Dr. William Gray rocks. Bring it on Al Gore.

Laura, perhaps there needs to be a change in language on this blog since you claim to be neutral (or at least running the blog in a neutral manner). You describe Dr. Gray as a "global warming skeptic", which is incorrect from his own words in the video. This also causes problems with people like myself who know that the Earth is warming up from the LIA in a natural cycle (like Dr. Gray states).

We do not disagree with the fact that there is some warming going on, what we are "skeptical" about is the "A" in AGW, but the terminology used makes it sound like we reject all evidence of warming. Heh, I reject AGW for the same reason I accept GW, going with the rigorous hard science methodology over WAGs.

Not quite the topic of today's posting... but did you happen to read this: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2862.htm ??

Amongst other things, it says: "Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for April was the third warmest on record"
"...the global April land-surface temperature was the warmest on record. Elevated monthly mean temperatures�more than 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) above average�covered large parts of Asia and Western Europe" and
"...During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade."

Deniers... where are you now?

While I'm not questioning the fact of global warming, I have a few questions that I'd like to ask.

1.How can computer models that are inaccurate after a week be so accurate 50 years into the future?

2.With most land on earth being north of the equator,wouldn't the multi-decadal cycle of atlantic ocean temps have an amplified effect
on average world temps?

3.It appears that consumer demand is the REAL
catalyst for "going green" in the USA. What about China, Russia, the Middle Eastern
Nations,etc. Why isn't anybody complaining
about them.

4.At some point in history, the glaciers
all the way to the Appalation mountains. What
happened there? Cars? Smokestacks? Probably not.
It was most likely methane gas from dinosaur farts.(for all those who claim that now it's
cow farts.)

My real point is I'm an environmentalist that thinks this issue has been hijacked by scoialist/
communists who simply want to bring America down.
If I were wrong, the whole world would be going green. Instead we get the "leaders" of our cause
like AlGore using biodiesel in his private jet.
I guess we should do as they say, not as they DOO!

I thank Dr. Gray for standing up and speaking out. Im sure there are hundreds of scientists that agree with him and i hope he gives them the backbone to speak up also.. All i hear on the news these days is people jumping on the bandwagon trying to get there share of the GW goldmine. Good job Dr. Gray.

Oh boy, here we go again -- another ridiculous softball "interview" with NO followup.

For example, Gray claims that the difficulty in publishing his papers is bias on the part of both government and the scientific establishment. This begs for some specifics -- like what proposals did he submit and why they were rejected.

In the interview, Gray says:
My views on this were known, and I had a terrible time getting funding.

and:
I lost NOAA money and government money.

Fehlinger "follows up" with this editorial pap:
In fact, the government turned down Gray's grant requests thirteen straight times

Excuse me? Surely such a statement demands some deeper follow-up, such WHAT the grant requests were and WHY they were declined. Government agencies routinely and correctly decline enormous numbers of grants. The repetition of balderdash like this not only does not contribute to the discussion, it worsens the debate by adding smoke and mirrors. It reinforces an incendiary claim of "bias" by repeating completely unsupported allegations. That's not "objective discussion", it's more like crying "fire" in a crowded theater. You embarrass yourselves with such tabloid hysteria. If accuweather wants to claim that government funding under Clinton/Gore was biased towards AGW, then make your case on its merits. This kind of stuff is just noise and drivel.

Similarly, if you at accuweather want a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of Gray's "theories", please start a thread where we can do so. You might, for example, offer the following page that Fehlinger flashed and apparently neglected to read, from www.realclimate.org:

Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes.
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.
...
Concluding remarks
The Wall Street Journal has insinuated that there is some ageism involved in the reaction to Gray's work ("Hurricane debate shatters civility of weather science," by Valerie Bauerlein, Feb.2, 2006). The problem is not Gray's age -- we all revered Henry Stommel who did some of his finest work in his seventies. The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. The WSJ also made much of the withdrawal of an invitation for Gray to join a debate on hurricane trends at an Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. We can't speak for the organizers, but we find it easy to believe that their decision was guided more by the invalidity of Gray's scientific reasoning than by any political or personal considerations.

Instead of insinuating that this realclimate piece is a cheapshot, as Fehlinger does, please ... if you want to advance constructive discussion and understanding ... POST THE URL (as I did here) and invite us to discuss it.

What Fehlinger did here was more suited to the National Enquirer than a blog like this. I strongly encourage you at Accuweather to either rethink or cancel these Fehlinger pieces -- they significantly detract from the legitimacy you are, I think, working hard to create and maintain.

"...During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade.....Deniers, where are you now?"

GW advocate Richard Balling reports a ST rate of increase of 0.16 deg C for 1915-1945, as compared to 0.17 deg C for 1975-2001.

Emiliano: I am not sure where your facts are from, There was actually global cooling fro the late 40's till the early 70's but who cares about that right.. we were pumping out CO like crazy then. hmmmm weird isnt it..

What Fehlinger did here was more suited to the National Enquirer than a blog like this. I strongly encourage you at Accuweather to either rethink or cancel these Fehlinger pieces -- they significantly detract from the legitimacy you are, I think, working hard to create and maintain.

Posted by BrooklineTom | May 28, 2007 11:41 AM

------

You can see why most find the MSM so difficult to watch doing AGW puff pieces with little or no balance.

All the networks have thrown out inaccurate, one sided pieces showing the same clip of the calving glacier, and the now totally discredited scene of the polar bear standing on the lone tiny iceberg, to millions of viewers. I hear no screaming from you and your ilk.

Now you are admonishing Accuweather (Hannon, Fehlinger) for one sided reporting to, what, 100 people, who frequent this blog.

Tom, you work very hard to convince that same 100 people that the end of the world is near...and we all get it. However your constant bleating and narcissistic rantings are getting old and probably chasing away new posters that may contribute something NEW and REFRESHING to the group.

Not everyone is as enamored with your 1000 word diatribes as you are.

Love,

Dave

So Dave, what part of my complaint do you disagree with?

Dave,

BT's zealousness for action on AGW is of no fault simply because he doesn't scream foul about the tactics of some in the advocacy of fighting AGW. Of all the posters here, I find him virtually impeccable.

BT, Al Gore is an alarmist!

BT: Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review.

The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying.

We can't speak for the organizers, but we find it easy to believe that their decision was guided more by the invalidity of Gray's scientific reasoning than by any political or personal considerations.

Thank you so much for helping highlight the propaganda techniques of the AGW position. Too bad the science trends against them.

Before getting to your quotes, the name of your source site itself is revealing "realclimate". Fairly standard stuff, since if they are "real" everyone else isn't.

The first quote: Elephant hurl, which means that _of course_ they don't want to do a point by point since it will open them up to a counterrebuttal. Also included, an appeal to authority with the claim the paper wouldn't pass peer review. I'll let you tell me why it would be submitted in that format for peer review.

The second quote: Ad hom on the good doctor's age, technical and scientific abilities. The use of "big words" leave me laughing. We are still waiting for detailed analysis of AGW hypotheses that include other historical warming cycles and account for the midcentury cooling which the older AGWers claimed was "proof" of as imminent Ice Age.

The third quote: Looks like projection to me. Which is consistent with the propaganda tactics and politics of the majority of AGWers. Guru Al Gore and his instructors would be proud.

If you follow the link, the full article includes a reasonably specific enumeration of things they take issue with. I elided that portion because it seemed too long to quote here. Similarly, Dr. Gray does in fact present arguments that have been discredited for fifty years. He shows no indication that he has familiarized himself with or addressed the challenges to those viewpoints. This is, unfortunately, a risk that those of us who are past fifty face (I am 54). It isn't "ageism" to demand that every practitioner remain current in his or her field of choice. Nor is it ageism to criticize flawed or absent scientific reasoning, whether the contributor be 25 or 75.

It sounds like each of us would welcome a cite, by Fehlinger, of the papers submitted for peer review by Dr. Gray that have been rejected, alongside an enumeration of the grant requests that were declined. Surely this is central to any allegation of bias on the part of the government or scientific community.

