I encourage those who bother to watch this piece to its end to then read the blog entries on the realclimate link cited above.

I see nothing in these interviews but a crank that the mainstream establishment has correctly decided to ignore.

Mainstream establishment? Ok I see what you are getting at. Dr. Gray who has been revered as a legend doesn't believe the Global Warming hype. Well he must be a boob after all huh. You people are unbelieveable. The man definitely knows what he is talking about and I firmly believe his qualifications are much more than anybody that is a so called Global Warming expert. He merely reaffirms what most people believe already that Global Warming is all hype.

This man has decades of experience in the field BT, don't be so quick to write his views off as coming from a "crank" just because he states what you don't want to hear.

This man has decades of experience in the field BT, don't be so quick to write his views off as coming from a "crank" just because he states what you don't want to hear.

You guys crack me up. Have any of you read the criticisms of Dr. Gray in the above-referenced website or blog? Do any of you YET understand the difference between climatology and meteorology?

Dr. Gray is was (before he retired) a noted hurricane forecaster. That is his field. He is not, nor has he ever been, a noted climatologist. When he speaks on climatology, he speaks from the perspective of an interested retiree from a related and different field.

Here is a quick synopsis (from the above site) of why Dr. Gray's views on climatology are ignored:

1. His views on the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) are supported by neither theory nor data. His "new version" (he abandoned his old claims when evidence proved it to be wrong) is simply WRONG -- he claims that the THC primarily upwells in the tropics. This is simply wrong.

2. His claims about evaporation are, again, simply wrong. He's made major blunders in both theory and calculation along the way.

3. His claims that ocean heat storage is inconsistent with CO2 as a cause of warming are, again, wrong. The only inconsistency Dr. Gray has demonstrated is in his own understanding of theory and calculation. He has made two large blunders: 1) he neglected radiative cooling du to sulfate aerosols, and 2) he neglected "the many links in the chain of physical effects needed to translate a top of atmosphere radiative imbalance to a change in net surface energy flux imbalance.

I "write his views off as comming from a 'crank'" because they do not withstand even cursory analysis. Like the legion of other cranks before him, he loudly proclaims the "bias" of the "establishment" against his views. The truth is that he is simply wrong. Mistaken. Incorrect.

Bob and Chris, perhaps you should not be so quick to embrace the views of someone just because he states what you DO want to hear.

In the end, the facts are all that matter.

BT,

As usual, you demand balance and ridiculous accuracy from one side of the debate, but provide or require NONE from the other.

How about you do a point-by-point review of Inconvenient Truth, viewed by million and UNCHALLENGED by the MSM? With your talent to separate the fly-feces from the pepper, it should be VERY educational. I can't wait for you to tear into the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore, like you critiqued Fehlinger

I won't hold my breath.

Good luck.

LOL. And I do mean "LOL." Did anyone even listen to that guy? He wasn't even making any sense! His big argument is that "modellers" live in a world on their own? Well, I guess it would be nice to have another Earth on which to practice experiments, yes. But in the meantime, what does he suggest? He derides the "modellers" for "writing papers" and "reading each other's papers" and "patting each other on the back." What? Wow, that's a really powerful scientific counter-argument. How does he think science advances? It's called peer-reviewed research that scientists around the world check out and verify and test. Where are this guy's papers? Oh, that's right. He doesn't have any. He can't produce anything that could hold up to any kind of scrutiny. So he makes fun of scientists using meaningless, patronizing insults like "they pat each other on the back." Oh, and he talks about how "modellers" are projecting what the climate will be "100 years after they're dead" and laughs, as if that's funny. I don't even understand what he finds funny about that. And then, of course, he goes on to make HIS predictions about what the future will be after HE is dead. He doesn't even see his own contradictions! Luckily for him, by the looks of him he'll be dead pretty soon, and won't have to live in the world either way. And I'm willing to bet that he doesn't have any children or grandchildren who will have to live in that world either. Which is good, because I'll bet those kids would be pretty bitter with him. Oh, and he goes on to say that humans ARE causing global warming, but we'll only cause it a little bit. And then his big summation is "we can't do anything about it." Really? Cutting pollution won't make our air healthier to breathe? Reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere wouldn't reduce temperatures? He's making all these firm predictions about what the climate will be, even though he claims it can't be predicted. So, basically, you have the world scientific community vs. some guy who can't produce any respected research and who's whole argument seems to be based around a non-sensical, unfunny stand-up act. I'm willing to put my money on real science. Worse case, we'll have a cleaner, healthier planet. Ooops... That's right. I forget. This guy doesn't believe that pollution is bad for us. And there's nothing we can do about it. Well, I could go outside and idle a car all day. That would INCREASE pollution. So I guess there IS something we can do about it, huh? It's just a question of whether we want to do something positive, or negative. And in the meantime, this guy can enjoy the money the oil companies are giving him and live out his few remaining days in blissful, air-conditioned ignorance.

