Dr. Gray: "Global warming is a hoax"

[jerry611]

Dr William Gray of Colorado State University is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this for over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking, studying, and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

[BrklynLiberal]

1. He better let Lloyds of London in on this secret. They believe it is real.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1357490

EDIT: Let me guess. His favorite author is Michael Crichton.

[AX10]

7. OHHHHHHH, I see....it's those "left wing insurance companies"

....:eyes: <sarcasm off>

[kstewart33]

2. I wrote to the article's author about his column

I live in Denver and take the post. Here's my letter:

Mr. Harsanyi:

I noticed that in their dissents on global warming, Mr. Gary and Mr. Pielke couched their positions in terms of what they 'believe' or what their 'views' are. As a research Ph.D., I'm interested in the science of the subject, not anyone's beliefs or values or opinions, including those of scientists. So I've looked at a good many global warming studies, and darned if I can find one with results disputing the global warming hypothesis.

If there were many studies that do so, you can bet that your two scientists would be talking those up a great deal. But interestingly, neither said nary a word about the research conducted to date. That's curious, coming from two scientists.

Until scientists are ready to talk science instead of beliefs, opinions, and views, there will never be a wide open debate on the subject. But I'd wager that what's stifling the debate to date may well be the overwhelming scientific support for the concept rather than any left wing conspiracy.

[Ladyhawk]

10. I'd like to see the data, but I wouldn't know what to make of it.

:(

But you're right. It wasn't even offered.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Wasn't offered because it can't be offered

because there are essentially no (none nada zero zilch) peer reviewed articles published disputing the global warming theory.

"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

This study analyzed peer reviewed research papers on global warming in order to come to an objective understanding of what the 'scientific consensus' is.

"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Not one peer reviewed paper sampled disagreed with the global warming hypothesis. Not one.

[Ladyhawk]

17. Thanks for clarifying that. Jesus, Dr. Gray is an ass.

:grr:

[Warren Stupidity]

20. My President Al Gore turned me on to that nugget of truth.

It kind of set the whole 'debate' back into proper perspective.

[Ladyhawk]

23. Good point. I don't need to be able to understand climatology

to understand that. :(

[democrat in Tallahassee]

3. hurricane expert in colorado? yeah Florida has snow experts, too

Being a hurricane expert (if indeed he is) does not make him a climatologist.

[Canuckistanian]

4. Damn! He's on to us.

Oh, well. Now where's that brochure for that Cadillac Escalade I've had my eye on?

[Clovis Sangrail]

and we should believe him

because he's "been at this for over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking, studying, and teaching"

The other 97% of scientists that think global warming is real?
SLACKERS!

THEY haven't been thinking, studying, and teaching. :eyes:

[leftchick]

5. he must be getting some big oil and/or energy $$$$

he is out on a limb with this one. I hope it was worth it for him.

[Junkdrawer]

16. Big Oil is funding the privatization of Hurricane forecasting...

looks like the good Dr., like any hurricane, is following the path of least resistance.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. How else can an aging scientist gain fame if not by creating a ruckus?

He believed the world was undergoing warming and now all of a sudden he doesn't. DUH. He's an old man looking to be interviewed and make lots of Republican and sensationalism money to leave his grandkids. He's laughing all the way to the bank. His grandkids will be able to buy oxygen tanks. We won't.

[Ladyhawk]

8. I hope he's right.

:shrug:

Not having the scientific know-how kind of puts most of us at a disadvantage when it comes to global warming, peak oil and other scares. I've been scared shitless about a lot of these things, but I'm getting a little tired of it. I'd like to think I can live out the rest of my life. :shrug:

[Psephos]

21. Yours is the only honest post on this thread

The rest are the usual reinforcements of the political orthodoxy. Politics and science do not mix well. Politics leads to unscientific views, because emotion is stronger than reason. Far stronger.

