Gore's prize: A fraud on the people

V

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
{I agree 100 percent.}

Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth.

No, thanks.

Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go

1. "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations,

2. for the abolition or reduction of standing armies

3. and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.

Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.

Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award.

In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)

On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.

The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.)

And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly most prestigious prize.

If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did.

The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophe. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and leftist Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd

-VG
 
Last edited:
VegasGuy said:
{I agree 100 percent.}

Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth.

No, thanks.

Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go

1. "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations,

2. for the abolition or reduction of standing armies

3. and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.

Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.

Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award.

In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)

On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.

The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.)

And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly most prestigious prize.

If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did.

The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophe. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and leftist Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.

-VG
Click to expand...

Did you write this ENTIRE post? Or, is this quoting another article?

I must say, this is very impressive written work.
 
Cruise said:
Did you write this ENTIRE post? Or, is this quoting another article?

I must say, this is very impressive written work.
Click to expand...

No I didn't write this. I posted I agee 100 percent at the top but forgot to post the link to give credit at the bottom. Thanks for pointing it out.

But I still agree with it.

-VG
 
7818.gif


Gore Derangement Syndrome


ts-krugman-75.jpg


By PAUL KRUGMAN

October 15, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?ref=opinion

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.



——————————————



Kristol: Gore getting Peace Prize is 'Sick'



Filed by David Edwards and Greg Wasserstrom

October 14 2007

http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=7897

Former Vice President Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this week to much adulation in the media. However, not everyone is impressed.


Conservative commentators Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer appeared on the program Fox News Sunday this morning and were eager to rain on the environmental activist and, now, Nobel laureate's parade.

"Friday, I felt a warm glow thinking this man had won the Nobel Peace Prize for bloviating about global warming," Kristol said through a snarky grin. "It's a prize given by bloviators to bloviators."

Krauthammer perhaps felt Kristol was letting the prize committee and prize winners off easy.

"Look, let's not forget what the prize is about," he admonished. "Al Gore joins the ranks of Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism, Le Duc Tho, who sign a treaty on behalf of a government that two years later invaded and extinguished the country it signed that treaty with, and the most disgraceful ex-president of the United States Jimmy Carter," another undeserving winner in Krauthammer's view..

Other Past winners Krauthammer didn't mention include Mother Theresa, Yitzach Rabin, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

Juan Williams of National Public Radio mounted a weak defense of the Prize and its most recent recipient before launching into a political analysis of what it might mean for a man who has long wished to be president. Then Kristol had more to say.

"Can I just say something about this wonderfully moving narrative about Al Gore, who Juan likes to Compare to Mother Theresa," the long-time pundit injected. "I haven't noticed Al Gore taking a vow of poverty recently. You know, there's something sick about taking the whole thing seriously."

 
The man did an excellent job to bring the truth to people.....It is what it is....

By the way....>STOP FUCKING HATING AND POST PUSSY<
 
harlem1nyc said:
The man did an excellent job to bring the truth to people.....It is what it is....

By the way....>STOP FUCKING HATING AND POST PUSSY<
Click to expand...

The problem I have with the theories behind global warming is that he's saying this whole thing is man made.

Perhaps man has a part, but thats not the whole picture.


Weather is cyclical. Its not gonna be consistent and can be altered every 10 years because of changes in how the earth rotates around the sun. If the rotation shifts closer to the sun, then the earth will get warmer, if it shifts away from the sun, then the earth will get cooler. Its an ongoing cycle of moving back and forth or up and down. Man does not control that.



Add to that, scientific weather data did not begin to accumulate till after the early 1900's. We have no real daily records of weather patterns in this hemisphere prior to that happening.

Back in the 1970's, global meterologists were saying we were heading towards a global ice age. We were all going to "freeze" to death. Now, some of those same scientists have shifted to say just the opposite.
 
I can't believe this shit. Although I expected that from some in the thread but setting aside what far right republicans might think about Gore, how does this award relate to peace? Even easier question, for all of Dr. Martin Luther King's work, would it make sense that he get an award for math?

Never mind, you won't be truthful in the thread. Any chance you get to behave as a white liberal you take it. Every got damn time. Can't be black long enough to even speak the truth on a black message board. Damn shame how we allow whites to direct how we conduct ourselves on this board.

Make me sick to see your names sometimes.

You don't have to agree, but you should at least speak for yourself. Tossing out the blanket comments says you can't think worth a shit. Go find a story from a white boy like Krugman that makes a different point. Then we don't have to dialog. Fuck you.

-VG
 
What I'm waiting to see is, will we still be talking about Al Gore and his global warming theories after the next five years.
 
bromack1 said:
What I'm waiting to see is, will we still be talking about Al Gore and his global warming theories after the next five years.
Click to expand...