As usual, you demand balance and ridiculous accuracy from one side of the debate, but provide or require NONE from the other.

Fehlinger is the one who opens each piece with the words: "The first show that takes an unbiased look at both sides of the climate change debate."

That's Accuweather's claim, not mine.

"An Inconvenient Truth" makes no bones about being an advocacy piece.

The point is, Dave, that Dr. Gray is a discredited crank -- at least regarding his views on climatology.

Hey Brookline :

First, Dr.Gray makes long-range forecasts using similar computer climate models as the GW crowd based on present and past states of the atmosphere; this is completely different than some TV or NWS meteorologist making a 5-day forecast. Dr.Gray is studying climate using climate models, and is as qualified to add his expertise on climate to the AGW arena as anyone else.

Second, I have read the report on Real-Climate.org, along with much more that is documented on that site, and what I have found is that the site is populated with the same global-warming gravy-train funded alarmists as we see all over the media. Only a fool would not be just as skeptical of them as of everyone else engaged in the debate.

Third, and most important, you - Brookline - are always pushing the difference between meteorologists and climatologists : well Dr.Hansen of NASA, God's gift to AGW as its leading proponent who says Bush tried to silence his AGW views and Tom Brokaw's lead documentary guest stating "the science is overwhelming" IS AN ASTRONOMER !!! What makes him more qualified than DR.Gray or any other AGW skeptic that we should listen to him at all (or you for that matter); it seems to me that Dr.Hansen isn't even trained to forcast climate on Mars, let alone Earth.

Josh,

You crack us all up ! CO2 is not a pollutant - you produce it in your body and exhale it in your breath, as does every other other mammal, reptile and fish. Therefore reducing atmospheric quantities of it doesn't make the air any cleaner or "safer" to breathe. And, yes, Dr.Gray is right, because there is nothing at all that we can do to remove existing quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere, and because there is no way to even reduce the amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere - short of regularly shutting down large numbers of fossil-fired electric power plants (worldwide) and stopping hundreds of millions of motor vehicles (worldwide). Nothing short of this will produce any meaningful reduction in what we pump into the atmosphere (CO2 levels would still rise, but more slowly) - if done even on a temporary basis it would still reduce the CO2 input to the atmosphere, but the socio-economic consequences of doing so would be dramatic, and there is no government on earth that would implement it. No Josh, viable and effective means of addressing the problem are decades away - unless we replaced all fossil-fired electric generation with non-CO2 producing nuclear energy - that could be done in about one decade, but no one is willing to push that option. Therefore Dr.Gray is correct in those regards, and you would do well to better educate yourself in these issues.

Hi Guys,

Well here you go. Just the facts mamm'. I have blogged a number of times and back it up with data that CO2 play little or no role in warming. Here is some more links I will post that show Solar output is one main cause as is THC (ocean current oscillations)along with others they are still studying such as cosmic rays. You will see that CO2 just slow moves up in concentration while temp. moves around then in the other you see solar output and temp. almost go in sync. Thanks all.

Here are the links and some data sets. The Junkscience.com links/Graphs provide the data source for these charts in case you want to look them up.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/aerosol.gif
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CRUglobalan.png
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Dr.Gray is studying climate using climate models, and is as qualified to add his expertise on climate to the AGW arena as anyone else.

The issue isn't whether or not he is qualified to "add his expertise", the issue is how much or little attention is paid to his contributions. I, and others, label him a "crank" and ignore him because his contributions fail on their merits. Rather than meet minimal standards of competence, he instead chooses to attack those who correctly identify the blunders in his work.

...what I have found is that the site is populated with the same global-warming gravy-train funded alarmists...

I note that you offer no rebuttal to the criticisms made of Dr. Gray's contributions.

Third, and most important, you - Brookline - are always pushing the difference between meteorologists and climatologists : well Dr.Hansen of NASA ... IS AN ASTRONOMER !!! What makes him more qualified than DR.Gray ...

Whenever a scientific contribution is offered, the reader has a choice of validating the research themselves or relying on some other body. The purpose of the peer-review process is to raise the confidence of readers that a particular piece has been validated. The purpose of credentials is to raise the confidence of readers that a particular researcher has demonstrated competence in the field of interest.

Dr. Gray is credentialed in meteorology, he has not published in climatology (in peer-reviewed journals), and a specific analysis of the representative contribution cited above reveals gross mis-statements of theory, evidence and fact as well as obvious analytic blunders.

Dr. Hansen is credentialed in astronomy (CV), he has published extensively in climatology (Publications) and has so far managed to avoid the various stumblings of Dr. Gray.

Based on a comparison of their credentials, their publication history in climatology, and the shoddy, incompetent, and blundering "contributions" offered by Dr. Gray, I think the comparison you request falls very strongly in favor of Dr. Hansen.

