Global Warming a lie according to scientists! What do you think?

Question

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

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

It is sad that so many scientists are afraid to break ranks and tell the truth!

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

MattMan- Try finding sources other that Wikipedia. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

sdkfjdk- Wow, what a great argument. I should rethink my stance on globalwarming because none of the other scientists would pander or lie for money!

(Sarcasm)

Victor M- I agree so its not good to have a solid view on globalwarming one why or the other. My stepbrother who is currently studing this issue says the prevaling thought is that its not man-made.

gomanyes- Intersestingly enough that was the same score for scientist who belived that the world was the center of the universe vs. the one that believed the sun was the center!

Anyone else want to try and agrue with me?

Vajradha- Tell me, where in any statement or article I presented it states the global warming is not happening? The argument here is "if man plays a part".

Larry- Here's a link for you

Learn to read!
http://www.foniks.org/

You should learn to read before coming on YA answers! It will help you with dissusing issues!

Answer 1

it is an EXTREMELY complex issue. I don't understand why some people so quickly take one side without hearing the other.

Answer 2

Global warming and cooling, along with climate change, have been occurring since the earth formed a few billion years ago. In that sense, it is not a lie and will always be truth. The almighty question that has plagued our media for the past couple decades is whether anthropogenic (human) effects on the planet (a.k.a., increased amounts of CO2 and other pollutants) has lead to increased warming (in this case) and climate change. There is sufficient scientific evidence in all kinds of scientific journal articles to support both sides of the argument. Although everyone agrees that CO2 levels have gone up, some believe that this has lead to an unusually warmer globe while others believe that the warming occurs first and CO2 simply follows. In the latter case, the rising levels of CO2 would be less attributable to humans and the warming might simply be labelled as 'mostly naturally-caused' (due to solar storms, etc). The science can and already has supported both sides of the fence. The media along with politics seem to have jumped on the anthropogenic argument bandwagon, while there is a movement by some scholars (and others) to either refute this notion or to at least recognize that we simply don't know! What is certain is that we are emitting and producing tons of pollution every day and that this is not sustainable. Another certainty is that humans have gone far beyond what the earth can sustainably support, both in terms of our population in general and our individual and collective impacts. In this respect, global warming and climate change would (if anthropogenic) merely be a symptom of a much bigger problem. Unfortunately, much less attention is payed to this rather certain root of the world's problem.

Answer 3

Your statement is incorrect.

Based on your evidence (the article), global warming is a lie according to ONE scientist, not plural scientists.

Gray has denied anthropogenic global warming for decades, so this is nothing new. He testified in front of congress alongside sci-fi novelist Michael Crichton. Basically he's a nutjob.

A very important point is that meteorology is the study of weather, not climate. Meteorologists do not even take climatology classes. Listening to a Meteoroligst's opinion about climate science is like listening to a dentist's opinion about heart disease.

And no, Mars does not hint at a solar cause for warming. Mars is warming for entirely different reasons than the Earth - namely dust storms darkening its surface:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

Solar output has decreased over the past 30 years while global warming has accelerated rapidly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Answer 4

How quickly you forget that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shared the Nobel with Mr. Gore.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

We've been over the solar thesis before. We had a solar minimum in 2006 but that corresponded to one of the hottest years recorded! The contradicts the solar warming thesis. Imagine hot we'll be when we reach solar maximum again. It's not going to be pleasant.

P.S. To say that the global warming deniers can't get research funding is absurd! The fossil fuel industry has been offering up billions for bogus research. The legitimate scientists don't want their careers ruined for selling out.

Answer 5

Ignorance knows no bounds. I notice those who argue against Al Gore do so with cheap shots and name calling but say nothing valid or that could stand any sort of rational arguement.

You don't have to believe global warming is happening because it is whether you believe it or not. To say it isn't in the face of the obious (The polar ice caps are melting, the oceans are rising and warming up. This has been measured and verified by scientists around the planet. Temperatures and storms are breaking records - there's too much emperical evidence to deny it) is like saying the Sun revolves around the planet. I'm sure you can dig up somebody somewhere to claim this and bash Al Gore but it wouldn't change anything.

Why is it so hard for you to see?
Why do you find it necessary to bash Al Gore?
Aren't you just a little concerned that you are displaying a cheap form of ignorance?

Answer 6

House #1
A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a
separate guest house, all heated by gas.