This is a money grab plain and simple. These white people want us to believe that they can control the weather. Soon there will be carbon footprint taxes when you use your outdoor grill, smoke a cigarette, burn leaves in your backyard, drive, whatever. That is the goal of all this bullshit bromack1. It's deranged as hell man.

-VG
 
Gore gets a cold shoulder

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.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"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
 
Interesting Bromack. Truly interesting.

I haven't decided whether or not our impact is playing a major role or no role at all in this phenomena. This is one of those case where the scientist might be least helpful. In my practice I always feel confident that I can retain an expert that will disagree with the opinions of the opposing expert -- and leave it to the jury to decide which expert is most believable. That doesn't always mean the one they believed most was right, just that the believed one over the other. In this case, conflicting experts doesn't help us much -- there may be too much at stake.

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
Interesting Bromack. Truly interesting.

I haven't decided whether or not our impact is playing a major role or no role at all in this phenomena. This is one of those case where the scientist might be least helpful. In my practice I always feel confident that I can retain an expert that will disagree with the opinions of the opposing expert -- and leave it to the jury to decide which expert is most believable. That doesn't always mean the one they believed most was right, just that the believed one over the other. In this case, conflicting experts doesn't help us much -- there may be too much at stake.

QueEx
Click to expand...

That's why I like QueEx running this board. He speaks his mind, agree or disagree.

That's all. Carry on!

-VG
 
Until someone can prove to me that being a vegetarian, recycling my cans and newspapers, using alternative transit, energy saving light bulbs and dusting my refrigerator coils every few months is destroying the planet I think I'll error on the sides of reason and caution.
 
QueEx said:
Interesting Bromack. Truly interesting.

I haven't decided whether or not our impact is playing a major role or no role at all in this phenomena. This is one of those case where the scientist might be least helpful. In my practice I always feel confident that I can retain an expert that will disagree with the opinions of the opposing expert -- and leave it to the jury to decide which expert is most believable. That doesn't always mean the one they believed most was right, just that the believed one over the other. In this case, conflicting experts doesn't help us much -- there may be too much at stake.

QueEx
Click to expand...

Back in grade school, we should have all learned the earth "orbits" the sun. The sun does not orbit the earth. That idea was dimissed as incorrect by copernicus.

The earth's orbit is never perfect because the earth also moves up and down or side to side. That imbalance in orbit or "rotation" has a large effect on our weather patterns. Most honest meterologist will tell you that....

There is no way you can dismiss that as a fact. Did you know that some people don't even realize that when its summer in the U.S., its winter in South America?

In my opinion, to suggest that the earth is too hot due entirely to man made air pollution is a real stretch of the imagination.

As you say, you like to have an expert to "disagree" with your conclusions. My question is, did Al Gore do that... and if so, to what extent. For that matter, consider the number of jet aircraft that travel the atmosphere every day.... is Al Gore gonna give up his private plane airborne shuttles to help save the environment. If he really wants to, he can travel to Norway by cruise ship...

Lastly, are we all ready to limit our toilet paper usage to 1 sheet per visit? This whole theory Al is promoting really stinks to all high heaven....
 
Last edited:
Que,

The reason why I think that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is false are many.

1. None of the calculations have been borne out. Either it did not get as warm as it should have been, or other events occur that go far beyond the predictions

2. Underlying assumptions regarding the equations are sometimes proven to be false.

3. Most of the statements made come not from science, but political statements. For example, most of the quotes from the IPCC report come from the Executive summary, not the underlying science. It was circulated to scientists, which many have voiced disagreements with the statements, but were ultimately unsucessful in changing the document.

With that in mind, I do not think that AGW does exist to any degree that would warrant the damaging changes that would need to take effect to lightly mitigate the change.
 
Gore wins the peace prize for a movie whose upshot is that the poor in Calcutta and West Africa should be denied access to the energy and technology that can lift them out of poverty and improve their lives. :smh:


People also forget before he became the steward of the environment that he is today his specialty as vice president was shaking down Native American tribes for "donations" to the DNC in exchange for casino licenses. :smh:


Wow, a real humanitarian....





Just my $.02, before I get get called a "MFing Cracka" again, by some ignorant asshole who doesn't know me. :lol:
 
Tinman said:
Gore wins the peace prize for a movie whose upshot is that the poor in Calcutta and West Africa should be denied access to the energy and technology that can lift them out of poverty and improve their lives. :smh:


People also forget before he became the steward of the environment that he is today his specialty as vice president was shaking down Native American tribes for "donations" to the DNC in exchange for casino licenses. :smh:


Wow, a real humanitarian....





Just my $.02, before I get get called a "MFing Cracka" again, by some ignorant asshole who doesn't know me. :lol:
Click to expand...

yep.