BT:

Just wanted to make sure that you haven't done any Electrical Engineering here in the Columbus area. According to your 2:10 post, it might seem that your expertise is weather, oops climatology, and not EE.

The stated rational for "discrediting" Dr. Gray and propping up Dr. Hansen simply escapes any logic whatsoever. Oh, I forgot, the only logic that matters is if it is in support of the AGW mantra. So I guess, it is OK, sorry bout that. Carry on.

Back to retirement.

All of this scientific commentary is interesting. In this day and age though, consider who makes the money. Always follow the money. Global Warming is occuring, no doubt. Why? Well, that is where the money comes in. when people sell the destructive forces of mankind, those people wallow in the bucks!!!! If there is nothing to it, nothing happens, no one gets rich. Reasonable? I firmly believe it. Science is always trumped by greed!!!!!!

Thank goodness for Dr. Gray and other credible scientist like him. Can you imagine some of the ridiculous policies that could be implemented without their knowledgable views. We could be making hugh mistakes based on fear and guilt that have disasterous humanitarian consequenses worse than any AGW senerios based on wishy washy science. The debate has just begun!

Tom,

Let me ensure I have this straight. Dr. Gray is shoddy, incompetent, and blundering because he disagrees with you and Dr. Hansen, by virtue of avoiding that mis-step, is obviously a stellar scientist. What a compelling argument!! Not quite sure why I didn't recognize that in the first place. The first step in having a rational discussion is to acknowledge that rational people can come to different conclusions.

What's hilarious is that the deniers' favorite scientist, Dr. Lindzen, has ripped William Gray several times on his lack of knowledge about basic weather theory and physics. Even Lindzen thinks the guy is a joke.

Stick to hurricane forecasting, Dr Gray. It's more your speed.

Let me ensure I have this straight. Dr. Gray is shoddy, incompetent, and blundering because he disagrees with you

Buzz, apparently you neglected to read either the realclimate link cited in the thread-starter or my contribution of June 2, 2007 6:38 PM, above. Dr. Gray's work is shoddy, incompetent and blundering because -- well, because of the specific problems already highlighted.

I note that none of Dr. Gray's defenders have yet attempted to rebut these specific criticisms of his work.

BT,

You like to refer to the criticisms. Ofcourse there are due to the fact he doesn't believe in the GW hype. Sounds to me like you are just another imitaty that makes it out to be a popularity contest. You and your friend Mark are all caught up in the hype and I actually feel sorry for you. Bottom line is both of you need to do your own research and reach your own conclusions. If you do this with an open mind and use your brain not somebody else's you will come to the conclusion it is not man that is responsible but merely natural cycles. The sun is the driver of the weather bar none. CO2 is so far down the list it shouldn't even be on the list. Go ahead and start your berating of people that don't agree with you because that is your only attack. All the links that you like to quote are pro-gobal warming. Wake up and your brain. Your conclusion will be the same as ours, unless it is you that are in denial.

Suppose a prominent retired geologist spent the latter part of his career seeking federal research grants to pursue an investigation into the physical properties of the ether, in order to further understand the behavior of light. Suppose this individual attempted to publish papers expounding his particular theory of the behavior of light. Suppose this individual repeatedly and loudly dismissed relativity as "untested theory", and described those who advocate it as charlatans and frauds.

I have no doubt that such grant requests would be immediately denied. I have no doubt that the papers would not be published. I have no doubt that his "research" would be ignored. I also have no doubt that certain media outlets would happily publicize this individual's complaints, the more extreme the better. I have no doubt that a good many lay people would have a very difficult time understanding why this "theory" is ignored.

I also have no doubt that this individual would find a great many defenders on blogs like this, particularly if the individual found a way to align his "theory" with the social, religious, economic and corporate agenda of the right wing.

Unfortunately, I have grave doubts about whether our culture -- including our political, social, and economic institutions -- could successfully maintain the distinction between the science and the politics of this issue.

Having read Brookline's comments I now understand what the difference is between weather and climate.

Any temperature reading which is believed to support AGW is "climate"

Any temperature reading which does not appear to support AGW is defined as "weather"

Additionally, the term "climate" can be applied to any prediction which is not verifiable or expected to be accurate beyond what could be created by a random number generator.

I have yet to see a single accurate climate prediction by NOAA's climate prediction center. Predictions for this June are looking particularly bad for them.

Of course it is much easier to predict temperatures in June 2107, than June of this year.
Just ask any AGW proponent.

BT,

When you use the term "right wing", you make it clear that it is you who is politically driven. I suspect that if the Democrats were saying that global warming was just a ruse concocted by electric car manufacturers to increase their market share, that you would be calling AGW folks "lemmings". Being a libertarian, I reject the politicization on both sides of the argument and would like to see more common sense and patience than agenda-driven calls for action.

Hi Guy,

Here is a little set of charts and graphs that illustrate the PDO and AMO or ocean oscillations.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ocean_Multidecadal_Cycles.pdf