Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tempest: A handful of skeptics maintain that Global Warming is a hoax
Washington Post ^ | May 28, 2006 | Joel Aschenbach

Posted on 05/28/2006 5:32:49 AM PDT by billorites

IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.

He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first.

He's loud. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

But he's also angry. He's outraged.

He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes.

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; globalwarming; hoax; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-153 next last
To: spatso

Well, we have a close family friend who was an Exxon exec his entire life, one of the finest men I've ever known. Algore, OTOH, is a second rate jerk, but a lifelong politician.


101 posted on 05/28/2006 3:22:35 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
No it is only a handful of media hysterics who claim Global Warming is man made.
 
And they are the ones who are submitting study grants at the cost of $1,700,000,000.
...always follow the money.

102 posted on 05/28/2006 4:14:06 PM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: billorites

bump


103 posted on 05/28/2006 5:00:03 PM PDT by woofie (Another actor with political ideas.................John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
So in other words, if you happen to be a disagree with the prevailing scientific orthodoxy - regardless of your credentials, your reasoning, or the science involved - you are treated like a medieval heretic and burned at the stake.

An informative look into the state of scientific inquiry, especially in light of some of the threads on FR.
104 posted on 05/28/2006 5:14:42 PM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
I'm fascinated by the whole global warming / climate change debate. It represents an issue where science, politics and religion all converge. No wonder that people get so heated when their scientific arguments are responded to with a religious answer, or vice versa. Anyway... Science has a great deal to say about the issue. These are six points that science can speak to regarding the whole issue. All are open to debate, but are still answerable, IMHO.

1) That global warming was actually happening.

2) That it was the result of human activity (not just normal cyclical natural variations).

3) That the degree of human-caused global warming would cause significant harmful consequences.

4) That these consequences could be reversed by taking certain actions.

5) That any such proposed action (such as the Kyoto treaty) would actually be effective in preventing/reversing the harm.

6) That any such proposed action wouldn't cause worse harm than it prevented (i.e., that the "cure" wouldn't be worse than the "disease").

105 posted on 05/29/2006 3:52:37 AM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

That's what all the meteorologists I've ever talked to at the NWS have said also.

106 posted on 05/29/2006 4:03:25 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
#1 has been answered in the affirmative. No one denies that the earth has been warming.

#2 has also been answered in the affirmative, but the degree to which it is man made is open to some debate. But asside from a handful of cranks, no one doubts that human activity has had a significant impact.

The rest of your questions are all very much open to debate. IMHO, economists are probably better equipped to answer questions 5-6 than are scientists.

107 posted on 05/29/2006 4:12:23 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
RE: #1 No, I deny it so you're wrong. Many people deny that the earth has been warming. It entirely depends on what time scope you choose to look at.

Over the past 100 years the earth appears to have been warming. Over the past 5, cooling. Over the past 20,000 warming. Over the past 2,000,000...
Define the time scale of analysis.

RE: #2 No, you're wrong. It is not "common knowledge" that anthropogenic sources are contributing (or not contributing) to climate change. It is precisely this that is the subject of intense scientific debate. It is not accepted fact that increases in CO2 levels in the troposhere have caused any changes in global climate. I expect that places me among "a handful of cranks."

None of these issues are settled.

Oh, on behalf of economists I would have to protest you're suggestion that they are something other than scientist.

I suspect most economists would prefer to be judged on the basis of their methodology.

108 posted on 05/29/2006 4:46:17 PM PDT by billorites (I've got a hockey stick I'd like to sell you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine; All
More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth

Thanks for posting that. So, 15,000 SCIENTISTS is just "a handful," huh? It's a dagger right to the heart of the WaPo's headline.

One of your links had THIS link inside: More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth

109 posted on 05/29/2006 4:54:10 PM PDT by FreeKeys ("It's pretty pathetic when a Kennedy is too drunk to drive into the Potomac." -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: billorites

He is not in the minority, his is being censored.

The global worming leftists are just using the goebles tactics to push their collecitivist commie crap.


110 posted on 05/29/2006 4:56:51 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin; All
I am building a file refuting Global Warming propaganda...

Former "deep green" Bjorn Lomborg actually 
does some research and finds LOTS of things 
wrong with environmental dogma HERE.
Lomborg: IGNORE Global Warming !
Bjorn Lomborg is vindicated
BJORN LOMBORG
Get:  "AN EVENING WITH BJORN LOMBORG" (DVD)
The 
Skeptical 
Environmentalist:

>Measuring the Real State of the World 
by  Bjorn Lomborg
Global Crises, Global Solutions by Bjorn Lomborg (Editor)

"One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism." -- Michael Crichton

111 posted on 05/29/2006 5:07:24 PM PDT by FreeKeys ("Journalists almost always screw up science stories." -- Charley Reese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Thought for today:
Be thankful that prehistoric people built so many fires that they caused the glaciers to recede from North America.

