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

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>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.)

No Shit BILL!!!

See we do need a sarcasm Icon

[warpedskydiver 0]

That would be affirmative and somehow I don't think you would be shocked at that.

There are may who teach that in reality should not be qualified, therefore there are those that do scientific research, and should not be qualified to do so.

Just because one has a degree does not mean one is not a hack, nor merely motivated by greed, and rewarded by grant money.

[Gawain 0]

You know what's funny about this debate (global warming), is that when things begin to cool again, those on the current "denier" side can start yelling, "See, there was NO GLOBAL WARMING" with the same fervor that anti-war folks are waling about the WMD. Of course, the GW-Alarmists will say, "but all the data we saw said that GW was REAL and a REAL THREAT and was an IMMINENT THREAT TO ALL MANKIND"

...I see the parallels already...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Too true

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

You know what's funny about this debate (global warming), is that when things begin to cool again, those on the current "denier" side can start yelling, "See, there was NO GLOBAL WARMING" with the same fervor that anti-war folks are waling about the WMD. Of course, the GW-Alarmists will say, "but all the data we saw said that GW was REAL and a REAL THREAT and was an IMMINENT THREAT TO ALL MANKIND"

...I see the parallels already...

Why don't you wait until it DOES start cooling before you start seeing too many parallels. We KNOW the WMD "threat" was a tissue of falsehoods.

...

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

[billvon 3,120]

> is that when things begin to cool again . . .

Things will undoubtedly begin to cool again. The question we are now asking ourselves is "what do we want to have happen in the meantime?"

>Of course, the GW-Alarmists will say, "but all the data we saw said that
>GW was REAL and a REAL THREAT and was an IMMINENT THREAT TO ALL
>MANKIND"

Once a GW-alarmist kills his first 10,000 civilians I'll start to see a parallel there!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> is that when things begin to cool again . . .

Things will undoubtedly begin to cool again. The question we are now asking ourselves is "what do we want to have happen in the meantime?"

>Of course, the GW-Alarmists will say, "but all the data we saw said that
>GW was REAL and a REAL THREAT and was an IMMINENT THREAT TO ALL
>MANKIND"

Once a GW-alarmist kills his first 10,000 civilians I'll start to see a parallel there!

But Bill, the GW alarmists have attributed over 100,000 per year due to global warming.
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm#deaths
You wouldn't doubt the UN would you? Such an organization with an impeccable record of protecting the world from itself, preserving human rights, and punishing the evil...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>But Bill, the GW alarmists have attributed over 100,000 per year
>due to global warming.

Right. However, reporting deaths is not the same as causing them, as I am sure you would agree.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>But Bill, the GW alarmists have attributed over 100,000 per year
>due to global warming.

Right. However, reporting deaths is not the same as causing them, as I am sure you would agree.

Haahaahaa...nice try...

Quote

A study, by scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that 154,000 people die every year from the effects of global warming,

It's not a "report"...inaccurate attribute yes...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>But Bill, the GW alarmists have attributed over 100,000 per year
>due to global warming.

Right. However, reporting deaths is not the same as causing them, as I am sure you would agree.

Reminds me that the Lord High Executioner in "The Mikado" used logic something like Gawain's

...

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

[billvon 3,120]

>It's not a "report" . .

Of course it is, and I think you understand the difference between reporting on and causing deaths. Let's not do the "haul out the dictionary" thing; I'm certain you know the difference.

[Darius11 12]

So the whole Ozone thing was a lie to?

The aerosols did not cause the layer to deteriorate?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 3,120]

> So the whole Ozone thing was a lie to?

Yep. Apparently all the following are lies:

Smoking causes cancer
CFC's damage the ozone layer
Secondhand smoke can be dangerous
Manmade CO2 increases the greenhouse effect and causes warming

Oddly, the same group/same people deny all of the above! What an odd coincidence.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

> So the whole Ozone thing was a lie to?

Yep. Apparently all the following are lies:

Smoking causes cancer
CFC's damage the ozone layer
Secondhand smoke can be dangerous
Manmade CO2 increases the greenhouse effect and causes warming

Oddly, the same group/same people deny all of the above! What an odd coincidence.

