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…

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.

Then he makes an observation that encapsulates how science is held hostage by politics nowadays:

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.”

Of course the commander in chief won’t win the Nobel. You have to be properly French, like Al Gore. No one who has the fortitude to fight for God will win the Nobel Prize from the God-hating Europeans.

We should really outlaw Americans from accepting European prizes like the Nobel – just like Canada outlaws Canadians from accepting knighthoods from the Queen. It would sure make a good point to see if Gore would choose a Nobel and have to renounce his American citizenship to do it.

On re-examining my vaults, I think we could all do with a read of the Roy Spencer article here.

Of the author it is written therein:

Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before bcoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.

I make a few notes:

–> It is sad that he has to make a long preface on the oil money bribe accusation. Money quote:

The dirty little secret is that environmental organizations and global warming pessimists receive far more money from Big Oil than do global warming optimists such as myself. While professional environmental lobbyists are totally dependent upon environmental crises for their continued existence, atmospheric researchers and meteorologists have day jobs which are not. Some outspoken global warming pessimists have received large cash awards (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the positions they have taken; there are no such monetary awards for global warming optimists.

–> His contrast between the infamous Hockey-stick graph that tried to do away with the Medieval Climate optimum and the results of the GRIP borehole project is also interesting: we don’t need to use “proxies” for temperature like tree ring measurements — there are actual temperature ‘measurements’ that go back over 1,000 years. Borehole temperatures are taken deep in the ground, where the seasonal cycle in surface temperature sends an annual temperature pulse down into the Earth. Dating of these underground temperature pulses from Greenland (Fig. 3) reveals much warmer temperatures 1,000 years ago than today.

–> Thus, the climate optimum is evidently real, and shows a temp spike that is significantly in excess of the current one. Thus, natural variability can be a key factor in what is going on.

–> To this, we can add the recent “kept quiet” correction to the temp records of the US over the past 130 or so years, which suddenly and significantly shifts the pattern of “warmest years.” As Lorne Gunter remarks in the National Post,The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third. Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade . . . . The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

–> To help us understand the rhetorical significance of that, Gunter asks us to imaginatively reverse the situation: Imagine the shrieking of the warmers if we had previously thought that hot years were scattered throughout the past 130 years, but after a correction the warmest years could be seen to be concentrated in the past decade . . . . They would blitz every news organization and talk show.

–> In that context, the quiet correction is highly, sadly revealing.
________________

In short, we need to cool down the temperature of the discussion, and act with cool-headed prudence and mutual respect [as my earlier comment, still in mod, observed], not hype and hysteria.

GEM of TKI

First, given the technical defects in his case, it is painfully plain that Mr Gore’s Prize has more to do with the Internationalist political climate, rather than the real one — and several other inexplicable awards over the past years simply underscore the point.

That will, sadly, redound to the harm of the Nobel Prize as an institution, long term.

However, having got that out of our system, we need to attend to matters more directly germane to the focus of this blog. Namely, the current deleterious intersection of Science, worldviews, political agendas and public perceptions.

Where to begin?

1] Let’s calm down:

We can note that very, very few of us are qualified to read technical, mathematics- and theory-dense papers on climate trends and driving dynamics with critically aware insight.

It would therefore behoove us to hold our opinions lightly and tentatively, rather than with ferocious emotional commitments and hostile perceptions that too much of this debate manifests — especially on Mr Gore’s side, who have unfortunately been more the sinners here than the sinned against. I am particularly incensed by the tendency to accuse those who point out deficiencies in the AGW advocates’ case, of being motivated by bribes from the Oil industry, etc.

2] Focus on the merits, not the headlines and hype:

Much of the strongly voiced opinion we see is driven by the weight of headlines and the prestige and persuasiveness of spokesmen for one side or the other — not the substance of the case.

In any case, science — as a study based on inference to best current explanation of observations — is incapable of proof beyond revision or even abandonment. Computer models, especially the relatively crude ones used in GCMs, are even moreso incapable of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, as has been noted above and in links, there are still troubling empirical gaps between what the models say and what the data says.

In that context, headlining one-off events such as Hurricane Katrina, or the retreating of this particular glacier [and not the nearby one that is growing], or every heat wave — or cold one for that matter — simply acts to persuade, not to substantiate.

On balance therefore, there is an observation on current or recent climate trends, there are interesting explanations on offer, and there are concerns; some of them perhaps a bit overwrought due to hyping by enthusiasts and advocates.

3] Take reasonable and prudent actions:

My rule of thumb on CC-related action steps, is that we should take no action motivated by concerns over AGW that do not make sense on other grounds. Especially, if the actions have a high cost-to-benefits ratio.

For instance, I think the IPCC etc analysis suggests that Kyoto protocol actions would probably delay their projected trends by a decade. At the same time, too many of these actions may well have drastic and adverse impacts on economies. [And, economic depressions are a leading trend index of major wars, for many reasons. Not least, economically destabilised, desperate people are a lot less prone to think carefully before acting politically -- just ask the Germans of the early 1930's.]

