(Top) Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming (at National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/6/07 | Cain Burdeau - ap

[NormsRevenge]

NEW ORLEANS - 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.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

[rock58seg]

This is a moral moment etc...

Apparently Gore paid enough attention in divinity school (before he flunked) to start his own new religion.

GORE_BULL WARMING.

[OKSooner]

I believe this is a duplicate, but it's an embarassment for algore so let's ping it anyway.

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

FReepmail me to get on or off

New!!: Dr. John Ray’s GREENIE WATCH

Honolulugal and I are doing the POGW pinglist while xcamel is on vacation.

[libertarian27]

You guys are doing a great job with the ping list.

And I hope xcamel is having a great vacation in a warm climate :)

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Proenza, said that the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season will likely be more active than normal.

They said that last year. They have as much credibility as Al. They're all nuts.

[ancient_geezer]

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

 

Ahh the ineffible bait and switch from anthropogenic warming to variation in climate from natural causes:

 

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

• "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
  ( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

• Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."

 

It is interesting and to be noted that Gray, is not the only scientist to object to the "Global Warming" = more hurricanes meme, the circumstances surrounding the introduction of said meme should always be remembered:

 

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

An Open Letter to the Community from
Chris Landsea

---

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclo nes more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading trans cripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, whic h is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Cl imate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

[Bassfire]

[KosmicKitty]

the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season will likely be more active than normal.

I believe they said that last year too

Wasn't there something like 3 hurricanes in 06.

So, I'm suppose to believe them?

[yield 2 the right]

Face GW is here to stay.
True or false, Al Gore has the final say.

[tcrlaf]

HERESY!!!
NO ONE is allowed to question the gospel of THE GORACLE!

The Religion of Global Warming shall not be denied, and all non-believers shall be censored, denounced, and decertified!

The Atheist Rapture is upon us, and we must all embrace radical Socialism if we are to survive!/s

[yield 2 the right]

I am the ALgore of the GWorg. Global Warming is fact. Do not attempt to debunk it. We use the politics of personal destruction.Resistance is futile.

[RightWingConspirator]

You can find it here (for now at least).

[Gondring]

that BBC video “the great global warming swindle” got buried already, I predicted that

At least it didn't happen before it was debunked as cherry-picked and its creators admitted putting in fake sources and graphs, right? And heck, it will live on if continues with a lawsuit by Carl Wunsch against them, eh?

[sand88]

At least it didn't happen before it was debunked as cherry-picked and its creators admitted putting in fake sources and graphs, right?

yea, right. It was NOT debunked. Unless, you believe the lies by the leftist blogs and fraud sites, such as realClimate. Realclimate and such sites exists for only one reason -- to smear any scientists who disagrees with the anti-human leftists who want to destroy our way of life. As an engineer who has done modeling of complex designs, I can appreciate the complexity of attempting to model climate systems. If you know anything about "initial conditions" or nonlinear systems, you will be humbled at trying predict with any confidence such an immensely complex system, such as the Earth's climate. The utter panic over trying to "ram" down our throat, the so called solutions (taxes) should give any rational person pause. I am no expert on climate by any means, but I have read a number of articles on the matter (in addition, I stayed at a Holiday Inn) Seriously, the biggest problem humans face is not climate change, but the utter destruction of our way of live, and loss of millions of lives if these anti-capitialistic, anti-human have their way. Ian Clark, Roy Spencer and Dr. Lindzen do NOT have an agenda. They are serious scientists who see Science being perverted by leftists. They are trying to calm the sea of insanity over this issue. We have more to fear from the actions of left, than any climate change that will happen in next 100 years.

[Gondring]

[...] Dr. Lindzen do NOT have an agenda.

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. --Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; April 16, 2007 edition.

Thank you for your endorsement of Dr. Lindzen's fine work, which stands in contrast to the "documentary" that attempted to challenge Michael Moore for the Duplicity in Documentary category. :-)

[BuffaloJack]

I come from Alabama
With my banjo on my knee
I’m going to Louisiana,
My true love for to see

It rained all night
The day I left
The weather it was dry
The sun so hot,
I froze to death
Susanna, don’t you cry

---

I suppose global warming was in full swing when Stephen Foster wrote the lyrics to Oh, Suzanna.

