- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/greenwire-inhofe/
"" NCAR differs from government laboratories in the freedom it affords its employees to share their research with the public.
For example, NCAR researchers have been widely quoted recently stating that there is a link between climate change and a trend of increased hurricane intensity in the Atlantic Basin. By contrast, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration complained that the Bush administration muzzled similar findings by their agency.
“The people at NCAR are scientists who speak freely. ... They come out with stuff that Inhofe doesn’t like,” Piltz said. ""
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/
"Discover Dialogue:
Meteorologist William Gray
10
by 12 members
Weather Seer: ‘We’re Lucky’
‘Eight of the last 10 years have been very active—we’ve never had as much activity. Yet we went from 1992 until last year with no hurricanes coming through Florida’
By Kathy A. Svitil
DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 09 | September 2005 | Environment
Meteorologist William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting.
... A few years ago, you almost called it quits because you’d lost so much funding. What made you continue?
G: I don’t have the budget that I had, so I have cut my project way back. I am in retirement. I’m still working every day, but I don’t teach and I don’t have as many graduate students and as much financial need. I’ve got a little money from Lexington Insurance out of Boston, and I have some National Science Foundation money. For years I haven’t had any NOAA, NASA, or Navy money. But I’m having more fun. Right now I’m trying to work on this human-induced global-warming thing that I think is grossly exaggerated.
You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?
G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.
G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.
With last year’s hurricane season so active, and this year’s looking like it will be, won’t people say it’s evidence of global warming?
G: The Atlantic has had more of these storms in the least 10 years or so, but in other ocean basins, activity is slightly down. Why would that be so if this is climate change? The Atlantic is a special basin? The number of major storms in the Atlantic also went way down from the middle 1960s to the middle ’90s, when greenhouse gases were going up.
Why is there scientific support for the idea?
G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases?
Are your funding problems due in part to your views?
G: I can’t be sure, but I think that’s a lot of the reason. I have been around 50 years, so my views on this are well known. I had NOAA money for 30 some years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn’t get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.
"
Originally posted by belgianfreakhttp://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/margins-to-centre/2005-February/000197.html
Like I said, I don't deny Global Warming and I don't suggest that we wait to see if it's true befor acting - that'd be silly. I was however refuting the claimn that GW was proven, which I did in the hope that someone would show me/us some convincing evidence.
I'm not dissing the guys from your post, but there's no proof there - just guys saying that ...[text shortened]... it proved GW to take it as proof. I'd be interested if you have any links I could chase.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNice one scottish, you're getting the idea, I don't care how worked up the alarmists like yourself get...but the minute you blokes start talking control, regulation, taxes and subsidies for your uneconomic pet projects that can't get voluntary funding, that's when the line is crossed.
One can stick ones head in the sand if they want.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Wajomaall we want to do is that we reduce CO2 emissions. how is an entirely different issue. it's perfectly possible to do without giving up all our luxuries. for example, if you really want to drive a stupidly large car like a hummer then fine. but don't build it out of steel. use carbon fiber, its stronger and way way lighter. saving vast amounts of fuel (saving you money) improving handeling and performance and general road saftey. your fuel is crap, simply moving from america to england can add as much as 50 to 100 horsepower to a big engine due to improvements in fuel quality (due to stiffer regulation), that and our engines are no less powerfull but are significantly more efficient. makeing things greener often makes them better. and the saving in oil could easily remove your dependence on forien oil imports (including iraq). so what is the downside again???
Nice one scottish, you're getting the idea, I don't care how worked up the alarmists like yourself get...but the minute you blokes start talking control, regulation, taxes and subsidies for your uneconomic pet projects that can't get voluntary funding, that's when the line is crossed.
Originally posted by belgianfreakThere's islands disappearing and whole villages melting... according to a Panorama programme on the BBC a few weeks ago.
I disagree. A lot ahs been postulated on Global Warming but I have yet to see catagoric proof. It's no good looking at the climate change over the last few hundred years and saying that this proves global warming because average temperatures are going up - the world has had much wilder swings of iceages and anit-iceages (whatever the reverse is) before ...[text shortened]... bal Warming isn't happeneing, but I yet have to see anything approaching proof for it.
What's more, according to this same programme, the US had scientific proof that global warming was made worse by human behaviour (ie. heavy industry and exaust emmissions) before the last election in the US...but that the publishing of it was delayed until after that said election and that when it was published it was severely edited.
Seemingly the scientific community are pretty pissed off about it too.
Originally posted by WajomaWell, since it's not me who's gonna suffer from global warming, I really couldn't give a rat's arse.
Exagerated and melodramatic use of the word "melting" a village is not a lump of dirt. Stand by my original accusation.
However. The ice caps are melting, villages are disappearing (as are whole islands) and there is proof that it has to do with human behaviour.
Accuse all you want babes, I'm getting my towel out and going for a sun tan.