I took this pic from http://www.john-daly.com/ it shows how in 1841 Antarctic Explorer Capt. Sir James Clark Ross marked what represented mean sea level on the Isle of the Dead, Tasmania. The mark is 50cm across with a tidal range of less than a meter. The picture has a highlight of the mark. The original photos and source are on the website.
On my dad’s blog, he quotes an article by Dr. Vincent Gray. Dr. Gray is a member of the UN IPCC Expert’s Reviewer Panel since inception. I’ll let you read the article, and if you believe in global warming as hyped by the media, and politicians, then you really should at least read the article.
http://politicalangstinamerica.blogspot.com/2007/10/here-is-piece-by-member-of-ipcc-that.html
After reading the article I decided to try to find a direct link (not through my dad’s blog) to the article. What ended up happening is that I stumbled upon many a web site for pro-global warming and those who don’t believe it.
Apparently, Dr. Gray’s qualifications as well as his motives are called into question on several web sites. A few key points seem to be factual and without challenge:
He holds a PhD in Chemistry
He has had a long research career in the UK, France, Canada, China and New Zealand.
He has researched coal, timber, other building materials, etc.
He has published many of his findings
He is a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewer Panel
He has submitted a plethora of articles to the IPCC all of which have been rejected.
Here are the key challenges that I could find:
He is not an expert in climate
His skepticism is motivated by funding from oil companies
What I have to ask you, dear reader, is do you follow logic or not?
If you read the article that is posted, which he wrote, he clearly attacks the IPCC as a corrupt entity. This attack is primarily based on the fact that the IPCC has consistently rejected the scientific method and open debates. Now whether or not you believe that Dr. Gray is qualified as a climatologist, he unequivocally understands the scientific method. Failure of the IPCC to embrace and practice standard scientific methods have been a charge of thousands of scientists (and non-scientists) for years.
I actually like the people pointing out how he is not a climate expert. The reason I like this is that the scientific community (as well as non scientists) has been saying that the alleged “thousands” of scientists that unanimously agree on global warming and Co2 as the cause are not, in fact, qualified to do so. By that very logic, if you conclude that Dr. Gray is not qualified you are in fact supporting the supposition that the IPCC is not made up of people qualified to accurately and scientifically figure out what is going on and report it to the public.
As a side note, of the 2611 or so scientist that the IPCC touts as being members only one-in-ten have scientific backgrounds and only five of them have training in weather, climate, or other atmospheric sciences.
Source: http://www.ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=67
Let’s also look at the questionable intentions of Dr. Gray. Several blog sites and boards cite that he has received funding from oil companies. However, he denies these
charges and as best as I can tell there is NO evidence that this is true. This seems to be a favorite conclusion of many global warming advocates: The oil companies are paying them off.
Obviously, there is money on both sides of the fence. But let’s look at reality for a moment. Global Warming is a multi-multi-multi-multi-billion dollar a year industry. You simply only have to say “global warming” or “eco friendly” or anything to that effect to get grant monies or have an effective advertising campaign. Just look at all the eco-friendly cars that actually have a higher carbon impact than other not-so-friendly cars, yet folks are shelling out the money for them.
From my dad’s blog:
“….One factually incorrect aspect of your story is that the global warming deniers are lavishly funded. According to Senator Inhofe governments and others have spent $50 billion supporting the global warming supporters, while the deniers have been funded at $19 million.”
James Hanson is an advocate of global warming and is good at supporting the cause and scaring the public into the belief that imminent doom is coming. Hanson received $250,000 from John Kerry’s wife’s foundation, and another $750,000 from the Open Society Institute. I have not seen, nor heard of any figures of oil companies paying off the other 17,000 scientists in such numbers – though that is not to say that I don’t think there is healthy lobbying there as well!! To me, the bottom line that any nay-sayers of global warming are funded by oil companies is a fairly weak argument.
As much as I think things are turning around, I think much of the damage has been done. It’s effecting our budgets. It’s effecting our politics. It’s effecting our economies. It’s effecting our general outlook on life. Some of this is good, and some of it is bad. I’ve always thought that using global warming as a scare tactic for monetary and political gain has been the end-goal all along and unfortunately that battle has pretty much been won.
But, people are starting to realize that all these predictions aren’t happening. They are starting to realize that not all scientists agree that the debate is “over.” They are starting to realize that the seas aren’t rising; we haven’t been thrown into some cataclysmic eco-holocaust. The polar bears are thriving. New ice shelves are being formed and old ones are moving along and breaking off as they have been for millions of years. We even had one of the nicest summers I can ever remember here in Texas. It may be a little too little too late.