-VG
 
Fuckallyall said:
3. Most of the statements made come not from science, but political statements.


For example, most of the quotes from the IPCC report come from the Executive summary, not the underlying science. It was circulated to scientists, which many have voiced disagreements with the statements, but were ultimately unsucessful in changing the document.

With that in mind, I do not think that AGW does exist to any degree that would warrant the damaging changes that would need to take effect to lightly mitigate the change.
Click to expand...

good point.... ever notice how offended Gore or Kennedy get if you beg to differ on some points.... they pretty much call it blasphemy.
 
bromack1 said:
Back in grade school, we should have all learned the earth "orbits" the sun. The sun does not orbit the earth. That idea was dimissed as incorrect by copernicus.

The earth's orbit is never perfect because the earth also moves up and down or side to side. That imbalance in orbit or "rotation" has a large effect on our weather patterns. Most honest meterologist will tell you that....

There is no way you can dismiss that as a fact. Did you know that some people don't even realize that when its summer in the U.S., its winter in South America?
Click to expand...
Sir, we all know the elementary school science. If reading is fundamental you would also know that nothing I said above dismissed those elemental facts. What I said, again, is that I don't know who is right in this debate. I don't even know whether there is in fact global warming and, if so, whether the cause is natural, human induced or a combination of those. Again, if you read what I said above, there appears to be disagreement among the experts which, in turn, probably has a lot to do with my confusion.

In my opinion, to suggest that the earth is too hot due entirely to man made air pollution is a real stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but give me something more than [in my best temptations imitation] "just your imagination, running away with you". I'm open to any and all reasonable fact-based theories.

As you say, you like to have an expert to "disagree" with your conclusions.
Click to expand...
Thats not at all what I said. I said on almost any given issue, if one side has an expert, the other side, more than likely, will have an expert with a contrary opinion.

My question is, did Al Gore do that... and if so, to what extent. For that matter, consider the number of jet aircraft that travel the atmosphere every day.... is Al Gore gonna give up his private plane airborne shuttles to help save the environment. If he really wants to, he can travel to Norway by cruise ship...
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don't what the fuck Al Gore has or hasn't done. I think, however, that you've mis-read/mis-understood what I wrote.

QueEx
 
And, . . . he damn sho don't deserve shit -- with peace anywhere in the storyline, sentence or paragraph.
 
MSNBC labeled global warming skeptic Gray a "top meteorologist"

Summary: MSNBC Live hosts Mika Brzezinski and Contessa Brewer each described as a "top meteorologist" William M. Gray, who has stated that global warming "is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." Both also noted Gray's claim that rising temperatures "are simply part of a natural cycle," but neither noted that the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with that assertion and have concluded that global climate change is caused by human activity.

During the 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. ET hours of MSNBC Live on October 15, hosts Mika Brzezinski and Contessa Brewer, respectively, described as a "top meteorologist" William M. Gray, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, who has stated that global warming "is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." Both Brzezinski and Brewer then noted that Gray "is slamming [former Vice President] Al Gore" and quoted Gray's remarks at the University of North Carolina, where he reportedly said that "[w]e're brainwashing our children" with information about global warming. Both Brzezinski and Brewer noted Gray's claim that rising temperatures "are simply part of a natural cycle," but neither noted that the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with Gray's claim and agree that global climate change is caused by human activity, as Media Matters for America has documented. The blog Think Progress also noted MSNBC's coverage of Gray's comments.

On April 26, 2006, RealClimate.org, which describes itself as "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists," responded to a paper written by Gray by detailing "the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes" and "the gaping flaws" in his "scientific argument." A June 11, 2006, article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Judith A. Curry, chair of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said that "Gray's message that global warming is a hoax is being heard because of his media connections, but she [Curry] points out he has not published any research to back it up." The article quoted Curry saying: "His ideas on global warming are not taken seriously in scientific circles." Additionally, a May 28, 2006, Washington Post Magazine article by Joel Achenbach reported that Gray "concede[d] that he hasn't published the idea [his theory about recent warming trends] in any peer-reviewed journal." Achenbach also noted that Gray's rejection of climate models puts him "increasingly on the fringe" in the field of meteorology. When Achenbach "ask[ed] Gray who his intellectual soul mates are regarding global warming," Gray responded, "I have nobody really to talk to about this stuff.'" In the article, Gray was quoted as saying, "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."

Further, neither Brzezinski nor Brewer noted that United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change disagrees with Gray's claim that rising temperatures "are simply part of a natural cycle." Brewer aired Gray's comments before noting that "Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the chairman of a U.N. panel made up of 2,000 scientists and experts." However, Brewer described the U.N. panel as simply "also studying the human race's effect on climate change" without noting the panel's recent conclusions that the evidence that the earth's climate is warming is "unequivocal" and that most of the observed warming is due to human influences.
 
