-reviewed (albeit a bit better than snoozepaper articles or the crap you see on the telly too often; usually quite a bit in the case of SciAm as they tend to solicit papers from acknowledged leaders in various fields). The peer-reviewed articles are in such as Science and Nature (as well as the more specialized journals).
JOOC, so if you read SciAm, what did you learn there about global climate change? ;-)
Cheers,
October 15th, 2007 at 8:21 pmThey dropped Little Boy without ever testing it. They had enough indirect evidence to confirm their theoretical work so that they knew what it would do (even down to an approximation of the yield).
Not quite true. They didn’t do a full scale test of this bomb design, but they had tested the mechanism, and more importantly, there was abundant test evidence to support the basic scientific predictions. My point in the other post was that the theory was testable and observable, and that tests and observations were made under controlled conditions. Something that cannot be done for global climate.
Oh, yes, that’s right, I know nothing. Only years of devouring all the Scientific Americans and Science News issues I could get my hands on. Were they vacuous?
Not peer-reviewed (albeit a bit better than snoozepaper articles or the crap you see on the telly too often; usually quite a bit in the case of SciAm as they tend to solicit papers from acknowledged leaders in various fields). The peer-reviewed articles are in such as Science and Nature (as well as the more specialized journals).
True, SciAm was and is a consumer-level magazine, although Science and Nature read on an even more consumer level. Science News is more of a scientist-to-scientist summary of the latest topics. I was reading it before the name change from Science Newsletter, in the late ’60’s.
JOOC, so if you read SciAm, what did you learn there about global climate change? ;-)
Cheers,
Comment by Arne Langsetmo — October 15, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I learned that the global climate change consensus has changed faster than the global climate itself, and that there have been wider and faster climatic swings in the geologic history (and even human history) of the earth than the little ‘burp’ we are seeing today.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:44 pmPlease, do us a favor, and leave your ‘wanna-be’ skills at home until you educate yourself better? Your posts are repetitive, boring, and just like every other ignorant wingnut that spouts on about this topic!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
What is YOUR background? You have assumed much about mine, and have displayed a lot of stereotyping and foregone conclusions of your own. Now prove that you have the credentials to make the derogatory statements you so freely make about others.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm#112 richg:
[Arne]: They dropped Little Boy without ever testing it. They had enough indirect evidence to confirm their theoretical work so that they knew what it would do (even down to an approximation of the yield).
Not quite true….
No. True.
They didn’t do a full scale test of this bomb design, but they had tested the mechanism, ….
Not really (although they did test-fire the gun and “tickle the tiger”. But that’s hardly a real test of the actual device. Did you see that little word “indirect” there? That’s the kind of “modeling” you do to test your theory when you can’t do the full test.
… and more importantly, there was abundant test evidence to support the basic scientific predictions….
My point exactly. They knew through data for other tests and models what would happen. Ring a bell?!?!?
My point in the other post was that the theory was testable and observable, and that tests and observations were made under controlled conditions. Something that cannot be done for global climate.
Nor could it for “Little Boy”. They didn’t have enough U-235. A perfect example … that you’re full’o'it.
[rickg]: Oh, yes, that’s right, I know nothing. Only years of devouring all the Scientific Americans and Science News issues I could get my hands on. Were they vacuous?
[Arne]: Not peer-reviewed (albeit a bit better than snoozepaper articles or the crap you see on the telly too often; usually quite a bit in the case of SciAm as they tend to solicit papers from acknowledged leaders in various fields). The peer-reviewed articles are in such as Science and Nature (as well as the more specialized journals).
True, SciAm was and is a consumer-level magazine, although Science and Nature read on an even more consumer level….
Nonsense. Unless you mean by “consumer” the quite a bit smaller number of folks that actually read the peer-reviewed original research articles there.
… Science News is more of a scientist-to-scientist summary of the latest topics. I was reading it before the name change from Science Newsletter, in the late ’60’s.
And I was reading Science and Nature. Still have my Science subscription (a/k/a/ AAAS membership). Hate to say it, but when evaluating research, you go read the research reports, including methods, results, and conclusion. As you do in peer review, as I’ve done (ask Jack Pettigrew).
[Arne]: JOOC, so if you read SciAm, what did you learn there about global climate change? ;-)
I learned that the global climate change consensus has changed faster than the global climate itself, …
And this has exactly what to do with the price of potatoes in Idaho?
… and that there have been wider and faster climatic swings in the geologic history (and even human history) of the earth than the little ‘burp’ we are seeing today.
Huh? Cite, please.
Cheers,
October 15th, 2007 at 9:31 pmSo unless you are a climate scientist, your opinion is moot. Get it?
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
So’s yours. You have made your own colorful comments about scientific method, research, and minority-view scientists. Now demonstrate that you have any qualifications to do so.
And I have read that article- I had not heard of Dr. Soon before. This article does not prove anything except that there are scientists who do not agree with him, and that they have some evidence (although not conclusive) to back them up. That is good – a far cry from your methods. They say someone is wrong because they left out some other data – they do not call the other “Wingnut” “greedy little dork” “idiot” “hack” “son” or the like.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pmArne Langsetmo:
This statement: My point in the other post was that the theory was testable and observable, and that tests and observations were made under controlled conditions. Something that cannot be done for global climate.
Was intended to be a continuation of this thought:
I’ll only comment on this one item, just for brevity. In the development of the nuclear science, our scientists DID set up experiments to observe whether or not their mathematical models would be either supported or disproven.
Which was in response to this:
The earth cannot be separated into various components and have each of the inputs controlled independently to see how each affect the outcome. Comment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Yet observations and experiments and calculations can be devised to understand and explain the situation. We can’t observe the sub-atomic behaviors that lead to a nuke, yet we can/did model and understand it well enough without doing so. You really don’t understand science at all – do you? Why again are you commenting on a thread you know nothing about, and understand nothing of?
The point was that we actually DID test and observe sub-atomic behaviors – it wasn’t only mathematical modeling. The application to atmospheric sciences is that we cannot truly up-scale laboratory bench-test results to an open system with so many uncontrolled variables with any certainty.
BTW, I appreciate your more reasoned approach than I get from others here. Rich G.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:53 pmIronic, considering the topic of this thread was how Dr. Gray called climate scientist Nazis!
Thanks for proving the point, that you believe Dr. Gray is not a real scientist.
My work is done!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Read it again. That’s not what he did. He said “Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.” (cupied and pasted from the top of this thread)
His comparison is a comment on how Gore believes in global warming, similarly to how Hitler belied something else about Jews wrongly. That is not making Gore like Hitler (and I do not believe he is, either). And he did not call climate scientists Nazis at all.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:02 pmComment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Dude, the insinuation is there. Out of all the characters in recorded history at his disposal, he HAD to pick Hitler? There was no one else? B.S.
How about, oh, Gore believes in global warming almost as much as the British believed they could extend their control to the colonies of the New World.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:26 pmComment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Then let me say, the way you think about science, is the way Hitler thought about the Jews.
How’s that, more clear for you?
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 15, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Oh SMACK! Great job rhf. Unfortunately I don’t think richierich is capable of understanding a thing you say.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:24 am>That is not making Gore like Hitler
Then why bring up Hitler at all? Come on, surely if the point was not to create a subsconious association of Hitler and Gore. Why not choose someone less inflamatory who was wrong about something in the past? There are PLENTY more examples than hitler…
There was donald rumsfeld, wrong about beleiving he knew about where the WMD was, there was bush, beleiving the Niger Uranium documents were genuine.. history is replete with plenty of people who have been wrong about things..
Would you think I wouldnt be trying to imply anything if I said “rich, like many child molesters, outwardly claims to be uncomfortable with homosexuality”
October 16th, 2007 at 8:04 amOh SMACK! Great job rhf. Unfortunately I don’t think richierich is capable of understanding a thing you say.
Comment by Shayne — October 16, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Oh, I’m capable. I just don’t accept the line of reasoning.
Would you think I wouldnt be trying to imply anything if I said “rich, like many child molesters, outwardly claims to be uncomfortable with homosexualityâ€
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — October 16, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Grammatically and logically that statement is not equivalent to the Gray statement.
…………….
The “conventional wisdom” has been so often been proven wrong by amateurs – for example, it took a couple of guys working at a bicycle shop to develop the aerodynamic properties of airplane propellers that are still in use today. Two guys in a garage making the first “Personal Computer” while all the computer experts were working on large mainframes and couldn’t see it. Even yesterday there was an article about professional astronomers turning to the amateurs to get a look at the vast array of galaxies, and making a startling discovery that the universe is ‘lopsided’ – a very unexpected result. (I’ll go through my browser history for the link…)
Overall, I do not trust a government by “certified experts”, whether left or right. That reduces the common man to simply a tool for the elite – whether under capitalism as a tool for the financial elite, or worse, under socialism for the political elite.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:06 amHere’s the link…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/15/scistars115.xml
October 16th, 2007 at 11:07 amOh poor libs, a meteorologist points out an inconvenient truth about Al Gore, and you scream sacrilage, because he has been annointed by your high priests – the Nobel committee.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am#123 richg:
This statement: “My point in the other post was that the theory was testable and observable, and that tests and observations were made under controlled conditions. Something that cannot be done for global climate.”
