.jpg)
Dr. William Gray is a vocal opponent of the
anthropogenic global warming theory and recently
took issue with Dr. James Hansen of NASA's GISS.
For a look at Dr. Gray and the other key players in
the global warming debate, see our slideshow below.
Posted on 02/11/2009 12:55:49 AM PST by neverdem
The letter itself (available here on icecap.us) takes issue with some of the decision making processes within the AMS which is not particularly relevant to us. What is revealing however is Dr. Gray’s arguments against the global warming theory and Dr. Hansen’s research. Today we will take a look at the discussion in the letter about Dr. Hansen himself and his credentials.
For those that aren’t familiar with him, Dr. Gray is a Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts. He is a highly trained and respected meteorologist with decades of practical experience in monitoring the earth and its climate.
In the letter he points out that Dr. Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is not a trained climatologist nor a meteorologist. His formal background is actually in astronomy which does make one wonder how he has become one of the primary mouthpieces for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or manmade climate change.
In what Dr. Gray calls, ‘Hansen’s Free Ride,’ he says it is, “surprising that Hansen has been able to get away with his unrealistic modeling efforts for so long.” Gray says that Hansen’s place of reverence among AGW advocates is at least in part thanks to former Vice President Al Gore’s desire to exploit climate change for personal and political reasons. He goes on to essentially claim that Dr. Hansen is an opportunist who was fortunate to make his proclamations at a time when there was indeed some warming noted. He says:
“One explanation is that he has received strong support from Senator/Vice President Al Gore who for over three decades has attempted to make political capital out of increasing CO2 measurements. Another reason is the many environmental and political groups (including the mainstream media) who are eager to use Hansen’s modeling results as justification to push their own special interests that are able to fly under the global warming banner. A third explanation is that he has not been challenged by his peer climate modeling groups who apparently have seen possibilities for research grant support and publicity gains by following Hansen’s lead. Yet another reason has been the luck of his propitious timing. His 1988 Senate testimony occurred after there had been global warming since the mid-1970s and we were experiencing a hot summer. And the global warming that occurred over the next 10 years (to 1998) gave an undeserved justification to his CO2 warming claims. Had Hansen given his Senate testimony in the 1970s or today (since we have seen weak global cooling since 2001) his alarmist rhetoric would have been taken much less seriously.”
It is clear that Dr. Gray does not only not believe Hansen’s theories, he also believes that the man himself is unqualified to be held in such high esteem. Certainly Hansen has become a divisive figure in the AGW debate, particularly with rather inflammatory and hard to believe proclamations like he recently made saying that President Obama had ‘four years to save the world.’
.jpg)
In the end, I do think we have to stop and think about the debate over manmade climate change. Is it truly ‘settled’ science as the AGW advocates would have us believe? Or are there many more like Dr. Gray that simply have not had their voices heard? And if we have not had an open an honest debate, what are we to believe?
Tomorrow we will continue to take another look at Dr. Gray’s letter but with an emphasis on the scientific aspect of his argument against the anthropogenic global warming theory.
You will understand what an endless loop means if you click on the slideshow.
Hansen is a fanatic, a freaking Moonie about this.
Dr. Gray deserves our cheers and should be a required speaker at public schools where only one point of view is n presented.
What is it about astronomers? Carl Sagan and his 'greenhouse effect' and now this:
...For those that aren’t familiar with him, Dr. Gray is a Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts. He is a highly trained and respected meteorologist with decades of practical experience in monitoring the earth and its climate. In the letter he points out that Dr. Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is not a trained climatologist nor a meteorologist. His formal background is actually in astronomy which does make one wonder how he has become one of the primary mouthpieces for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or manmade climate change...
Perhaps it is because astronomers trained their telescopes at Venus, a planet about the same size as Earth and one that has a very definite greenhouse effect, and the sight made an emotional impression that overbalanced the reason.
Sure, if you have methane and CO2 at the kind of concentrations Venus has you do get a greenhouse effect, but Venus is NOT the same as Earth. The concentrations are extremely high, and there are no correcting mechanisms (like life) to reduce methane and CO2.
Venus Temperature Still Uniformly High
This recent high temperature formation of Venus is consistent with its high surface temperature, > 462 °C (736 K / 864 °F) measured by Venera and Pioneer Venus (PV) probes, identical in completely different regions of the globe. The surface rocks are hot enough to melt lead and zinc. Proof that the temperature is driven by interior heat comes from the striking uniformity of this temperature - only one or two degrees deviation from pole to pole and on the day and night sides. Given the Venus day/night cycle of 117 earth days, it is obvious that incident sunlight, which is completely extinguished in the lower cloud layer, has absolutely nothing to do with the surface temperature. The global lower cloud layer, at 48 km over the entire planet, is also driven by the great interior heat...
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/planets_venus.html
is there a link to Part 1?
or is that the letter referred to in the article?
What surprises me, is that this anthropogenic global warming hoax continues to “live.” Even when you look into the history of man caused global warming it started with someone in the late 1800s who decided that his fellow man had too many fires and too much industrialization because more carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. When the alchemists (including Jim Hansen) discovered that carbon dioxide did not cause global warming, but followed periods of global warming, they just continued their quest to prove that mankind was causing global warming by putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! This Quixote like work would be amusing but it has become a billion dollar industry!
When told that water vapor clearly dominates our daily weather and climate, they counter-claim that the “real” cause is a mini-volume of an inefficient or even questionable greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide that lets at least 92% of the heat pass right through). These alchemists also ignore that fact that there are practically zero concentrations of it in the upper atmosphere because it is heavier than air. Facts and science do not matter to the alchemists.
Because these illogical and unscientific claims have gotten this far is a reflection of the dumbing-down of the entire world!
Carbon dioxide is really NOT a global greenhouse gas, and should not be presented as such, especially in the concentrations that exist today. Water vapor and clouds are the primary drivers of climate change, as driven by the Sun, whether it be cosmic rays or variations in solar radiation, or magnetic field changes, or distance from the Earth.
Thanks for posting this.
LOL, perfect. That deserves recycling.!.!
Fair enough, but wouldnt an extremely thick atmosphere help to keep that heat in?
Linking the source involves a substantial download. That's why I copied and pasted/posted just the source code. I would start there on links about the author or archive. The reason I posted this is because of Dr. Hansen's formal area of expertise, i.e. astronomy, not climate or climate change.
A 'thick' atmosphere also significantly reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Even though it is much closer to the Sun than Earth, Venus recieves 40% less solar energy from the Sun.
It’s not astronomers in general, it’s the a-holes.
NASA’s Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
NewsBusters | January 1, 2009 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on 01/01/2009 11:15:42 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2157266/posts
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
(Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ )
epw.senate.gov | Jan. 27, 2009 | Marc Morano
Posted on 01/27/2009 5:33:23 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2173112/posts
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Venus' atmosphere is 96% CO2, while Earth has 0.038% CO2. It's a big stretch to think that Earth's CO2 would generate a significant greenhouse effect.
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.