[Gondring]

BTW, I am an earth scientist who has done climate modeling yet is still humbled by his wife’s mathematics in her master’s thesis on non-linear atmospheric modeling. :-)

The point I would like to make is that conservatives should be making the case that REGARDLESS of the cause, we must face and the changing climate and properly manage our response. Killing our economies is likely not the best approach. Reducing emissions might help—but might also cause more damage than gain, if not done correctly. Same with taxes—I disagree with W about “benevolent big nanny-state government,” and would prefer prosperity over paternalism. (Yes, mixing metaphors... :-)

Many conservatives speak of the religion of global warming, but then respond in their own dogmatic ways against reality. If we stay on the side of reality, then we are in a far stronger position, IMHO.

[Gondring]

Dr. Wunsch’s website, not RealClimate...
http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/

[cookcounty]

As soon as any scientist wants to question Gore, Prince Albert dissembles, basically admitting he's not a scientist, clueless, and doesn't know what he's talking about.

But the pandering press (and Hollyweird), are enthralled by their love of a good story full of expectations of colossal catastrophe (Gosh that sells! ---you can get yourself a second BMW with a story like this!). So they keep sucking up his idiocy without a hint of embarrassment.

[sand88]

Dr. Wunsch’s website, not RealClimate...

thank you for your thoughtful replies and the link. I read his reply and it was as I expected -- his politics is driving his science. Climate change has become so politiczied by ONLY the left, that rational discourse is nearly impossible. Most people fall into left or right when it comes to government. It is obvious from Mr Wunsch's reply that he believes "government" is a force for good. Many of us in the mindset of our Founders, believe that government at best is a necessary evil, at its worse, an intolerable one. So, yes, many on the right view Al Gore and his type with deep suspicion. The left's true concerns are NOT about climate, but about controlling humans through government force. Mr. Wunsch wrote the following in his reply, Some of the details in the film make me cringe, but I think the overall thrust is appropriate. To the extent that he has gotten some things wrong, I mainly fault his scientific advisers, who should know better, but not Al Gore.

he says the "thrust is appropriate"? I gather he means Gore's solution of forcing a drastic lower of our standards of living, condemning millions in the third world to death all the while profiting through his carbon trading scam. It is disgusting that people truly believe that some tax on capitalistic countries will effect any significant change in climate. It is utterly ridiculous. His final statement that shows he leans left in his political outlook is that he "faults" Gore's advisor's? That is utterly laughable. Mr Gore set out with a goal (to profit from this scam) and went about finding scientists who would give him credibility. Throughout Mr. Wunsch's reply you can easily see that it pains him to project himself as "balanced" and fearful of arguments on either side. Well, Mr. Wunsch should know most one the right would be happy to let the climate do what it will do and leave other humans alone. On the other hand, Gore and his ilk want "immediate" steps taken. They are panicked and insist with rabid zeal the immediacy of the problem. They know they only have so much time to fool the masses. Deep down, they have to know that in 10, 20 years this so called problem with be seen to be non issue. Again, the sole purpose of Gore and his ilk is to steal the wealth of the productive citizens and condemn the humans of this Earth to the living Hell of totalitarian control. They are control freaks. Their goals are truly Evil. Again, thank your for your thoughtful comments.

[sand88]

we must face and the changing climate and properly manage our response. Killing our economies is likely not the best approach.

I agree, good points. I think our response should be "face the change and adapt." Gore wants to tax and control. Free humans are quite resourceful. I want the children of the world to be happy and face the world in a positive light. Gore's propaganda is scaring our kids and saying "only the nanny state" has the solution. The left screams about everything being a problem and are negative about most things in life. A miserable lot I must say...

With your wife being a climate modeler, she must have access to some serious computing resources. Good luck to both of you.