Was intended to be a continuation of this thought:
“I’ll only comment on this one item, just for brevity. In the development of the nuclear science, our scientists DID set up experiments to observe whether or not their mathematical models would be either supported or disproven.”
Which was in response to this:
“The earth cannot be separated into various components and have each of the inputs controlled independently to see how each affect the outcome. Comment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 6:59 pm”
“Yet observations and experiments and calculations can be devised to understand and explain the situation. We can’t observe the sub-atomic behaviors that lead to a nuke, yet we can/did model and understand it well enough without doing so. You really don’t understand science at all – do you? Why again are you commenting on a thread you know nothing about, and understand nothing of?”
The point was that we actually DID test and observe sub-atomic behaviors – it wasn’t only mathematical modeling. The application to atmospheric sciences is that we cannot truly up-scale laboratory bench-test results to an open system with so many uncontrolled variables with any certainty.
My point is that we didn’t twiddle the various parameters in the actual “Little Boy” before we used it … except on paper, using models developed from experimental data generally far from the operational parameters existing during the actual nuclear explosion. See what I’m talking about? We extrapolated from small experiments to mass behaviour, and from a regime of operational parameters near criticality (from subcritical tests to near-critical ‘piles’ to the “ticlking the tiger”) along with known physical theories and measured quantities (neutron cross section and half-life, etc.) as to what would happen in the quite different regime of supercriticality.
Which is quite similar to what is done in atmospheric modeling (the thing that Dr. Gray is so sceptical of, preferring to use statistical methods lacking a ‘deep understanding’ of the actual science fo the processes involved). But modeling works … and works well, as we can see by the fact that nowadays airplanes are almost completely designed before the first prototype is built, not to mention tons of other design work that validates the technology of modeling. IOW, we don’t need to “control” or “tweak” the parameters to understand what’s going on.
Cheers,
October 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pm#130 richg:
Overall, I do not trust a government by “certified expertsâ€, whether left or right. That reduces the common man to simply a tool for the elite – whether under capitalism as a tool for the financial elite, or worse, under socialism for the political elite.
There’s no “elite” here. Can’t have well over 90% of the community be an “elite”.
As for people taking on the “establishment” and winning, well and fine (although I think your examples are hardly the clear-cut cases for the “little guys” being smarter than the “establishment”), but to do that, you have to show that you’re right. The OilCo ’scentists’ are faring rather poorly. For every Ramanunjan, there’s at least twenty people who have trisected the angle; ask any math perfesser.
Cheers,
October 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm#130 richg:
Overall, I do not trust a government by “certified expertsâ€, whether left or right. That reduces the common man to simply a tool for the elite – whether under capitalism as a tool for the financial elite, or worse, under socialism for the political elite.
There’s no “elite†here. Can’t have well over 90% of the community be an “eliteâ€.
I thought it was clear I was backing off to look at a larger issue: That of public policy being dictated by “Experts”. Whether they are right or wrong, we are sliding toward a government by experts and consultants, not common ordinary people.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:19 pmRead it again. That’s not what he did. He said “Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.†(cupied and pasted from the top of this thread)
Comment by richg — October 15, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
But the insinuation is there. Why Hitler? Is there not someone else, or some other event, in history from which the Dr. could have referenced?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pmrichg’s view seems to me clear: Science is a game of he-says, she-says, just like he seems to view politics; whoever has the biggest baseball bat wins…
But sorry for you, richg, but you’re completely out in left field on that one. Science is not about opinion, but about evidence. Obviously, opinion comes into play, and it’s usually in the realm of opinion that the biggest scientific errors are made. But Science is on the whole self-correcting BECAUSE of its reliance on evidence.
Also, the concept of experiment is very different in different sciences. You don’t always have to isolate an example of something to test a hypothesis. In the case of the Earth, you’re correct, you can’t put it in a test tube and perform direct experiments on it. But that’s not how science is done…
Science relies essentially on predictions. A hypothesis is a prediction: I believe that if conditions X are fulfilled, the consequences will be Y. Then you devise an experiment to see if you’re correct. In the case of climate research, you build a model (a bunch of equations), based on previous observations; you run the model for times outside the initial set of observations used to build the original model, then you compare the predictions made to the actual observations. If they match well, the model is good, if not, you throw it out and try again.
It so happens that all science is essentially that. The main difference is that the climate is one of the most complex systems we study. Although the best models in use are quite complex, they still pale in comparison to the complexity of the real thing. But then again, that’s true of all models, all equations, in whatever science you wish to cite.
In the end, the proof of a model is in its predictive power. And the best models used today have proven themselves many times. To claim that they are useless because the results they give are inconvenient is not a respectable opinion.