In my view, the fact remains that Fehlinger's "interview" took an editorial position on Gray that was inappropriate and unsupported by the facts.

Brookline Tom:

As I'm sure you're aware, the Global Warming Center was designed to be an open forum for information. The Gray interview is simply an example of looking at another point of view. "Headline: Earth", unlike other shows on climate change, takes its position of neutrality very seriously. You hear opinions from every side - whether they're scientists, politicians, or average citizens.

Journalistic ethics is the basis of what I've been taught. Every week, I produce "Headline: Earth" completely conscious of every statement I make. Any bias of opinion I leave to the sound bites - it's their viewpoint, not mine.

It seems you may not fully understand what all goes into producing interesting and informative television. Your video and your sound bites tell the story, and you use the best of each. A wide array of things can happen to ruin a good bite - audio problems, camera placement, whether the speaker takes a natural pause, etc. Thus with the Gray interview and all the others, I take the best I get. Were you sitting in on my discussion with Gray, you would have heard me question him on his reputation, and the fact that many claim he does not have the right to be speaking out on this issue. The bites you hear are the best I got.

I obviously am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. But I know television. From a journalistic standpoint, I am charged with producing stories that are interesting and understandable to any viewer - whether the viewer's a scientist or not. A laundry list citation of papers doesn't make interesting television and won't move the story forward. Any average Joe needs to see these stories and 'get it.' (I invite you to check out this week's upcoming show which lays out Gray's scientific stance.)

All of us at AccuWeather.com continue to look forward to your debate-sparking comments. It's what this center is all about.

Katie Fehlinger

Katie:

Congrats to you on outlining your perspective to BT. Sadly, I can only imagine at the upcoming rebuttal.

Amazingly, it seems that many in the AGW camp rely upon that laundry list of papers that doesn't make good TV. You know the old adage, if you can't convince 'em, baffle 'em with Bull***t. Sad that our policy makers are so easy to baffle. Except maybe the NASA head.

Katie, thanks for your reply.

With all due respect, this editorial insert at about 2:07 left in the clip:
In fact, the government turned down Gray's grant requests thirteen straight times

exemplifies what I mean.

I don't doubt the bites I hear are the best you got. On the other hand, you had plenty of time in the studio to research the above quote. As published, it seems to support his contention. I'm reasonably certain that the facts say otherwise, and I think the effect is to mislead your audience. I know enough about journalism to know that that is very nearly the worst sin you can commit as a journalist.

With 0:37 left in the piece, you again chose, as an editorial insert, a screenshot of the realclimate piece I cited above. In the context of your positioning in the interview, you left a strong impression that this exemplifies the "bias" that he claims the scientific establishment holds against him. He even claims that the argument "hasn't begun."

And yet, as I cited above, in fact the piece DOES, in fact, quite specifically address the issues that the scientific community has with Dr. Gray.

This screen shot was not some clip carefully culled from precious video footage. You, or somebody, had to go out on the web, find the site, get screenshot, and edit it in.

That's intentional, and in my opinion misleading.

While I appreciate your comments, I stand by my observation that you blew this one. If you want me to treat you as an objective journalist, in my opinion you need to take greater effort to be an objective journalist.

I appreciate Katie Fehlinger's and Laura Hannon's pieces here and find Accuweather does in fact provide a more balanced view. When I go to other sites, the only balance is in some of the responses.

That is why I like Accuweather and why I think they will attract more readers because the articles and interviews are more varied.

Like many of the readers here, I have my own views, but I want to see different angles and different stories, and I want to hear from a variety of different sources. It is shameful when someone attacks the credibility of journalists who actually try and be balanced. For these people, the end justifies their means and they are deaf and blind to any point of view that is not 100% aligned with their own.

Brookline Tom is a good example of the smear campaine happening to protect his stance on any opposition. It is absolutly disgusting to me to see him start attacking Katie the journalist because the piece didn't reflect his viewpoint. This kind of behavior is scary but only a small example of a dangerous movement. Thank you for the excellent reporting. Please keep up the good work and don't allow individuals like BT to manipulate.