In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400.
In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.
~~~
House #2

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.

This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide.

The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on an arid, high prairie in the American southwest.

A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.

The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.

Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
irrigates the land surrounding the house.

Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Links below back up the facts of the 2 houses.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/arti...

http://www.cowboysindians.com/articles/a...

An "inconvenient truth" about Al Gore, or what?

Answer 7

I'm guessing that in your zeal to find someone who thinks global warming is not man-made, that you didn't have the time to investigate Dr. William Gray's methods or credibility. So....
-- Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
This article debunks three of Gray's claims as 'causes' of global warming:
1. THC (Thermohaline Circulation, not the 'other' THC) - "...it transports heat from one place to another. However it cannot do magical things. It cannot create energy out of thin air (or thick water), nor can it make energy mysteriously disappear. Thus, Gray's statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity."
2. Evaporation - "Evaporation does not create heat; it does not add any heat to the climate system or take it away. It is an energy transfer that moves heat from a moist surface (like the ocean's) into the atmosphere. That severely constrains what evaporation changes can do to climate. In contrast, changes in CO2 concentration affect the top of atmosphere radiation budget directly, and change the rate at which the whole climate system loses energy." The observed pattern of our global warming, is a warming of both the troposphere and surface which indicates the cause to be CO2, rather than evaporation.
3. Ocean heat storage - Gray is using some formulas and models that are about 50 years out-of-date. besides mathematical errors, the two main flaws are: "he also does not take into account the radiative cooling due to sulfate aerosols (known to be a critical factor in the period in question) and his neglect of 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."

-- The Tempest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html
This article is fun for all! Perhaps in the joy of seeing what the global warming 'skeptics' have to say, a couple of things to notice:
1. Interesting bunch of corporations and special interests that are backing the skeptics
2. "The skeptics don't have to win the argument, they just have to stay in the game, keep things stirred up and make sure the politicians don't pass any laws that have dangerous climate change as a premise" Hmmmmm.
3. "Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer." OhOh.... does this mean that desecration of the tropical rain forrests would be a bad thing? Too bad that wasn't factored into the 'fertilizer' equation, huh??
-- Colorado Media Matters
---> The Rocky Mountain News loves 'home state' Gray... blindly.
"The article failed to note that Gray's views regarding climate change have been questioned both by those who support and disagree with the idea that global warming is man-made."
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200704300003
---> The Fort Collins Coloradoan loves 'home state' Gray... blindly
"In the January 17 edition of the Fort Collins Coloradoan, a guest column that expressed skepticism about global warming cited "[w]orld-renowned scientists" -- some of whom reportedly have ties to the oil industry. In addition, the column parroted right-wing talking points in dismissing concerns about climate change as "overblown.""

OK, so let's follow that 'Exxon money train'...
-- Profile: ExxonMobil
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=exxonmobil
----> June 2006: Local Mississippi TV Station Airs Piece on Global Warming Paid for by an Organization Partially Funded by ExxonMobil
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=200606AllHotAir#200606AllHotAir
---> Oil Lobbyist's "News" Denies Inconvenient Truths
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews2/vnr40
---> Corporate Propaganda Still On the News: Study Finds Local Stations Overwhelmingly Fail to Disclose VNRs
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/14/1518200
---> Probe of Non-News News Sought
KGO, CBS 5-TV say they improperly used corporate tapes
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1115-07.htm
-- FACTSHEET: William M. Gray
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1304

I love living in Colorado, but that doesn't mean I accept Dr. William Gray as a credible and reliable source. About those grants... perhaps he's not getting grants because his theories are not sound? Hmmm... but he can still get money through organizations sponsored by Exxon.

BTW... about that sun theory...
-- 'No Sun link' to climate change
"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Answer 8

I'm with Goldwater Conservative.

We need a man like Barry in the White House!!! A TRUE conservative, none of this johnny-come-lately social (or neo or fake) conservative!

Answer 9

The globe is warming- FACT. The argument is whether we're causing it or not & what will happen.

Wow ignorance is strong sometime- I don't like stupid Gore that much (particularly due to the amount of errors, fear-mongering and misinformation in the documentary), but global warming is happening, natural cycle or manmade disaster. Accept it.

Edit- Good point...

Answer 10

Global warming is a real event...but NOT MAN MADE ! 1000 years ago, the Vikings discovered Greenland...they called it that for a reason ! The world has seen Ice Ages, and warming trends, longer than weather was recorded by man.

1 volcano like Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines puts as much crap in the air as everybody driving on this planet in 1 year ! There are at least 5 volcanos blowing off around the planet EVERY year ... so the grant grubbing so called "scientists" are looking for a paycheck, nothing more !

Answer 11

Fool, I took a class in Environmental Science. We saw all of the facts laid out in front of us. It's closed-minded people like you that use statistical anomalies to try to disprove that global warming is anthropogenic.