4] Work on credible alternatives:

In the meanwhile, we can work harder on developing reasonable alternative energy technologies, e.g. Geothermal energy here in Montserrat. Such could cut our generation costs to competitive levels internationally, and take us out of the highly volatile international oil market for our biggest fossil fuel line item. Plus, we may have up to 900 MW of potential, from some estimates I have seen, raising the possibility of attracting energy-intensive industries and even electrical power export.

Longer term, I think dye-sensitised TiO2 photocells [maybe less than US$ 1/Watt capacity], Pebble Bed Modular Reactors [maybe less than US 2 cents/kWhr, or half current levellised generation costs], fuel cells and other emerging technologies offer interesting alternatives.

So do some of the proposals for Carbon sequestration and even the possible use of exhaust from power plants to make biofuels out of GM algae. (Transportation and Electricity generation are usually the top two fossil fuel users in an economy.)

Similarly, we have more than adequate reason to take prudent adaptation and where possible mitigation steps on climate related natural hazards. For instance, New Orleans should never be rebuilt to be as vulnerable as it was to a Cat 3 – 5 storm. Sooner or later one will come again. (Similarly, Plymouth, Montserrat, should never have been developed as it was as the principal centre for key infrastructure, right in the target zone of an active volcano.)

Thus, we can change the tone and terms of the debate, dramatically.

5] Drawing the lines back to the ID debate:

It should be obvious that science and politics in a context where the general public are ill-equipped to assess technical merits, is a volatile mix. One that invites hot-heads who like to throw in blazing matches. The resulting conflagrations throw out more heat and noxious smoke than light.

This is exactly what has happened with the design theory debate. Steps 1 – 3 and maybe 4 above, are again applicable. But, those who stand to lose power as the balance of the merits is not their way, will try to hot things up to suit their taste and interests. (The recent threads on Mr Dawkins and his ilk are sadly telling in that regard.)

So, let us note for ourselves what is going on, and refuse to be controlled by heat and smoke, not light.

GEM of TKI

PS: There has also been a lot of tossing around of the smear-word “fundamentalism,” recently in this blog — with the insinuation that “theocracy” [another loaded word] is not far behind. I think a pause to examine a more balanced look at some basic facts and challenges to those who wish to use this burning brand, will be helpful.

While in one of the main operations centers in Iraq. I saw this news clip of Gore having won this “prize” on one of the big screens. Gore still doesn’t have respect from anyone in the military that I know. Nobody in the room could respect the event. And, no offense intended to anyone with mental impairments… because my heart goes out to anyone struggling in society in that way. So, I hate to sound crude, but all I could do was drop my jaw and simply comment that the human race as a whole had just become a little more retarded by seeing this so called “prize” awarded to Gore.

What’s so bad about global warming anyway? Siberia would become a bread basket, and rain might be more common then in the deserts – bringing them to life.

That’s my two cents.

I sympathize with your frustration, but if you and your neighborhood aren’t politicized then your statement that, “Everything is political. Everything,” is an exageration.

Thank goodness that most of life isn’t political. Like playing with my granddaughter at the park, praying with and for my fellow-believers, planning our company’s next business move, taking my wife on a dinner-date, talking about gardening with a neighbor, sharing Christ with a hungry heart, or driving through the Texas Hill Country on a sunny Sunday afternoon.

I’d say, rather, that too many things which ought not be politicized, have been. For example, when it comes to issues such as global warming, science has forsaken a disinterested pursuit of truth to become a consensus-building (a.k.a. “political”) enterprise.

Choosing to ignore the politics involved in Al Gore’s award is easy. Choosing to ignore the political takeover of, say, medicine, is going to prove more difficult 7 1/2 hours into a 15-hour wait to see a doctor. By then, however, it will be too late.

When it comes to politics, here’s my favorite definition of “democracy”: Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for supper.

In order to prevent insanity in today’s truly messed up political reality I choose to live by Rob Lowe’s quote in the movie “About Last Night”. When he is asked if all of the world’s woes bother him his reply is “I live in a pretty good neighborhood”….

The war between the left and the right doesn’t bother me because me because I simply do not pay attention to it. Extreme left, extreme right, they are both the same, different faces of the same coin. Both ignorant, both narrow-minded, both wrong.

Al Gore winning the Nobel is nothing more than a sortie in the war. To all those that hold that a Nobel means nothing anymore this is a non-event. No more important than being informed of a scene in a TV show you don’t watch.

I live in a pretty good neighborhood, and as such I have no qualms about Gore or the Nobel, anymore than I care about a certain character in MTV’s The Real World, a show I have never watched.

Al Gore means less than nothing to me, as does the Nobel committee, but you probably already guessed that.