I wonder if the libs will now call this guy a sell out kook right winger? Or say he is to old to know what he is talking about.



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

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."
MCT

Man, you are in love with Al Gore.

Your guy makes an interesting point about the number of hurricanes in the United States. But even he acknowledges that ocean temperatures are warming and that he is an outsider among his peers.....

Just so you realize that there's a completely different assessment of the data out there:

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=105038822007

Global warming's effect on wind patterns and sea temperatures have more than doubled the annual number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean over the past century, says a new study by US scientists.

Excerpts from the study by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology were released in the United States late Sunday.

The analysis identifies three periods since 1900, during which the average number of hurricanes and tropical storms surged dramatically and then remained elevated and relatively steady.

The first period, between 1900 and 1930, saw an average of six Atlantic tropical cyclones, of which four were hurricanes and two were tropical storms.

From 1930 to 1940, the annual average increased to 10, consisting of five hurricanes and five tropical storms.

In the most recent period, from 1995 to 2005, the average reached 15, of which eight were hurricanes and seven were tropical storms.

This latter period, Holland and Webster caution, has not yet stabilized, which means the average hurricane season may be more active in the future.

"These numbers are a strong indication that climate change is a major factor in the increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes," Holland said in a statement.

The scientists see a strong correlation between the spike in storm activity and rising sea surface temperatures, which "feed" hurricanes.

Over the last 100 years, these temperatures have risen by about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.7 degrees Celsius, the study asserts.

The temperatures rose approximately 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.4 degrees Celsius, in a period leading up to 1930, which was marked by some of the deadliest storms to hit the Atlantic Coast of the United States.

The so-called Galveston hurricane of 1900 that went down in history as the worst ever to hit the United States, took an estimated 8,000 lives.

The second-worst storm that ravaged southeastern Florida and killed about 2,500 local residents occurred in 1928, according to data compiled by the National Hurricane Center.

Another hurricane that hit the Miami area in 1926 caused 372 deaths, a 1919 storm in the Florida Keys was responsible for 287 fatalities, and an unnamed category four hurricane that befell New Orleans in 1915 took 275 lives.

A similar water temperature rise, according to the study, was recorded leading up to 1995.

The second-costliest US Atlantic hurricane, Andrew, hit Florida and Louisiana 1992, causing 26.5 billion dollars in damage.

Katrina, the costliest and third-deadliest US Atlantic storm, which killed about 1,500 people and caused 81 billion dollars in damage, ravaged the states of Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005.

Critics of the global warming theory have often held that data showing increased hurricane activity account for better observation rather than changing global weather patterns.

But Holland and Webster refute these assertions, arguing that the distinct transitions in hurricane activity noted by the study occurred around 1930 and 1995, while aerial and satellite observation of hurricanes stated respectively in 1944 and in 1970.

"We are of the strong and considered opinion that data errors alone cannot explain the sharp, high-amplitude transitions between the climatic regimes, each with an increase of around 50 percent in cyclone and hurricane numbers, and their close relationship with" sea surface temperatures, the authors state.

The 2006 hurricane season, the study notes, was far less active than the two preceding years, in part because of the emergence of an El Nino weather phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean.

However, "even a quiet year by today's standards would be considered normal or slightly active compared to an average year in the early part of the 20th century," Holland said.

The full report is expected to be published Monday by the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

I thought we were supposed to get hit with like 50 class 5 hurricanes last season... that's pretty much what they made it out to be. "Well Katrina is just the BEGINNING of what is to come!!"....

And then it was a dud...

I guess that is what happens when you try to predict the whether...

I really thought this thread would get more replys, I guess it is ignored.

It's just tired, I think.

That is to bad, it is one of my favorite topics.

It just states the obvious, Trav. Gore is a political hack who has no idea what he is talking about. No response needed.

It just states the obvious, Trav. What it states is the simple fact that is any complex scientific issue there are those who read the data in differing ways. The tired aspect is the politicizing of the issue and demonizing of Gore by some on the Right.

It's sour grapes by folks who can't stand for someone not in their club to be successful. The Academy is wrong. The Nobel panel is wrong. Look here's some one who agrees with me!

This is a serious matter for serious folks.

actually hte nobel prize became a joke a long time ago, back around the time the terroist Arafat got it. Them being wron is no suprise.

actually hte nobel prize became a joke a long time ago, back around the time the terroist Arafat got it. You do know that he did not win it alone, yes? Do you slam the panel for the other participants in the action which led to the award, or is your only consideration Right wing political dogma?

Right wing political dogma.

Right wing political dogma.Hot damn that was refreshing! Love ya, Trav.:cool:

I was watching a Tom and Jerry (or was it Sylvester?) cartoon the other day. Tom, as usual, was trying to chase down Jerry and failing miserably. Eventually Tom gets out a saw and begins to saw a bigger hole around the mouse entrance in the wall. As he saws, another saw comes out of the floor of the house and begins sawing a hole around Tom's feet. This "mystery" saw moves at the exact cadence as Tom's saw. So Tom decides to stop sawing to see what the saw around his feet does. Sure enough, the other saw stops sawing too. Tom starts up again, and the saw at his feet continues sawing as well.

At this point, you have to ask....is it wise to continue sawing? Well, Tom decides he wants Jerry bad enough that he continues, and of course, the hole around his feet completes before Tom can finish sawing the new door. Tom falls through the floor, crashing painfully.

We are kinda like a big dumb Tom in a cartoon. We don't know why the saw is sawing around our feet, but by god, we are going to keep on going anyhow.

Id like to make a suggestion here.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to take a neutral stance on this Global Warming debate,and try working out what the fuck is going on.

I say this because both sides claim that its too early to say for sure whether human living conditions effect the worlds climate.

Let's not waste that approach on just global warming. Religion could do with such treatment even more than GW!

Is right.

Putting such a scenario into practise would be some trick.

Would do away with a lot of the worlds problems tho.

Exactly what I said a couple months ago,right hears.
That many of those Scientists who willingly went along with Gore
were faced with Either complicity or Denying of Grant Monies.
Gore has known for some time,since as early as '92 those in
the Scientific Community that would be willing to side with him.
Gore was on an environmental kick since the early 90's and had
worked with Clinton to Fund,Via grants many scientists.
Thats the connect.And the " dirty little secret ".