More global warming debate (thanks to Vlado for the feed).....
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech....full article
Natural changes in ocean currents are to blame for increased Atlantic hurricane activity in recent years, not man-made global warming as many scientists believe, hurricane forecaster William Gray said on Friday.
"I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring," Gray said in a speech at the National Hurricane Conference.
Gray, whose annual forecasts for the hurricane season are closely watched, said the Earth has warmed the past 30 years, but that it was due to flucuations in ocean currents. He predicted a cooling off period would begin in five to 10 years as the currents change again....full article
So, according to Dr Gray, we will see a cooling trend in the next 5-10 years. Surely, that will answer the global warming question. Hopefully, we haven't damaged the world economy beyond repair before then.
3 comments:
Not to debate the argument itself, but why would we accept this one scientist's opinion over the many who disagree?
I'm not saying he's wrong and the others are right, I'm asking on what basis would we choose to eschew the warnings of the many about global climate change over the word of the few who disagree?
Assume I know nothing of the topic at hand beyond that this guy disagrees that humans are having a negative impact on the environment (at least as far as causing climate change) and that other scientists think evidence shows that it's likely and that we need to make policy and personal changes.
Why listen to him? Or, conversely, why would I listen to the others?
Or, putting it another way:
Let's assume I go to ten doctors. Nine of them tell me that it looks like I might be developing lung cancer and I would be wise to quit smoking. They aren't even saying for sure that my smoking (were I a smoker) might cause or contribute to cancer, but they are saying instead that it would just be prudent to quit smoking, just in case.
The tenth doctor tells me that I may or may not be getting lung cancer, but regardless, there's no real reason to quit smoking.
Why would I listen to the one and not the nine?
I think that the authenticity of Gore on Global Warming is not important. The genuineness of global warming is not proven but we cannot deny that the climate change in some parts of the world is devastating farmers in developing countries. Finding solutions to this problem is much more important than proving or disproving global warming. We need more action and less debates.
Post a Comment