That the climate is changing is a fact. Its causes are a matter of debate - by definition, because otherwise we wouldn't be having a debate. The consensus among climatologists is that human activity is enhancing a shift already in progress due to natural causes. How much is human activity contributing? Ask ten climatologists, get ten answers. That speaks volumes right there. The prudent course would be to err on the side of caution and cut greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible while developing alternatives. As with any insurance policy, one may, in the end, not need the protection. But far better that than to be caught out with no protection.

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
- Bertrand Russell.

[Ladyhawk]

24. Thanks. Good post.

I'd really rather be able to understand these "scares." I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but mathematics is absolutely not my strong suit and it's absolutely essential to climatology. I would have to study for years to be able to interject a real opinion. In the absence of that, I make decisions as best I can. :shrug:

[Lisa]

27. the precautionary principle/"no regrets" approach

This has been advocated for years by the people I work with -- do things which aren't too drastic with negative economic consequences, and focus on issues where we can improve other areas too (e.g. better gas mileage would also decrease smog, a significant health issue). Unfortunately, it has pretty much fallen on deaf ears amongst policymakers, because a) they aren't concerned about those issues either, or b) they still think it would have to be an emergency to justify any type of action. Or c), they're as wedded to an ideological/political position (that we are not having negative impacts on the environment, or at least not ones which we can't handle) as those who get overly worked up about potential threats.

[jerry611]

34. The climate has been changing for 4 billion years!!!

The earth doesn't stay the same. We WILL have another ice age...there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it from happening.

We have been fortunate that human beings has developed during a period of climate stability. But from looking at fossils and rocks, the earth wasn't always this pleasent. Fossils of tropical plants have been found as far north as the artic circle. Meaning at about 55 million years ago, there were no polar ice caps. No ice at all! And water temps were probably in the low 100's near the equator, which probably spawned super-hurricanes of strengths beyond imagination.

My personal theory is that we are not creating the cycle, we are just speeding it up. This planet has already been traumatized far worse than we could ever screw it up. It can destroy us just as simply as it created us.

Space exploration anyone? If you want to save the human race, that's the only way to do it. The earth, as we know it, isn't going to last forever.

[misanthrope]

22. Well...

...everyone lives out the rest of their life.

[Lisa]

26. it would be great if he's right

First of all, it would imply that scientists are capable of organizing a massive worldwide conspiracy. I work with some of them, and they cannot even agree on how to organize a relatively-small international conference (or lunch, in our department) ... let alone the concerted effort which a hoax of this magnitude would require! So finding out that they have cunningly planned this would be a pleasant surprise (now if only they could apply the same skills to organizing the teaching roster for this fall, so I don't get called in the week before term).

And second (and definitely more important) -- we would have one less thing to worry about this century, plus we wouldn't have to deal with people who are saying "oh it's all going to burn up anyway with global warming so why bother". There are plenty of issues out there to deal with (disease, famine, natural disasters, loss of habitat, and the gap between rich and poor, just for starters) without having global warming on top of everything else. So I really hope that this is a lot of fuss over nothing much! It would be wonderful to wake up some morning and know for sure that I've spent the past decade figuring out that global warming is really not anything to worry about.


Unfortunately, the more I find out about it, the less pleasant it sounds.

[marmar]

9. Witch Doctor Gray is an asshole...

CSU ought to be embarassed.

[kestrel91316]

14. I am frankly quite embarrassed for my alma mater on this one.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. Go Rams!!

I never attended, but I lived in Ft. Collins for 10 years. :) great town.

[aquart]

11. Does this "expert" know what the Ross ice shelf is?

It was ice for SIX MILLION YEARS and now it's melting!

[Warren Stupidity]

12. This is HUGH!!!111!

Jerry my lad, aren't you supposed to be fixated on the MEXICAN PROBLEM?

