Battle of the climate scientists - Gray versus Hansen part 2 (Hansen formally trained in astronomy)

examiner.com ^ | February 10, 2009 | Tony Hake

[neverdem]

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.

Last week I wrote about an extremely strongly worded letter from William Gray to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) objecting to their awarding James Hansen their highest award.  This letter pits two of the giants in meteorology and climatology against each other in the debate over manmade climate change and global warming. 

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. 

Who are some of the key players in the global warming debate? Check out our slideshow below.

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.’ 

Global warming - Is it a dire emergency or just a hoax?

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.

[neverdem]

is there a link to Part 1?

It's the first link in commen# 1, but downloading from examiner.com takes a while, and I have DSL broadband from Verizon. If you check the second or third link in commen# 1, you'll find quick little bios, and think your in an endless loop. The 2nd pic & on that link is Carol Browner with another link to an examiner.com story including a link about her ties to the Socialist International in the Washington Times. I didn't read the Washington Times story yet.

Looking for stories on global cooling I found RenewAmerica. Here's a sample.

Reining in the "pale horse" of the theocratic fundamentalist Greenies

The end of America as we know it? Socialized medicine--Part 1

Scientific McCarthyism Check comment# 1.

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Vanders9]

Sure, but the principle of global warming is shown in Venus. If you have an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 rather than nitrogen and oxygen, then you do get a greenhouse effect.

Its just that Earth doesnt :)

[Vanders9]

Granted, but the fact that less energy reaches Venus from the sun wouldnt matter if, as you say, Venus is making so much of its own.

[ForGod'sSake]

Media Muzzles Climate Change Debate

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.