Noted Scientist Doubts that Global Warming is Man Made

By September 20, 2006Global Warming

Here’s an article from the Littleton (Colo.) Reporter-Herald about noted meteorologist Bill Gray, speaking to a small group of folks at a local breakfast on the topic of global warming. Don’t look for this to make the WaPo, although had he gone the other way, they’d do a pull-out section on it.

In any event, according to this article by Kate Martin, this professor, a noted expert who’s spent some four decades on the issue said “human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.” This would seem to jibe with the chart we posted yesterday. Gray went on to say with certitude that, “I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” he said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

Gray, reports Martin, “said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is ‘a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,’ he said.”

A great act of faith indeed. Somebody oughta tell the guy who wants fact-based debates that there are some inconvenient facts floating around out there in the atmosphere.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • JohnG says:

    Google is our friend…

    As Achenbach noted in The Washington Post Magazine, the weblog Real Climate — produced by scientists who support the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activities — “recently published a detailed refutation of Gray’s theory, saying his claims about the ocean circulation lack evidence. The Web site criticized Gray for not adapting to the modern era of meteorology, ‘which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying.’ ” According to Achenbach, “The field [atmospheric science] has fully embraced numerical modeling, and Gray is increasingly on the fringe.”

    Criticism of Gray’s global warming “theory” has not been limited to supporters of the scientific consensus on global warming. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of meteorology Richard S. Lindzen — whom Achenbach described as the global warming skeptic with “probably … the most credibility among mainstream scientists” — said of Gray: “His knowledge of theory is frustratingly poor.” Gray himself told Achenbach, “I have nobody really to talk to about this stuff.”

    According to Achenbach, Gray also asserted that Gore — whose recent documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), highlights the scientific consensus on global warming — “believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.” (Gray his since reportedly expressed regret for this comment.)

    Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s State of Fear has “the absolute ring of truth.” It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.

    After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

    After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, “OK, maybe the feedback isn’t negative, maybe it’s neutral. I’ll give you that.” I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he’s talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

  • todd says:

    Evidently you are not looking at some of the obvious changes in the weather patterns. You are more concerned with how much money is in your pocket today (manufactoring jobs)and not what your children will inherit from neglect to our planet. I understand your concern for possible job loss but that dosent weigh anything in comparison to the loss of life if we do not slow down co2 emmisions.