One of the World's Foremost Meteorologists Has Called the Theory That Helped Al Gore Share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

by gibsonf1 • 19 years ago

24 44 19 years ago

smh.com.au

DaniFong5• 19 years ago

Gray is a longtime 'climate change' denier. I'm not sure if he is in the back pocket of the oil industry, but probably. Here's an article on real climate written back in April 2006. It should at least raise your eyebrows.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-o...

DaniFong5• 19 years ago

Here's something more entertaining -- here's a YouTube video lampooning Gore's film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI

Of course, it's not what it seems,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore%27s_Penguin_Army

I like the word that they used -- astroturfing. Apparently DCI sponsored a fake grassroots campaign. -.-

anamax4• 19 years ago

I find it interesting that only certain source of funding are a source of potential bias.

If he's wrong, there's no point in going into his supposed motives.

BTW - Did I miss the petition signed by a thousand German scientists?

DaniFong5• 19 years ago

If you follow the money in medical research, you'll find surprising results. There's plenty of research into the corrupting influence of money on scientists (for citations, the book "The truth about the drug companies" has many).

Unlike most types of experimental science, we only have one earth. So, it seems like a worthwhile activity to look into the motivations of the people on both sides of the debate.

One of the advantages of digging deep and following the money is that you get a somewhat scary sense of the machine designed to discredit climate change science.

anamax4• 19 years ago

Speaking of bias, let's look at Al Gore.

"It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced but it is also the greatest opportunity that we have ever had to make changes that we should be making for other reasons anyway," Gore said.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071012/137/6lvvz.html

1gor• 19 years ago

You are using emotionally loaded labels ('climate change' denier) and attack integrity of the opponent (back pocket of the oil industry).

These are tools of a demagogue. You cannot be taken seriously after that.

celoyd• 19 years ago

I hope you're being intentionally ironic.

DaniFong5• 19 years ago

So, 'ad hominem' attacks are not allowed, and therefore nobody should ever take me seriously? That's a pretty amusing argument, I must say.

You're quite right they're emotionally loaded labels. We only get one earth, you know. I actually care about it. So should you.

But in case you think that the possibility for scientific payola is above scrutiny, fine. I also included a link which discussed his actual claims, and the actual science and debate around them. Read it.

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the Worlds' Foremost Nutritionist says there are Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the World's Foremost Metaphysicist's has said if you close your eyes and wish something wasn't true long enough, it won't be.

axod2• 19 years ago

Yeah we're all sinners. Seriously - 'man made global warming' is turning into a cult.

It's a very scary movement that is trying to restrict what 3rd world countries can do.

Kinda reminds me of the 'year 2000 bug'... "Oh no the worlds computers will blow up!!! You better all spend loads of money on fixing it" "Oh.... nothing much happened... well thank god we spent all that money 'fixing' it."

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the World's Foremost Chiropractors says germs do not cause disease.

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the World's Foremost Dermatologist's has said that any skin problem can be solved with Gold Bond medicated powder.

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the World's foremost mechanical engineers says that automakers could build a carburetor that would let cars get 100 miles to a gallon, but the Oil companies won't let them!

patrickg-zill• 19 years ago

I am really and truly surprised at the debate on global warming.

Surely even a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to how difficult it would be to do an accurate mathematical model of climate, and the computing power needed to run such a simulation, would show that any prediction based on a computer model at this point is essentially bogus; much less being able to determine whether or not it is caused by man or by natural causes.

When you add in the fact that an accurate model of "how oceans work" is decades away (we don't even understand the Gulf Stream at this point) you have to wonder, exactly how can you mathematically model something that you don't understand?

Tichy4• 19 years ago

It seesm unlikely that human civilization has no effect whatsoever, though. Just because we can't calculate something precisely doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are more phenomena we can't simulate correctly than there are phenomena we can simulate. I guess we can't simulate the weather, either, yet nobody is going around claiming that "hurricanes don't exist".

JulianMorrison• 19 years ago

When a process has homeostatic feedback, it can absorb some change with no result.

Also, when a process has a maximum (in the case of CO2, total opacity in its spectral window), then going beyond the maximum has no further effect.

fauigerzigerk3• 19 years ago

I agree. It's puzzling. I mean there are economists who claim to be able to calculate the cost of climate change over 40 years. I urge everybody who believes them to check the 1 year predictions made by the same people.

We're told that if 80 % of scientists agree on something we cannot just dismiss it as nonsense. I would agree with that if even just a few of them had credible methods to simulate complex systems. They don't. Each of them models just a tiny piece of the system and their methods work only within that very narrow context. So what science did the IPCC use to join all those partial models?

Tichy4• 19 years ago

That sounds like strawman argumentation: you cite a group of people with bad credentials to denounce all climate researchers.

What method would you propose for dealing with climate changes? What about changes in average temperature over the centures. Since you don't believe in any models, would you just ignore that information?