What group are you talking about?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Bill still thinks one side of the aisle is for us, and one side is against us, when in reality they are the A and B squads of the same team, playing against us.

[billvon 3,120]

>What group are you talking about?

Specifically the Marshall Institute, led by Seitz and Singer.

[NCclimber 0]

Maybe he's talking about the flip side to the tree hugging, vegan, feminist pro-choice, agnostic, pro-welfare, pro-gender and racial preference, pro-tax hike communists.

Clearly, if you're one of the above, then you're all of the above.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>What group are you talking about?

Specifically the Marshall Institute, led by Seitz and Singer.

So, when you say "Oddly, the same group/same people deny all of the above!" you're basically talking about two people, regarding some of the issues.

[lawrocket 3]

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.

The views of non-anthropogenic causes of global warming are contrary and opposd to th views of the environmental scripture, er, um, consensus.

"For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgment of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves." - Copernicus

Tell me WHY Dr. GRay is wrong.

Quote

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.

Though not a "conspiracy," it's an open market. You can make money on it, lose money on it, or sit it out. It makes BILLIONS per year.

This is not to say that the environmental business is not a good thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>It's not a "report" . .

Of course it is, and I think you understand the difference between reporting on and causing deaths. Let's not do the "haul out the dictionary" thing; I'm certain you know the difference.

I do know the difference, when it says: people die every year from the effects of global warming...

So, please explain how that does not attribute Global Warming causes of death.

I'm surprised they haven't done their report about the President being the cause of Hurricane Katrina. Then they could attribute all the deaths in the world to our President. Then, we can start looking at the real cause of Chinese overpopulation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[JackC 0]

Quote

Tell me WHY Dr. GRay is wrong.

I've not read his research and I suspect neither have you since one of the main objections to his position is that he hasn't even published his research.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Quote

Though not a "conspiracy," it's an open market. You can make money on it, lose money on it, or sit it out. It makes BILLIONS per year.

I don't know of any academics who treat research as a way of turning a profit. Is that an american thing?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I've not read his research and I suspect neither have you since one of the main objections to his position is that he hasn't even published his research.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Yes I did. But you mentioned that it probably wouldn't withstand peer review. I wanted to know why.

Quote

I don't know of any academics who treat research as a way of turning a profit. Is that an american thing?

A VERY American thing. Want to do research? Well, you need someone to pay for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'm surprised they haven't done their report about the President being the cause of Hurricane Katrina.

False argument.
Katrina and the Katrina disaster are two different things. I only mention it because the above nonsensical argument has been floating around this debate a lot lately.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I've not read his research and I suspect neither have you since one of the main objections to his position is that he hasn't even published his research.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Yes I did. But you mentioned that it probably wouldn't withstand peer review. I wanted to know why.

Quote

I don't know of any academics who treat research as a way of turning a profit. Is that an american thing?

A VERY American thing. Want to do research? Well, you need someone to pay for it.

There are a few 'for profit" research intitutions in the US, a lot of "not for profits".

In universities (with which I am familiar) research is a money losing proposition overall - I know, I used to be a dean. The purpose of the research is (a) to enhance prestige, (b) as an incentive to hire the smartest people, (c) to do this while losing as little money as possible.

"There are many ways to lose money. Women are the most fun. Gambling is the fastest. Research is the most certain.” —Lord Ernest Hives, former Chairman of Rolls Royce.

...

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

Yes I did. But you mentioned that it probably wouldn't withstand peer review. I wanted to know why.

Well, Bill Gray is on the record as saying "I predict, now I think I know as much as anybody, I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's.". Several climatologists have allegedly tried to take him up on his offer and so far none of them have even received a reply.

Dr. Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M had this to say about Professor Gray's views on climate change. link
"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."

If that lot is true, it would suggest that Bill Gray is out of touch with modern climate research and is basically just a lot of well publicised hot air.

Quote

A VERY American thing. Want to do research? Well, you need someone to pay for it.

Pay for it yes, turn a profit no. I'm not sure you could call it an open market either. Any random guy simply setting up shop as a scientific researcher and attempting to get grant money wouldn't turn out to be a profitable business. Scientists are rarely in it for the money.