[C_U_L8R]

13. Perhaps the so-called Doctor

should begin by speaking like a scientist
with real evidence and proven hypothesis
and not some cry-baby name-calling republican
spewing ad-hominem goo and garbage

No listens to an ass-hat... DOC

[longship]

18. Ecuadorean blizzard scientists

California Tornado experts
New York earthquake scientists
KS mountain climbers

Oh, and Coloradan hurricane pros

[Jeffersons Ghost]

19. whew! that was close! I'll tell all my flowers that bloom out of season...

for the past three years to stop it because global warming is a false alarm. they'll be happy to start blooming in spring again!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Even a 30 year cool off won't reverse the main trend up

Even a 30 year cool off won't reverse the main trend up.

There may well be a 30 year cool off coming, but I expect it will be only a slowing down of warming, not an actual cooling, and no way do I expect it to cool us back to 1970 or 1940 levels.

[jerry611]

35. We can't change the earth's cycles

There is nothing we can do. The reality is that the earth will not always be like this. It is going to change no matter what we do. Look at the past 50 million years.

The human race is nothing but a small speck in the grand scheme of things. This planet is 4 billion years old. The human race has been here for what? 10,000 years? We are lucky that we seem to have developed during a time of global stability.

But I assure you, this stability will not last. The ecosystem has been completely destroyed and rebuilt several times. 250 million years ago there was a massive extinction. 100 million years ago, there was another. 65 million years ago there was another. We are due for another today...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. However much "due" we may be, we have no right to CAUSE it.

[tandem5]

29. We're talking a 50-100 year scale of change and...

the American population at large has an attention span of about 1 1/2 weeks. Most of the recent discussion has been due in part to "An Inconvenient Truth," but I fear the topic of global warming is being brought to an artificial peak by other sources in order to make people impatient for change that will impact their lives personally. Mr. Gray seems to play on this idea when he defines an arbitrary period of time of three to four years. If after that period of time the bulk of the American population has not been personally impacted does that mean global warming isn't real? No, but I fear many Americans will start to believe that.

[FVZA_Colonel]

30. "Starting with the nuclear winter"

That's a hoax?

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Well it hasn't happened so it must be a hoax!

Good point. What hoax? That hypothesis is that a large enough nuclear exchange would trigger, due to the amount of dirt kicked up into the atmosphere, a sudden and prolonged cooling, a 'nuclear winter'. The hypothesis did not predict that such an exchange was certain to happen.

The liars are practiced in the art of deception.

[jerry611]

33. He's talking about the global cooling theory of the 70s

From the 1940's to the 1970's the earth's temperature was dropping. And scientists were going through a hysteria that the trend would continue until we hit the next ice age.

But then in the 80's the earth started to heat up, so those fears of global cooling have now been replaced by global warming. And old scientists like Dr. Gray arn't so acceptable to the hysteria this time around.

[w4rma]

36. Since when did nuclear mean "years between 1940 and 1970"? (nt)

[jerry611]

37. Some said the ice age would be like nuclear winter

During the cold war, everyone compared every potential disaster to nuclear holocaust.

[bananas]

38. "nuclear winter" refers to the cold weather following a nuclear war

It's not the same as "global cooling".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[genieroze]

31. Oh go suck a bug.

[cobalt1999]

39. He is not a very good hurricane expert either...

I always laugh at the media attention of his predictions of the number of hurricanes for the coming year. First, no one ever goes back and actually compares his guess to what really happened (hint: they are not very close - take last year for example). Second, watch how he is constantly updating his guess DURING the hurricane season (whoops, better up the count or lower the count depending on what has already happened).

Here in Florida, we don't listen to him.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. I live in Florida, and frankly, the man is often wrong on his predictions

He does know a lot about hurricanes, but predict? He's no better than anyone else. And now we must believe his theory on global warming, despite the fact that the only ones agreeing with him are born-again Bible literalists?

[LeftHander]

40. glaciers that have been around for thousands of years....

have melted. What a dumb fuck...they didn't just melt back in the 70's...

keep the head in the sand pal.

[stepnw1f]

41. What an A*hole... Hope You Enjoy Your Pay Check

you regressive loser. He calls himself a DR....? The article calls him "perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert", and I call him an greedy corporate asshole.