FOX and Friends dig up hurricane expert to slam AL Gore
Reported by Chrish - October 15, 2007 - 28 comments

Citing his reknown for annual predictions of "hurricanes and tropical storms and stuff like that" and alleging that "every news outlet quotes" him, Steve Doocy effectively bestowed expert status on Dr. William Gray at Colorado State University, legitimizing his criticism of Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth." He says the theories behind AIT are all wrong; "ridiculous," to be exact. But other scientific organizations are not so impressed with Dr. Gray's work or credentials.

Gray argues that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth, and says that salinity determines the temperature of the oceans' waters. All three friends were participating in the Gore-bashing. Brian Kilmeade read a graphic, a quote from Gray that said "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

He also charged that scientists won't speak out against something they know is wrong, because they won't get the grant money they need for research, but he claims he doesn't care about grants.

Gray said (if I'm interpreting Doocy's labored stumbling explanation correctly) that there were more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th Century, when it was chillier on average, than there were in the second half, when it was warmer.

This was an attempt to single out one man with expertise in a related field and present him as some kind of final say-so to discredit AL Gore and the Oscar-winning film.

But does Gray have a bone to pick with Al Gore? The Washington Post reports

"Gray's crusade against global warming "hysteria" began in the early 1990s, when he saw enormous sums of federal research money going toward computer modeling rather than his kind of science, the old-fashioned stuff based on direct observation. Gray often cites the ascendancy of Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his own problems with federal funding. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stopped giving him research grants. So did NASA. All the money was going to computer models. The field was going off on this wild tangent."

The WaPo article continues

"Someone like Bill Gray seems to be a fully credentialed authority figure. But when you press him on his theory of how thermohaline circulation has caused recent warming of the planet and will soon cause cooling, he concedes that he hasn't published the idea in any peer-reviewed journal. He's working on it, he says.

The Web site Real Climate, run by a loose group of climate scientists, recently published a detailed refutation of Gray's theory, saying his claims about the ocean circulation lack evidence. The Web site criticized Gray for not adapting to the modern era of meteorology, "which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying."

The field has fully embraced numerical modeling, and Gray is increasingly on the fringe. His cranky skepticism has become a tired act among younger scientists. "It's sad," says Emanuel,(Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at MIT) who has vowed never again to debate Gray in public."

The Real Climate article notes that

"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."

It is no coincidence or surprise that this man was chosen over the thousands of scientists who support the theories put forth in "An Inconvenient Truth" to bash Gore upon his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Rupert Murdoch, who announced he would turn his News Corp. carbon neutral by 2010, continues to allow his mouthpieces to undermine the theory that humans are contributing to climate change because it's bad for business/the economy to suggest that we need to cut our consumption. And Murdoch's a profit-driven businessman, first and foremost.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/15/fox_and_friends_dig_up_hurricane_expert_to_slam_al_gore.php
 
Ok, so lets not use Bill Gray, and just some facts:

in 2005, NOAA predicted 12-15 named storms, 7-9 hurricanes, and 3-5 major hurricanes. There were 28 named storms, 15 hurricanes, and 7 major hurricanes.

In 2006, NOAA predicted 13-16 Named storms, 8-10 hurricanes, and 4-6 major hurricanes. There were 10 named storms, 5 hurricanes,and 2 major hurricanes. There was also a "very likely" chance of a hurricane hitting the US. There were NO hurricane landfalls.

What do these two years have in common ? They both had the tag of certainty behind them as they have had a 5% chance of happening. But it happened.

Now, also consider that the Artic sea ice was a lot thinner than any predictions made. That also did not jibe with the predictions, and they are now blaming wind patterns for pushing the ice south faster than it did before.

Now, with those two examples, why should any reasonable person walk in lock step with those who made these, as well as other erroneous predictions ?
 
Fuckallyall said:
in 2005, NOAA predicted 12-15 named storms, 7-9 hurricanes, and 3-5 major hurricanes. There were 28 named storms, 15 hurricanes, and 7 major hurricanes.

In 2006, NOAA predicted 13-16 Named storms, 8-10 hurricanes, and 4-6 major hurricanes. There were 10 named storms, 5 hurricanes,and 2 major hurricanes. There was also a "very likely" chance of a hurricane hitting the US. There were NO hurricane landfalls.

What do these two years have in common ?
Click to expand...
LOL. I don't know what they have in common except: I live along the Gulf Coast and two years in a row where I don't have to board up the house, pack up the family, close my office and flee 250 miles or more as a precaution is a good thing to have, in common.

QueEx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top