Now, if you can come up with a model which matches observations, is at least as powerful as the best models in use today, AND disproves the forecasts of all of the best models about global warming, then you’d have a case; otherwise, go to University, learn climatology, and get to work…
October 16th, 2007 at 6:08 pm#
richg’s view seems to me clear: Science is a game of he-says, she-says, just like he seems to view politics; whoever has the biggest baseball bat wins…
….
Now, if you can come up with a model which matches observations, is at least as powerful as the best models in use today, AND disproves the forecasts of all of the best models about global warming, then you’d have a case; otherwise, go to University, learn climatology, and get to work…
Comment by drobert_bfm — October 16, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Granted, I’m no climatologist, but I see that, for one example, all the major hurricane predictions have proven to be wrong. Where are all the major hurricanes that were predicted by the leading climatologists? Things have been much quieter than what we were led to expect for two hurricane seasons.
What I have heard is our State Climatologist, who DOES HAVE a good track record go on public record about his reaching a different conclusion. I heard him go into far more statistical trends and cycles over the past several hundred thousand years to demonstrate that the current warming is in agreement with previous natural cycles.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:46 pm#134 richg:
Whether they are right or wrong, we are sliding toward a government by experts and consultants, not common ordinary people.
I don’t think you can call ExxonMobilTexacoChevronBPShell “common ordinary people”.
That being said, I don’t think it’s healthy either if “common ordinary people” are choosing policies that are contrary to the proven advice of “experts”. Should we get rid of cyclosporine and substitute green herb tea if the majority of the people want that instead (hell, maybe cheaper, yaknow, and why not “let the market decide”, eh?)
Cheers,
October 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pmWhether they are right or wrong, we are sliding toward a government by experts and consultants, not common ordinary people.
I don’t think you can call ExxonMobilTexacoChevronBPShell “common ordinary peopleâ€.
That being said, I don’t think it’s healthy either if “common ordinary people†are choosing policies that are contrary to the proven advice of “expertsâ€. Should we get rid of cyclosporine and substitute green herb tea if the majority of the people want that instead (hell, maybe cheaper, yaknow, and why not “let the market decideâ€, eh?)
Cheers,
Comment by Arne Langsetmo — October 16, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
1. I wouldn’t put the big corp.s as “common people” either.
2. I think that a better illustration may be if the government expert consultants said we had to get rid of cyclosporine and revert to green tea for some environmetal or health reasons, and the common people were told to “sit down and shut up- you’re no experts” when they question it.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am#150 richg:
… if the government expert consultants said we had to get rid of cyclosporine and revert to green tea for some environmetal or health reasons, and the common people were told to “sit down and shut up- you’re no experts†when they question it.
Or maybe Thalidomide, eh?
They can question it. But if they’re not experts, don’t pretend they are, or that they know what they’re doing.
But if MerckPfizerAbbottJnJ are peddling crap in full page ads (as xxonMobilTexacoChevronBPShell have been doing) about the wonders of Thalidomide and resisting green tea despite the consensus view of scientists that green tea is more efficacious (and less dangerous) that Thalidomide, I’d say we have a problem.
I’d say you have a problem already; your evaluation of the merits of science seems skewed by your preconceived preferences, and you are over-rating the value of ‘dissent’ (and using it for purposes not of establishing facts but rather achieving certain ends). Not to mention, you seem to be rather gullible, and worse yet, think you know enough not to be fleeced. You’re wrong.
Cheers,
October 17th, 2007 at 1:06 pmFirst off, he was not comparing Gore to Hitler. He was just comparing Gore’s fanatical and unfounded belief in Global Warming to Hitler’s equally fanatical and unfounded hatred of the Jews. Hitler used hatred and fear of the Jews to get into power, and Al Gore is trying to use fear of Global Warming to get power. The simularities are there. Now then, on to the matter of discrediting Dr. William Gray. He was labeled one of the world’s foremost meteorologists. If he says Global Warming isn’t happening or isn’t a threat, then it’s his word against Al Gore’s. One of the world’s foremost meteorologists vs. a windbag with little actual evidence. Who is more reliable?
October 18th, 2007 at 8:35 pmComment by Patriot — October 18, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
Al Gore is using fear to gain political power? Take your meds. I assume that you were trying to be funny, but with nazicons defenders, one can never tell.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pmReally. What about his 2000 bid for power? His main stance has been Global Warming and Carbon Emissions, yet when he was VP he did nothing about that. President Clinton proved he couldn’t control his own government, so Al Gore had ample opportunity to follow his stance. He didn’t. I just have to assume by the amount of noise Gore makes about Global Warming, but the small amount of effort he put’s into actually following his stance, he must not truly believe it and is only using it for political purposes.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:20 am