Here is Dr. William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, on the CRU emails:
The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as “the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert” says the “ClimateGate” e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among “warmists,” those who believe man’s actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.
“The recent ‘ClimateGate’ revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years,” said Colorado State University’s Dr. William Gray.
His are the annual hurricane forecasts that are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes and he has served as weather forecaster for the United States Air Force. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at CSU and heads the school’s Department
of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.
And check out this blog post from Roy W. Spencer, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, who wrote about a few questions he continually gets on climate change and being a man-made global warming skeptic:
1. Skeptics deny global warming. No, we deny that warming has been mostly human-caused.
2. Skeptics are paid by big oil. The vast majority of skeptics have never been paid anything by Big Oil (me included).
3. Skeptics don’t publish in the peer reviewed literature. Wrong…but it is true we do not have nearly as many publications as the other side does. But it only takes one scientific study to destroy a scientific hypothesis, which is what anthropogenic global warming theory is.
4. Skeptics are not unified with an alternative explanation for global warming. Well, that’s the way science works in a field as immature as climate change science. The biggest problem is that we really don’t understand what causes natural climate variability. Kevin Trenberth has now famously admitted as much in one of the Climategate emails, where said it’s a “travesty” that we don’t know why warming has stopped in the last 7 to 10 years. For century-time-scale changes, some believe it is cloud cover being modulated by cosmic ray activity, which is in turn affected by sunspot activity. A few others think it is changes in the total energy output of the sun (possible, but I personally doubt it). In my opinion, it is internal, chaotic variability in the ocean and atmosphere circulation causing small changes in cloud cover. Since clouds are a natural sunshade, changing their coverage of the Earth will cause warming or cooling. The IPCC simply assumes this does not happen. If they did, they would have to admit that natural climate change happens, which means they would have to address the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 has been largely natural in origin.
5. But the glaciers are melting! Many glaciers which have been monitored around the world for a long time have been retreating since the 1800’s, before humans could have been responsible. A few retreating glaciers are even revealing old tree stumps…how did those get there? Planted by skeptics?
He has seven more on his blog that are a must read….
And finally….this shocking news out of the Copenhagen conference: (h/t Tom Nelson)
The world has just ten years to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control before the damage they cause become irreversible, the Met Office has warned.
Where have we heard this before?
According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
Yup….its now 2009 and whole nations have been wiped off the face of the earth….right?
These people, who only a few years ago told us that the science was settled, couldn’t be more of a farce.
See author page
Dr Gray was dismissed from Colorado University because he could not go along with the hurricane crap put out by the fraudsters.
He was the world’s number one hurricane expert for near 50 years prior to this.
Where were Fat Al’s hurricanes this year?
How many of these “experts” in Copenhagen were part of the “world is going to freeze” nuts in the 70s.
I agree that the world is warming. It has been since my state was covered by over 200 feet of ice 10,000 years ago.
2.
SkepticsAlarmists are paid by big oil. Various CRU e-mails show Shell, Esso and BP Amoco working the alarmist side of the Climate Change street. Efforts include financing environmental studies at various universities (BP Amoco Plc gave $15 million over 10 years to Princeton alone 0973374325) and in the case of Shell, becoming a “strategicpartner and will contribute to a studentship fund” with CRU IPCC AR3 participants (0962818260).
In other words, the climate alarmists are getting financing from “big oil” too, probably much more than the skeptics.
Meanwhile, Al Gore is out there saying that the emails prove nothing. What an ass! I guess the truth would cost him a few hundred million that he otherwise stands to make from his green investments.
@Mike’s America:
BIG AL SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
“Global warming, a new religion? That’s just silly. Who ever heard of such nonsense?” — Al Gore
I once attended a seminar given by a guy who was a expert in radio communications. During a break, he told us a story about how he had developed a burst transmitter design for an agency within the “intelligence community”. In the process, he described how not only did this intelligence agency have guys designing radio transmitters that could be hidden, they had another set of guys, a “counter group,” who’s job it was to detect hidden radio transmitters. These two groups would go after each other in an attempt to come up with the best possible transmitters and the best possible methods of detection.
In climate science, we have a bunch of seemingly half drunken academics who live off the government dole while they concoct amateurish schemes to prove something that it seems has been predetermined to be true, no matter the actual empiric data. The only group of guys trying to test their schemes are underfunded or doing work on their own time, pro-bono.
This process is obviously corrupt. It was never meant to provide the truth. If it was, the government research community would also have a fully funded “counter group” to try to prove that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” doesn’t exist, has little impact or at least can be easily mitigated and therefore save billions, if not trillions, of dollars/Euros/pounds on trying to prevent a non sequitur.
The fact that there is no “counter group” immediately brings into question the purpose of the activity and whether it is meant to be part of that “waste, fraud and abuse” that so often infiltrates all vestiges of government. Afterall, who in their right mind starts with the most expensive possible plan and seems to make no attempt to mitigate costs. The fact that this is an international activity makes one wonder if the UN has any real function except to give heads of state a chance to go shopping in New York City from time to time and travel to useless conferences where they can dine well and come up with new ideas on how to fleece their citizens at home.
Now they only want $50B more to measure all that stuff they don’t understand in this area of settled science.
A point on peer review. All peer review means is that the papers have been subjected to a sanity check. No obvious errors or troubling claims of things like perpetual motion or cold fusion.
And, since the warmers subverted the peer review process so only warmers (and mathematically challenged warmers at that) would conduct the peer reviews even this sanity check was circumvented.
I sometimes wonder how far away the warmers are from suggesting things like virgin sacrifices or dancing around a fire to stop global warming. Certainly their current methods have a lot of similarities to the old superstitions….
HEART OF DARKNESS
@iconoclast:
Peer review, at it’s best, isn’t that great. But, at it’s worst, as perverted by the crew at CRU, it’s garbage.
“Certainly their current methods have a lot of similarities to the old superstitions….”
A nemesis of theirs, named and vilified in their emails, Harvard scientist Dr. Sallie Baliunas puts their narrow minded paranoid delusions into historical perspective.
Yep, those clowns are straight out of the dark ages, all right.