asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
US hurricane forecaster says Al Gore does 'great disservice' with global warming film
Posted April 8th, 2007 by Suzanne
Origninal article link:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html
The Associated Press Friday, April 6, 2007
A Rapid Response Team contribution
by RRT team member Suzanne Smith
Dr. Gray, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, is alarmed at Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary about global warming. Gore, says Dr. Gray, is a" gross alarmist." That sounds pretty alarming. As the title of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" suggests, it is not an easy thing to face. The pressing question in my mind is, just whom is inconvenienced enough to go into full spin denial? Of course we are all concerned, but who feels particularly threatened right now and why? This is the crux to me.
In my view, the people screaming the loudest at the moment about big bad Al have their reasons. Their livelihood may be at risk, they may not be able to psychologically deal with the truth, they might fear change, not like Al's hair, or some may even be receiving payment from certain parties for saying what they are saying. It's worth looking into. And I'm sure there are many more possibilities. It is also interesting that Dr. Gray's comments appeared the same day the UN report on Global Warming came out.
The Doctor may be one of the best hurricane predictors around. But it doesn't necessarily speak to his "global thinking" abilities. One could master the systems of weather activity in a very two dimensional or linear loop kind of way without ever looking up. For instance, I know someone who can get downtown from my neighborhood in a charming way. His thinking goes something like this: Turn right at the picket fence, go past the large Easter bunny 3 blocks down, hang a left at the Citgo station, and you hit Main street where the Car salesman takes his cigarette break on the green bench. He hasn't a clue of what an aerial view of downtown might look like or North vs. South for that matter. But gosh he "gets downtown." That's ok.
But local thinking can get one into trouble. Our local "interests" can often be more about fear, anger, arrogance, or ignorance than global realities. Seeing only certain details in any given situation can make things easier in the short term or make us feel safer. It's a sort of trade off. One then doesn't have to deal with the larger picture or what is outside one's own mental bubble. Unfortunately the issue of Global Warming has jettisoned responsible thinking people into a crucial time of Global responsibility. We have to pull together. An Alarm does have its place. The time for seeing through a glass darkly is over, if we want our children's children to survive.
Further reading about Dr. Gray and his views.
(*new April 10) http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1371
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.h...
- Suzanne's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
argument/explanation needed ...
It's so nice to read a blog filled with intelligent thought and in which people don't trash you because your opinion differs from theirs. So with that in mind, I'm hoping someone can help me with the defense argument needed when I'm out there trying to talk up this subject, because I'll admit that I'm not well-versed enough, though I am trying to be, to answer every question put before me (typically in a hostile fashion). And so the question often put before me, especially in the last couple of weeks, is: If the Earth is warming, then why did it snow in Cleveland? (or some other example of a freak snowstorm to hit some area long after winter has ended and spring has arrived, especially if the earth is progressively warming ...) My explanation that it's not merely that the planet is warming, but that human actions have thrown all weather systems out of whack and shouldered us with the burden of extremes at both ends of the spectrum, doesn't quite cut it. I've tried researching this online, but in doing so come up with the naysayers much more often than any reasonable explanation that supports the theory of global warming. Any advice or direction toward a science-based website that could help? Many thanks ...
I ran across this...Global Warming Skeptic disarmer tips
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-...
Maybe not perfect but has some good ideas I think.
Suzanne
Show him this map
Maybe then he will understand the difference between the US and the globe, weather and climate.
Or maybe not. After all only an idiot or a 6-10 years old kid would ask such a stupid question.
It was really cold in February, right?
NOT. The weather in a certain part of one freaking country tells nothing about the global climate let alone global climate change over many decades.
GLOBAL DECEMBER-FEBRUARY TEMPERATURE WARMEST ON RECORD
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/feb07.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/map_blended_mntp_...
How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-...
Quick concise responses to Global Warming skeptics
Thanks for your great comments. I will send your comments with a note to the appropriate contact centers that might be able to provide help on this. Those in denial often choose one aspect of the overall picture and twist it to fit their preconceptions. Explaining the complexities of Global Warming is not easy or quick. That is why it is so hard to counter people who don't want to know or can't handle knowing. I think what is needed is a very concise talking point/answer list for all of us to use to counter the array of possible denials and statements like " then why is it snowing in Cleveland?" There are probably less than 10 of these, in essence, in all. Check back with me in about a week. All the sites below, however, will give you ample tips for what you're looking for. Good luck and keep your comments coming!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warmi...
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
http://blog.algore.com/
Suzanne
Who Is Dr. Gray at CSU, and we find out what his reputation
Great anaylsis, Suzanne!
Dr. Gray at Colo St U. Do we have anyone who can check out Dr. Gray and his reputation?
Is he legit, or does he report to such media as Fox News and the other right wings?
If no one else has a contact to check this out, I can call and try. Please email me at
alexjuliea@ao.com Bob Alexander, Michigan Co-Chair
Good Seattle Times article on this
This article is very in depth about the science and tells a little bit more about Dr. Gray, as well as giving examples of other skeptics.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.h...
Suzanne
No he is not legit. In short, he is an ass. And a coward, too
Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 12:45 pm
Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes.
Gray's paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton's State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
THC casues everything!! We know that because Bill Gray says so. Except that he doesn't have a single peer-reviewed paper on the subject.
And of course vater vapor feedback in negative. Yes, Lindzen says the same thing. Surprise surprise.
I was at a meeting a few weeks ago where I ran into Bill Gray, a famous emeritus skeptic. He gave his standard stump speech in which he claims that the water vapor feedback is negative. I followed up on this with him and it became quite clear to me that he is unfamiliar with all of the peer-reviewed literature on this subject that has been published in the last five years. This makes sense. Reading the literature is a difficult and full-time job, and emeritus faculty simply don't need to do that. Especially (in the case of Gray) when your time is occupied being interviewed and screaming at people. As a result, my sense is that the views of emeritus skeptics are often substantially out of date.
But the story goes on. After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own why the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it. After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/aged-skeptics.h...
I agree
This is a good article on the Gray embarrassment.
Suzanne
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.h...
It's not like it matters
I think we are way beyond the point of worrying how we or if we are at a tipping point. For some the main focus is assembling things in their life to survive and I would suggest that others not laugh. Remember they laughed at Noah.
Gore is just taking shots, but guess what every day his name is in the media it's another day that the campaign grassroot's and all does not have to spend trying to get the media to mention Al because that is what the others are spending their money on right.
_______________________________________________
Nelson Jacobsen
Washington DC
Bill Gray should finally subject his fancy theory
about how the THC causes global warming to peer review or shut up. I'm tired of his cowardice. Anyone can tell anything to some scribe. And the media can publish anything. But scientific debate does not take place in the media. Where can you find his paper in a peer-reviewed jourmal? Nowhere.
Somehow over these many years he couldn't find a way to get his paper published by Science or Nature or other respected journals.
Either he can prove his theory or he can't. And if he can't he should admit that he is wrong instead of cowardly trashing Gore through the mass media for daring to accept the conclusion of the vast majority of climatologists.
Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming
Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes.
Gray's paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton's State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Cowardice
So very true and well said. Thanks.
Suzanne