112 posted on 05/29/2006 5:16:01 PM PDT by syriacus (The humane solution for pain is a P-A-I-N--killer, not a P-A-t-I-e-N-t--killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

The vindication links have been changed to:
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/03/case_against_sc.shtml
and
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2003/12/skeptical_envir.shtml


113 posted on 05/29/2006 5:17:43 PM PDT by FreeKeys ("When covering what scientists say, reporters are ... prone to getting the story wrong."-JohnStossel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
Guess what?  Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer
Antarctic Ice Core Data Shows Carbon Dioxide Concentrations are NOTHING NEW
Obstinate glaciers refuse to cooperate with climate-change theorists
10 THINGS YOU OUGHT TO CONSIDER ABOUT "GLOBAL WARMING"
8 REASONS "GLOBAL WARMING" IS NOTHING BUT A  COLO$$AL SCAM 
Aliens Cause Global Warming!  by Michael Crichton|||||Michael Crichton talks environmentalism
Michael Crichton's State of Fear  and the End of Radical Environmentalism
The Middle Ages Were Warmer Than Now
Solar and Cosmic Radiation Proven to Cause 150 million-year  Warming/Cooling Cycle
Global Warming Bombshell: The prime "evidence" ... turns out to be fabricated using bad math
THE GLOBAL WARMING INFORMATION CENTER IS LOCATED HERE
"TAMPERING WITH NATURE": The ABC Special that almost got John Stossel fired
More such links |||||||||| Nature???"Nature is a mass murderer." |||||||||| Death by Environmentalism

"Global Warming is questionable. ... Are things warmer than they were a few years ago? Yes. But... WHY? That's the real question. There is also global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Titan. Did SUV's cause that as well? Are Martians using fossil fuels? Or are we looking at a solar event over which we have zero control? I personally think we're looking at a normal solar cycle. Things warm up and cool down when you look at the long term climate history. We STILL aren't anywhere near as warm as we were during the Medieval Warm Period!" -- "Reese," aka "Mamapajamas"
See: "This technique has enabled scientists to accurately measure temperatures in the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years and the results make nonsense of the global warming scare. ... The sea temperature calculations prove that between 600AD and 1100AD temperatures were about 2°F higher than they are now. During this period, northern Europe experienced a golden age for agriculture. Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony and there were vineyards in the south of England." HERE. How did Greenland get its name anyway? Do you think it was just one more ironic joke by those humorous, sophisticated Vikings?  Hmm?
"One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism." -- Michael Crichton

114 posted on 05/29/2006 5:26:54 PM PDT by FreeKeys (The Prudhoe Bay caribou herd has grown to SEVEN TIMES its previous size since oil operations began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: billorites
RE: #1 No, I deny it so you're wrong. Many people deny that the earth has been warming. It entirely depends on what time scope you choose to look at. Over the past 100 years the earth appears to have been warming. Over the past 5, cooling. Over the past 20,000 warming. Over the past 2,000,000... Define the time scale of analysis.

The past 100 is what's relevent, since that is the time period during which human C02 emmissions have been increasing. Even you seem to agree that it's been warming over that period. Thanks for proving my point.

As to the last 5 years, you can't infer a trend using a 5 year window of data of such noisy data.

RE: #2 No, you're wrong. It is not "common knowledge" that anthropogenic sources are contributing (or not contributing) to climate change. It is precisely this that is the subject of intense scientific debate.

No it's not. A couple dissenting voices do not make for an intense scientific debate.

It is not accepted fact that increases in CO2 levels in the troposhere have caused any changes in global climate.

It is an accepted fact that they have contributed to it. Excatly how much is a matter of debate, but no there's no question it is significant.

I expect that places me among "a handful of cranks."

Probably, but I don't know you well enough to judge.

Oh, on behalf of economists I would have to protest you're suggestion that they are something other than scientist.

I am an economist myself, thank you very much. I was using the term "scientist" according to popular usage, which typically refers to those working in the natural sciences. It wasn't intended as a slight.

We eonomists are social scientists, in that we apply the scientific method to social questions. Our discipline is no less rigorous than that of many natural scientists, but it requires the use of very different tools, and hence it is wholly appropriate to put it in a different category of knowledge.

115 posted on 05/29/2006 5:56:21 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
I'm glad to have you join the debate.

Let's address the issues one at a time.

Regarding the first point, whether global warming is indeed occurring over the past 1000 years ears or so.

Where do you come down on the the Mann vs. M&M controversy?

116 posted on 05/29/2006 7:09:36 PM PDT by billorites (I've got a hockey stick I'd like to sell you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

Thanks! Terrific! :)


117 posted on 05/30/2006 5:06:23 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

And...I just added "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to my library request list. I should have it rather quickly because the Looney Libs and Gorebots around here won't be reading it. *Rolleyes* I'm surprised that there are six copies in circulation, actually! :)


118 posted on 05/30/2006 5:09:58 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Ten years ago, Fred Smith says, the Competitive Enterprise Institute had contributions from companies across the board in the petroleum industry. It still gets money from Exxon Mobil, the biggest and most hard-line oil company on the climate change issue, but many of its donors have stopped sending checks.

hmmmm I can believe it was hugely misintrepeted, but I am reluctant to trust scientist that are on payroll by (petroleum) compagnies any more than scientists hired by greenpeace.
119 posted on 05/30/2006 8:02:37 AM PDT by S0122017
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
A good summary of arguments against anthropogenic theories of global warming has been published recently in Scientific American.

BUMP for later reading.

120 posted on 05/30/2006 8:07:05 AM PDT by CedarDave (Sleeper trolls are like cicadas - emerge in the heat and contribute nothing but loud annoying noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-153 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson