0
rushmc

Tell Me, What Type "Denier" Is Dr William Gray?

Recommended Posts

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Google search for Dr William Gray
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Dr+William+Gray&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images



Gore gets a cold shoulder


Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007



Advertisement
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."


<Hilights done by rushmc>
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prof Gray is illustrating vividly the value of tenure.

He's also Emeritus; so no, he doesn't have to worry about getting grants.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Prof Gray is illustrating vividly the value of tenure.

He's also Emeritus; so no, he doesn't have to worry about getting grants.

VR/Marg



So you discount his position completely because of this?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Prof Gray is illustrating vividly the value of tenure.

He's also Emeritus; so no, he doesn't have to worry about getting grants.

VR/Marg



Emeritus and tenure status are mutually exclusive. He's either emeritus, or he has tenure.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Tell Me, What Type "Denier" Is Dr William Gray?

Type II.

One of his statements:

"My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again." (April 2007)

So tell me - if over the next five years, the planet continues to warm, will you:

a) reverse your stance on anthropogenic warming;
b) state that you think Gray's credibility has been hurt by the failure of his unambiguous forecast or
c) quietly ignore it, hope no one remembers this post and find another denier to post about?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you discount his position completely because of this?



Marc,

Not sure how you got that out of my comment ... but I'll write more (not hard :)
No, I think it's great. It's called science. It requires public discourse and data. If he's got data then it should be considered. How does his data work with the models? Does his explanation explain the observed data better and can it all be done publicly and reproducibly? (Maybe his data & models might end up supporting climate change models after all?)

Vigorous debates occur in science all the time; this one has gotten much more attention than the great silylium ion debate in the pages (letters and technical articles) of Science, between George Olah (Nobel Prize 1995) & Chris Reed (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/263/5149/985.pdf) or the the more recent sonoluminesce and neutron generation dispute among Rusi Teleyarkan, Ken Suslick, and Saul Putterman, (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5581/496b; http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/Sonofusion%20Paper-pdf_Lahey_NURETH-11.pdf; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5767/1532.pdf) or Dick Ebright's criticisms of biodefense funding by NIH-NIAID (over fundamental inquiries into pathogenesis and infectious disease), (Sidney Altman, et al., “An Open Letter to Elias Zerhouni,” Science, 4 March 2005, vol 307, p. 1409).

These guys don't just write letters; they go out and 'strongly suggest' their grad students & postdocs do experiments to dispute the other's hypothesis. And then publish the data, models, etc.

This notion that cutting-edge science is fixed is akin to the notion that all skydivers are raving lunatics with a death wish. In either case, the laws of gravity still apply.

On tenure: Whether it's Gray or Ted Postol (MIT), tenure is incredibly valuable in order to allow voices and arguments -- with data -- to be heard. (See my comments on the technical and programatic problems of missile defense, if you're not familiar with Postol.) Although it’s only tangential, I am firmly of the opinion that if one’s own argument can stand up to the harshest (rationale & expert) critics – which Gray very well may represent in atmospheric sciences – that strengthens the argument.

On grants: Technical grants have become much more difficult to get over the last 30 years. NIH R01 grant applications, which used to have something like a 40% success rate, now have something on the order of 5%. If anyone has specific figures, would appreciate it. The NSF’s budget has not been doubled or tripled, which is one of the things that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich sites as a regret. In some areas, such as nanotechnology, the DoD is now the single largest federal funder (FY08 PBR); this is the first time that the DoD exceeds NSF. DoD is a mission driven agency; as cool as some proposed science may be, they’re not the “Dept of Cool Science.” The impact of the 1980 Bayh-Dole legislation on science, particularly true basic research, funding has been tremendous. The President’s American Competitiveness Initiative has recognized the critical importance of fostering science and technology. More H1B visas is not the solution.

In the sciences and engineering, getting grants is a requirement (de facto or de jure) to get tenure. In some fields that require expensive instrumentation, one can't do research without external funding. It's starting to become a de facto requirement for social sciences as well, particularly economics, pyschology & poli sci.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems Gray's views on anthropgenic climate change have not been submitted to peer review, presumably because he knows they wont pass muster. So rather than explain his position and convince people that he's right, he's accused the scientific community as a whole of being engaged in a giant conspiracy to promote anthropogenic global warming for the purpose of generating grant money. A man of his experience should know that science is self-correcting and the level of cooperation needed to maintain such a deception is practically impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Tell Me, What Type "Denier" Is Dr William Gray?

Type II.

One of his statements:

"My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again." (April 2007)

So tell me - if over the next five years, the planet continues to warm, will you:

a) reverse your stance on anthropogenic warming;
b) state that you think Gray's credibility has been hurt by the failure of his unambiguous forecast or
c) quietly ignore it, hope no one remembers this post and find another denier to post about?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.



Well Bill, maybe you should get Dr. Gray on the phone and straighten him out ASAP.

After all he is merely Emeritus, not like the real scientists you believe in (Al Gore)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It seems Gray's views on anthropgenic climate change have not been submitted to peer review, presumably because he knows they wont pass muster. So rather than explain his position and convince people that he's right, he's accused the scientific community as a whole of being engaged in a giant conspiracy to promote anthropogenic global warming for the purpose of generating grant money. A man of his experience should know that science is self-correcting and the level of cooperation needed to maintain such a deception is practically impossible.



Wow, this is quite an assertion. Tell, what sources helped you come to these conclusions and accusations?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Tell Me, What Type "Denier" Is Dr William Gray?

Type II.

One of his statements:

"My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again." (April 2007)

So tell me - if over the next five years, the planet continues to warm, will you:

a) reverse your stance on anthropogenic warming;
b) state that you think Gray's credibility has been hurt by the failure of his unambiguous forecast or
c) quietly ignore it, hope no one remembers this post and find another denier to post about?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.



A rhetorical question back at you.

Will you do the same (as your questions to me) if his perdictions come to pass?

I personally do not believe 3 years will settle anything one way or the other but, you asked the questions of me.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To answer your rhetorical question -

I will not do b) or c) since they make no sense. However, if in five years time there is a clear cooling trend as CO2 continues to increase, then I will indeed reconsider my stance on anthropogenic warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks and sorry I did not understand your post. As for your response? I could not agree more with most parts.

The debate in needed and necessary. Many, some on this site, want to believe the science, data, evidence and conclusions are done. I KNOW that is not the case. And I do not claim that my position is rock solid either. I will not put up with the "consensus" argument either cause that is worthless and weakens science.

Thanks
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To answer your rhetorical question -

I will not do b) or c) since they make no sense. However, if in five years time there is a clear cooling trend as CO2 continues to increase, then I will indeed reconsider my stance on anthropogenic warming.



b and c made no sense? You asked them.:P

Edited to add, b I understand but c?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It seems Gray's views on anthropgenic climate change have not been submitted to peer review [1], presumably because he knows they wont pass muster[2]. So rather than explain his position and convince people that he's right, he's accused the scientific community as a whole of being engaged in a giant conspiracy to promote anthropogenic global warming for the purpose of generating grant money [3]. A man of his experience should know that science is self-correcting and the level of cooperation needed to maintain such a deception is practically impossible [4].



Wow, this is quite an assertion. Tell, what sources helped you come to these conclusions and accusations?




I've added references now. Is that better?

"human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants." ~ W. Gray [5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Edited to add, b I understand but c?

I won't go "find another denier to post about."



:D
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, I do not read wikopedia for anything. Second, it appears you only have an "opinion" on the accusations made.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

After all he is merely Emeritus, not like the real scientists you believe in (Al Gore)



I'm not sure what the connection between "real scientists" and Emeritus status is?
Are you are arguing that one has to be executing experimental science in vivo, in vitro or in silico to be a scientist? There are those who would.

There is a direct connection between Emeritus status and no longer having requirements to support an active research program, i.e., get grants and contracts.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

First off, I do not read wikopedia for anything. Second, it appears you only have an "opinion" on the accusations made.



Then don't read wikipedia but at least fucking read.


William Gray said this : "human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants. in this article: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

It's not my opinion, he actually said it.

The reaction to it can be read here: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:aCRjMctDWToJ:sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html+%22essentially+accused+the+entire+scientific+community+of+fraud%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.




Dose this guy deny the Ozone layer issues of the late 80s-early 90s as well?

If aerosol sprays can destroy the Ozone why is so hard to believe that massive amounts of CO2 can effect our world.


What about the simple act of looking at a skyline? Look over an industrial city and then a place where there is no industry. Is any one going to deny that they notice a big difference?


Where has common sense goon?
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.




Dose this guy deny the Ozone layer issues of the late 80s-early 90s as well?

If aerosol sprays can destroy the Ozone why is so hard to believe that massive amounts of CO2 can effect our world.


What about the simple act of looking at a skyline? Look over an industrial city and then a place where there is no industry. Is any one going to deny that they notice a big difference?


Where has common sense goon?



I do not know where it has "goon". In any event you may want to find the reports on the ozone levels and CFC impacts that came out this month. Thanks for bringing that up. You make my point about bad science, scare tactics and affects thereof......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Well Bill, maybe you should get Dr. Gray on the phone and straighten him out ASAP.

Or perhaps he should publish in a peer-reviewed journal so better qualified scientists than you or I can straighten him out.

>After all he is merely Emeritus, not like the real scientists you believe in (Al Gore)

Gore is not a scientist. He's a lecturer/author (for the purposes of this discussion.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just sarcasm.

I would wager that there are a few Professor Emeritus(Emeritae?) that are far more qualified than many of their colleagues.



No doubt, but that implies that there are also some who are far less qualified, doesn't it?

PS the plural of emeritus (male) is emeriti, the plural of emerita (female) is emeritae.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0