Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Debunked wackjob raves at Gore.

of scientists who agree with Gore. Anything else wouldn't be fair and balanced. Maybe they can interview holocaust deniers next.

Produce evidence Gray. Just ripping into Gore, the man calling him names IS NOT SOUND SCIENTIFIC argument. Please provide data that you suggest that the earth is not warming (laughable assertion) and our emmissions of green house gases isn't playing at least SOME role in this warming (an almost laughable assertion)

...and forecasters have such an accurate grasp of what will happen in the future, anyway. At least, about an hour into the future. After that, it's all sketchy.

Original Artwork: Tony Meeuwissen: Rooster Weather Vane

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Although songwriter Bob Dylan's catchy lyrics don't necessarily refer to weather vanes, they succinctly express the purpose behind these unique instruments.
(snip)
http://www.artworkoriginals.com/EB5TBZGF.htm

been keeping up with the data?

He's no Roger Revelle.

1998: http://www.junkscience.com/news2/richtime.html

1999: http://www.junkscience.com/dec99.html

2000: http://www.junkscience.com/nov00.html

2001: http://www.junkscience.com/dec01.html

2002: http://www.junkscience.com/jun02.html

2003: http://www.junkscience.com/may06/Dr_Gray_Paper_on_Global_Warming.pdf

2004: http://www.junkscience.com/apr04.html

2005: http://www.junkscience.com/oct05.html

Feb 2006: http://www.junkscience.com/feb06/WSJ.com-Hurricane_Debate_Shatters_Civility_Of_Weather_Science.pdf

Anybody notice a trend?

Right after Pat Michaels.

...has always asserted that observations were the key to predicting the number and intensity of any hurricane season. Unfortunately, his predictions fell flat last year (at least for the Atlantic Basin), because he failed to account for an El Nino event which essentially caused the shearing of every tropical cyclone for the 2006 season. On the other hand, there were a number of super-typhoons in the Pacific that cut a swath through the Wake Islands, Australia and the Phillipines, but, being the clueless mass that we are, weren't paid attention to. (Oh, did I mention that Dr. Gray has funding from oil companies)?

This year, with the predicted abatement of El Nino in May (shown below), the abnormally high Gulf temperatures, the positive inclination of the duo-decadal North Atlantic oscillation (don't ask), the abatement of dust from Africa and the upper air patterns this season may be as bad as 2005.

For a better analysis from a better scientist, see Kerry Emanuel's papers here.

Irrelevant.

If Al Gore accepted $10,000 to speak at an oil company that was going green, would we suddenly decide that he's a corporate whore and should be ignored?

Accepting corporate funding is NOT equivalent to becoming their mouthpiece. Criticize the science -- this argument is nothing short of pure bullshit.

...a non-scientific survey of me tells me 100% of the time. Afterall, scientists deserve their Porsches too. (sarcasm)

And it doesn't matter what the percentage might be: the importance is the science, not who funded it.

Gray is a brilliant scientist in his field, but he's full of shit on global warming. But not because he was funded by oil companies.

...sadly, most often it is.

The global warming skeptics are either moutpieces or they are christ-fundies (not sure why the Fundies have taken such a partisan stand on this issue, but I don't understand most of the shit they do anyway).

...to fulfill their Rapture wet dreams. You can't trust a mass of people with nothing to lose.

It's true, what Upton Sinclair said, about how you can't really understand if you're paid not to.

This is probably the very WORST thing BushCo has done. Made a lot of our livelihoods contingent on NOT understanding, NOT listening, NOT caring.

Americans will do ANYTHING to save their jobs/promotions, especially in uncertain economic times.

I have been funded by BP and continue to be funded by some of the biggest CO₂ emitters on the planet. It has never impacted my views about global warming in the slightest.

And don't forget, they're British. The Brits, right now, have a more mindful approach to business than the Americans do.

I imagine that if you worked for Exxon-Mobil, you'd be singing a different tune altogether.

I did consulting work for Exxon in Houston for three years.

I have no doubt that money has the power to corrupt people, and I have no doubt that companies try to influence science with money. But making these kinds of blanket statements is simply wrong.

Again, stay focused on the science. Gray is full of shit because his science is wrong (in our opinion). That's enough. We don't have to attack him personally.

and it was to mislead on global warming. It was also confirmed by Exxon employees

That doesn't mean that there are not people in Exxon who truely are environmental conscious, but the leadership isn't, and that is where a company goes

The reality is, that in the last 50 years most of the competition between oil companies has been eliminated by allowing huge oil mergers to take place, and we now have just a handful who control the show

You're suffering from a logical fallacy: You might be able to make the case that 100% of the people who discount global warming have received corporate funding (though I doubt it), but it is certainly NOT the case that 100% of the people who have been funded by Big Oil are in opposition to Al Gore's notions expressed in An Inconvenient Truth.

There is no substitute for hard, objective research in the scientific arena. Writing off someone's work because of the source of funding is ridiculous. If you cannot address the research on its scientific merits, let it go.

... receiving a favor from an oil company implies that, as payback, you will present that company in a favorable light. That's why I don't trust what spokespeople say. It's their job to say only shiny happy things about their company. Right now, even giving a semi-positive, semi-critical honest assessment, might just get you fired.

You can blame Bush for this "only cheerleaders need apply" approach.

If Gray signed a contract to be a spokesperson for Exxon, then I'd say we can start ignoring everything he says. If, however, he received a monetary award for preparing a position paper, as a consultant, or similar duties, then there is not necessarily a conflict of interest.

However, the strategy that global warming is or is not should not be the main focus

The main focus should be REDUCING POLUTION, and energy independence through cleaner alternative fuels, and energy sources

There are many ways to generalize.

And a scientific opinion at that. The guy has huge creds in the scientific community.

You and I both think he's wrong on global warming, but that doesn't make him a liar or a corporate shill.

Lots of scientists have theories. His happens to be the ocean will cool. Ok then.
If he's a respected scientist, he should promote his theory through peer reviewed channels and publications. He knows that.
The best liars are so motivated because they are committed to a falsehood, to the point they believe it.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

This idiot compared Gore to Hitler for crying out loud!

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

This guy has been called out for proof of his assertions and hasn't produced squat.

You don't have debate global warming to know that:

1. Polution is bad
2. We should become energy independent, with cleaner alternative energy source

What could possibly be the argument against that?

? just wondering.

It is no different than misleading propaganda from fox and the MSM regarding Pelosi's trip to the middle east

It is posted because the opinion flys in the face of reality