Is a very complex simulation even necessary? You don't need to simulate every atom in water to determine it's density in relation to it's temperature, for example.

davidw3• 19 years ago

My high school physics teacher had this to say: "as a scientist, with such complex systems, it's really hard to be certain about anything with the evidence we have, however, this is the only planet we have, and I'd prefer not to risk it".

benl• 19 years ago

With all due respect, I suggest ignoring that teacher.

This is the 'precautionary principle' which, while it sounds all nice and sensible on first hearing, is actually a recipe for justifying all kinds of mindless nonsense.

"Vaccines might cause Autism -- best not immunise my kids against that killer disease measles."

"WiFi might cause cancer -- best not put wireless networks in schools"

"Industrialiation might cause global warming -- best not let poor countries build power plants"

davidw3• 19 years ago

You are playing a bit of a game by equating something where there are some definite indications in one direction and a lot of unknowns (global warming), with things where there is little real evidence and a much more well understood system (vaccines). And sometimes, it makes sense to be cautious. Smoking did, and does cause cancer and other health problems.

There is pretty good evidence that the climate is changing (glaciers, icecaps) - that much is obvious even for those who don't want it to be true, at this point. The open question is whether it's us that's doing it. Given that we don't know, and we risk serious consequences, a bit of precaution doesn't seem so out of place.

There are sensible ways to start working against global warming without wrecking the world economy - (republican economist) Greg Mankiw's "Pigou Club", for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club

That's the sort of sensible, cautious approach that makes sense to me: heed the warning, start doing something, and keep studying, without losing your head and doing anything truly rash that would trash the economy, or go overboard the other way and simply ignore/downplay the whole thing because it doesn't fit into your view of politics.

Also, as something of an aside, I have a lot of respect for that teacher - he was/is a bright guy not at all given to doom and gloom or handwaving - he was one of those teachers who could have had a good job in industry, no problem, but really loved teaching. His statement (which I only remember the gist of at this point) summed up both a sense of professional responsibility in admitting that there are a lot of known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and of a cautious, responsible approach to things that are potentially serious and dangerous. That's why I still remember it after 15+ years.

asmosoinio• 19 years ago

I have long thought that humans have no effect on global warming, and that the climate change we are seeing would have happened regardless of what we do. For me, this doesn't change much -- I still try to do things the "greenest" way practically possible and think that it is important to reduce your ecological footprint.

However I have only recently realized that this "reduce CO2 or the earth will boil"-publicity is actually really good, even if not scientifically accurate. It makes people think, and it makes people change the way they behave, to reduce pollution.

Therefore I am kind of worried if the public opinion changes into "we did not cause global warming, no worries", as that might kill this new thrive for ecological behavior.

Maybe I should have more trust in my fellow people. Probably not...

fauigerzigerk3• 19 years ago

Unfortunately it's also an excuse for massive government intervention in all kinds of systems. Still, I agree that the whole affair drives innovation in energy production which is a good thing for many reasons.

Tichy4• 19 years ago

In Europe there is a region called "Karst" (in German anyway), that used to be full of florishing green woods. Now it is a sort of desert, and "Karst" is a synonym for an unfriendly, dry and barren landscape.

How did it get like that? Romans felled all the trees for ship building, many centuries ago.

I know this does not relate directly to the CO2 discussion (which also seems a bit simplistic to me), but driving through that landscape as a kid left a deep impression on me. Surely if the ancient Romans could change the environment, humans can affect the environment in the 21st century. It would be ridiculous to ascertain that humans have no effect on the environment at all, even if we don't understand the precise chain of effects.

testapplication• 19 years ago

Well if we are talking about CO2 then you would see the opposite of Karst: CO2 stimulates plant growth tremendously.

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the World's Foremost Researchers Has Called the Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax!

MuddyMo8• 19 years ago

One of the World's Foremost Webmasters says "WTF" to the changes made to Hacker News

http://www.centernetworks.com/y-combinator-hacker-news

Allen Stern, webmaster for CernerNetworks states, "Considering that Y Combinator is all about the startup, this makes no sense. They have a couple other updates to the app as well. First, they will be looking for trolls on the comments for each post which is a good move."

Stern had nothing to say about how the system will handle ill advised postings of blatant political oppo hit pieces by Hacker News leaders.

brlewis• 19 years ago

I don't know how this article got so many upvotes. It's mainly name-calling. In the one place where it actually says something, mentioning this ocean salt cycle idea, there are no citations or other substance to back it up.

tokipin3• 19 years ago

the notion that humans could affect earth this much is laughable. we could smother the surface with nuclear explosions and the world would repair itself as an organism, never mind something as negligible as human CO2 emissions

bct2• 19 years ago

Sure, Earth would recover. It would be pretty bad for humanity in general, and you and I in specific, though.

tokipin3• 19 years ago

yea, that's in the nuclear case. in the relevant case of human CO2 emissions, nothing is likely to happen. earth is an immensely stable self-repairing system

One of the World's Foremost Meteorologists Has Called the Theory That Helped Al Gore Share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous"

Related Stories