On my dad’s blog, he quotes an article by Dr. Vincent Gray. Dr. Gray is a member of the UN IPCC Expert’s Reviewer Panel since inception. I’ll let you read the article, and if you believe in global warming as hyped by the media, and politicians, then you really should at least read the article.
http://politicalangstinamerica.blogspot.com/2007/10/here-is-piece-by-member-of-ipcc-that.html
After reading the article I decided to try to find a direct link (not through my dad’s blog) to the article. What ended up happening is that I stumbled upon many a web site for pro-global warming and those who don’t believe it.
Apparently, Dr. Gray’s qualifications as well as his motives are called into question on several web sites. A few key points seem to be factual and without challenge:
He holds a PhD in Chemistry
He has had a long research career in the UK, France, Canada, China and New Zealand.
He has researched coal, timber, other building materials, etc.
He has published many of his findings
He is a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewer Panel
He has submitted a plethora of articles to the IPCC all of which have been rejected.
Here are the key challenges that I could find:
He is not an expert in climate
His skepticism is motivated by funding from oil companies
What I have to ask you, dear reader, is do you follow logic or not?
If you read the article that is posted, which he wrote, he clearly attacks the IPCC as a corrupt entity. This attack is primarily based on the fact that the IPCC has consistently rejected the scientific method and open debates. Now whether or not you believe that Dr. Gray is qualified as a climatologist, he unequivocally understands the scientific method. Failure of the IPCC to embrace and practice standard scientific methods have been a charge of thousands of scientists (and non-scientists) for years.
I actually like the people pointing out how he is not a climate expert. The reason I like this is that the scientific community (as well as non scientists) has been saying that the alleged “thousands” of scientists that unanimously agree on global warming and Co2 as the cause are not, in fact, qualified to do so. By that very logic, if you conclude that Dr. Gray is not qualified you are in fact supporting the supposition that the IPCC is not made up of people qualified to accurately and scientifically figure out what is going on and report it to the public.
As a side note, of the 2611 or so scientist that the IPCC touts as being members only one-in-ten have scientific backgrounds and only five of them have training in weather, climate, or other atmospheric sciences.
Source: http://www.ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=67
Let’s also look at the questionable intentions of Dr. Gray. Several blog sites and boards cite that he has received funding from oil companies. However, he denies these
charges and as best as I can tell there is NO evidence that this is true. This seems to be a favorite conclusion of many global warming advocates: The oil companies are paying them off.
Obviously, there is money on both sides of the fence. But let’s look at reality for a moment. Global Warming is a multi-multi-multi-multi-billion dollar a year industry. You simply only have to say “global warming” or “eco friendly” or anything to that effect to get grant monies or have an effective advertising campaign. Just look at all the eco-friendly cars that actually have a higher carbon impact than other not-so-friendly cars, yet folks are shelling out the money for them.
From my dad’s blog:
“….One factually incorrect aspect of your story is that the global warming deniers are lavishly funded. According to Senator Inhofe governments and others have spent $50 billion supporting the global warming supporters, while the deniers have been funded at $19 million.”
James Hanson is an advocate of global warming and is good at supporting the cause and scaring the public into the belief that imminent doom is coming. Hanson received $250,000 from John Kerry’s wife’s foundation, and another $750,000 from the Open Society Institute. I have not seen, nor heard of any figures of oil companies paying off the other 17,000 scientists in such numbers – though that is not to say that I don’t think there is healthy lobbying there as well!! To me, the bottom line that any nay-sayers of global warming are funded by oil companies is a fairly weak argument.
As much as I think things are turning around, I think much of the damage has been done. It’s effecting our budgets. It’s effecting our politics. It’s effecting our economies. It’s effecting our general outlook on life. Some of this is good, and some of it is bad. I’ve always thought that using global warming as a scare tactic for monetary and political gain has been the end-goal all along and unfortunately that battle has pretty much been won.
But, people are starting to realize that all these predictions aren’t happening. They are starting to realize that not all scientists agree that the debate is “over.” They are starting to realize that the seas aren’t rising; we haven’t been thrown into some cataclysmic eco-holocaust. The polar bears are thriving. New ice shelves are being formed and old ones are moving along and breaking off as they have been for millions of years. We even had one of the nicest summers I can ever remember here in Texas. It may be a little too little too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment