Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/15/2008 4:47:01 PM PDT by Delacon
He's the world's most cited climatologist, according to an analysis in the journal of the British Institute of Geographers. He's also the fifth-most-cited physical geographer in the world, and the 11th most cited among all geographers.
He has written some 230 articles and five books, including in such fields as geology, limnology, meteorology and archeology.
He has twice seen his papers in Environmental Conservation awarded prizes for being "best paper of the year," and he's a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honour, created to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment."
He's Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many the "father of scientific climatology," and he's also pronounced on the most consequential climate issue of the day -- man-made global warming. His verdict: "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof."
Dr. Bryson, aged 87 and still professionally active, has become anathema to many environmentalists for his views on global warming. But those with long histories will remember him as an inspirational figure in the 1970s who challenged the wasteful ways of our consumer society, and warned of a dire need for lifestyle changes. Mother Earth News, a bible of the environmental movement, in the preamble to an extensive 1976 interview, described him as "an environmentalist in the broadest sense and his thoughts on the planet, its human population, and that population's activities range as widely and carry all the force of such acknowledged environmental spokesmen as Barry Commoner, Paul Ehrlich, and Dave Brower."
Dr. Bryson believed then, as he believes now, that humans affect the climate, in ways that both warm and cool the atmosphere. "Dozens of scientific papers, in fact, have been published about industry's consumption of fossil fuels, its creation of carbon dioxide, and how the resultant "greenhouse effect" will cause a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere," he told Mother Earth News.
"I find it interesting, however, that the same people who write those papers generally seem to overlook the even greater amounts of particulate matter which those same factories and foundries pump into the air, [cooling the atmosphere]. Not to mention the tremendous quantities of particulates now kicked into the atmosphere by poor farmers in primitive agricultural and marginal semi-arid regions all over the world."
Humans change the climate in other ways, too, chiefly because "the Industrial Revolution, by making the modern megalopolis possible, has certainly concentrated the release of heat into the atmosphere.? Take New York City, for example. The heat produced by human activity in New York during the winter is greater than the amount of heat the city receives from the sun."
As a result, large cities become warmer and drier, with different rainfall patterns than the surrounding countryside.
"It is quite possible that the growing megalopolis-type urban areas here in North America and the new concentrations of people in Europe and elsewhere are already slightly modifying the atmospheric circulation patterns of the whole hemisphere. In fact, since we already know that these metropolitan areas do alter the micro-climates around them, it would be hard to believe that they have no effect at all on the macroclimate."
Dr. Bryson's message in the 1970s attracted environmentalists, especially those drawn to the apocalyptic. As did many in that era, Dr. Bryson warned that the Earth faced catastrophe from overpopulation, and that even a small change in climate could have far-reaching consequences. But unlike many, Dr. Bryson wanted to find out what changes in climate might be in the offing, and what their consequences might be. He urged open-mindedness and investigation: "First, let's accept the fact that the climate could be changing on a global scale right now. Second, let's try to find evidence which either confirms or denies that such a change is taking place. And, third, if our evidence suggests that the Earth's climate is indeed changing in any way ? let's see if we can find a logical reason for such a change to be taking place.
"Furthermore, let's do all this ? not because we want to scare anyone ? not because we want to find some terrible global calamity just over the horizon ? and not because we want to draw attention to ourselves by forecasting the future. Let's just quietly and rationally try to figure out where the climate might be headed so we'll be able to prepare ourselves well in advance for any changes that might lie ahead."
As things would turn out, Dr. Bryson's advice was ignored. Science was pursued irrationally and not to seek answers, he believes, but to suit other agendas. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion," he has decided. "It's almost a religion where you have to believe in anthropogenic global warming or else you are nuts."
As for the biggest believer, Al Gore, and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth: "Don't make me throw up," he exclaims. "It is not science. It is not true."
And as for the often claimed scientific consensus on climate change, he doubts it: "I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion."
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.urban-renaissance.org. Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
CV OF A DENIER:
Reid Bryson joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1946 and in 1948 became the founding chairman of its department of meteorology. In 2007, he became emeritus professor of the university's department of oceanic and atmospheric sciences. Dr. Bryson's research broke path in diverse fields, among them the Indian monsoon, airstreams and the reconstruction of past climates. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Meteorological Society. He received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Chicago.
The Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? -- Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age -- Part XXVII
Open mind sees climate clearly -- Part XXVIII
Models trump measurements -- Part XXIX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks -- Part XXX
In the eye of the storm of global warming -- Part XXXI
From chaos, coherence -- Part XXXII
The aerosol man -- Part XXXIII
The Hot Trend is cool yachts -- Part XXXIV
You still need your parka in Antarctica -- Part XXXV
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save -- Part XXXVI
Why melting of ice sheets 'is impossible' -- Part XXXVII
Climate change by Jupiter -- Part XXXVIII
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx
BTT.
ping
Those pushing this, and those trying to sell it are destroying our economy and soon will be starving people. ENOUGH. They either believe this fairy tale, in which case they are too stupid to be in public office or have any kind of podium connected to public policy, OR they are in on promoting the largest scam in history on the American people, in which case they should be prosecuted. So which is it?
“As for the biggest believer, Al Gore, and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth: “Don’t make me throw up,” he exclaims. “It is not science. It is not true.””
Don't tell Rush Limbaugh! I heard him pontificating today about how humans can't influence climate!
“Don’t tell Rush Limbaugh! I heard him pontificating today about how humans can’t influence climate!”
Thats what you got from the article? Wipe the coolaid off your mouth before you speak.
My Pappy always says “somewhere in the middle of this pile of “poop”* there’s a pony”.
*obscenity substituted...
The answer to the question of whether humans affect climate change is not the hysteria on the one hand nor the complete denial on the other, it’s somewhere in between.
Well said.
Ping for later.
EXACTLY!
Rush Limbaugh's anti-intellectualism and misrepresentation of science has been one black mark that's continued throughout the last two decades. While he's briefed a bit better these days, it's as sickening to hear the ideology-based scientific views when they come from the right as from the left.
Trouble is, many people rely on him for information, with misplaced trust when it comes to some topics.
“I’ll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!”
Exercise that right.
Hi, Rush. How’s it going?
Oh, sorry...just realized you’re just his Kool-Aid boy.
I heard him pontificating today about how humans can't influence climate!Make a cloud; I dare ya ...
Better yet, try raising the yearly average rainfall in your area ...
Do that for ten tears in order qualify that for a long enough time to be called climate change (it's a climatology-definition-statistics thing) ...
I've done it many times. In fact, there's even a great book about how to do it by my favorite technique. :-) (You just reminded me that I haven't seen my autographed first edition of it for a while!)
Better yet, try raising the yearly average rainfall in your area ...
With a little bit of money (for silver iodide, for example, and a plane rental) and permit approval, it would be easy. Better yet, if we could do it in an area with supercooled orographic clouds, that would be more fun. If you'd like to join in, check out this group.
You have committed the sin of confusing weather with climate; see my addenda to my previous post.
(Besides, you could not, if your life depended on it, produce a 'cloud' under any and all circumstances.)
CALLER: Hey, just back on the global warming scam.I'm from the old school that you gotta pay attention to history to help yourself today. Back in the 1400s, the Dutch and the Portuguese -- these tiny little specks on the earth -- were the world superpowers, and they were superpowers because they dominated the oceans.
The reason -- the only reason that they dominated the ocean and nobody else did -- was they threw off the 1400s scientific consensus that the world was flat and if you sent your ship out too far, it would fall off the edge.
I just think that the Kyoto is the leftists' and the communists' way of trying to neuter the superpower status of the United States.
RUSH: Absolutely right! You have nailed it in 50 seconds. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Huh?!?! (or should I say HuhLOL?!)
You’re the one who asked for a cloud and for raising yearly annual rainfall. A single artificial storm could do that.
Rush Limbaugh confused climate and weather today in his broadcast. That was part of *MY* point!!!
And if you don’t think that we can (and DO) create clouds, then take a meteorology class, read some books, or just watch a tall stack on day with the right conditions.
NASA CREATES CLOUDS OVER THE EAST COAST
June 30, 2003 - (date of web publication)
Did you see strange clouds in the sky last night?
Four NASA sounding rockets carrying experiments to study Earth’s near-space environment, called the ionosphere, were launched from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, Sunday night and Monday morning. The launch times were: 11:19 p.m., 1:41 a.m., 2:50 a.m., and 3:07 a.m. Three of the rockets released trimethylaluminum, (TMA) forming clouds that could be seen for hundreds of miles.
The clouds allow scientists to monitor the Earth's winds at the edge of space, said Dr. Gregory Earle from the University of Texas in Dallas, the lead researcher for the project.
[...]
You’re the one who asked for a cloud and for raising yearly annual ...You're babbling now and you still can't make a 'cloud' and/or rain on command at any time under any condition (that WAS my stipulation).
(Didn't you see my previous reply?)
Or, are you actually God?
If you are actually God, pax.
I'm not into a junior lecture on meteorology tonight.
(I'll crack open Aguado and Burt, 3rd ed., if I want that.)
I think outside the box and want to build a Space Elevator with counter-revolving MylarTM screens to allow us to manage variations of insolation if we wish. 
Fine...if that’s your condition, then of course we can’t.
But that’s totally irrelevant to the discussion. Mr. Limbaugh’s contention that an inability to generate short-term, limited-area weather effects means we can’t generate climate changes...is fallacious. It’s like saying that just because something doesn’t give acute effects, it can’t have a chronic effect...like I can’t eat enough refined sugar in a sitting to make me diabetic, but it could create such an effect long-term!
Statements like, "The sun makes atmospheric ozone. If we wanted to destroy the ozone layer, we would have to put out the sun" are as ridiculous as "rain fills a pond. If we wanted to empty the pond, we'd have to stop the rain."
Uh, no.
There is no climatic event that we can alter. We cannot change the direction of a line of thunderstorms. We cannot look at a squall line of thunderstorms and say, "Going to be a tornado coming out of this and it's going to hit over here in five minutes," and give appropriate warning.That's a weather event. It doesn't mean we can't make predictions about climate...or even general weather trends.
For example, even if I can't tell about or alter that squall line, I can predict that the mean temperature here for July will be higher than it was a couple of months ago.
His claims are flat-out wrong, as they are based on fallacious logic and invalid reasoning.
I lived in Arizona when the ban on R-12 went into effect and basically sent people scrambling because of the damn ozone hole. The SHAM (Society Helping Atheists Moonbats) pissed me off more than ever.
Yep. Similar to a claim that because we can't predict the next throw of the dice, we therefore can't know the probability distribution or "climate" of many throws.
A very good example...much more concise and clear than mine. :-)
Then kill the butterflies too, because I have heard 'scientists' say they the flap of a wing can eventually turn into a hurricane half way around the world. Activity of any kind changes what would have been.
It's unreasonable to think that any species can not impact the environment in some ways and it is just as irrational to think that any species can overcome the ability of the environment to adjust to those impacts. Yes, we can and have, with concerted effort, trash a local area. So can, and have, other species. But neither they or we have the power to change the global environment. That is reserved to purely natural events -- earth quakes, volcanoes, comets, and our very life-giver -- the Sun. A small twitch or hiccup there can end us and this beautiful blue ball in a matter of minutes. We all live on borrowed time.
The world is a damn big place and the human footprint on it is small compared to the effect simple single cell organisms have on it. As far as 'impacting the planet' algae has infinitely more power than all the people and technology we can ever amass.
Why are man's creation of 'greenhouse gasses' evil while termites creations of many times greater amounts considered 'natural'? Why is cattle ranching and dairy farming considered bad, yet the same people who say it's bad morn the loss of other ungulates who by all reports roamed the same territory in far greater numbers in the past?
All human societies look for 'witches' and for the left, industry is the witch they have chosen, not because it is bad, but because it fits their agenda.
Do you really want to know the answer, or are you just making a snarky comment?
If you are interested in the answer, then I believe Sen. Gore believes the theory that there are normal fluctuations in climate. But because the current climate change is FAR more rapid than historical or paleo ones (at least, it seems so for the paleoclimate data, as its timescale resolution is limited), it is in part driven by human activity.
Sort of like saying, "how did plants grow before we had farmers planting the seeds?" Well, planting seeds might make them grow better and have a lower failure rate, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some natural growth prior to human input. Conversely, the fact that there was natural plant growth doesn't mean that human input couldn't enhance the success.
But by the Rush Limbaugh method of thinking, if plants grew without our help, we can't have any influence on them and farmers are wasting their time trying to influence things.
IOW, our current climate change is much faster than with the ending of the "Ice Age," so you don't need to worry about us digging up an S-10 in glacial outwash deposits. :-)
As I have pointed out many a time...it's not necessarily a thing to cheer if we have no influence on climate change, as that would mean we have no ability to manage it or moderate it, should that become necessary.
It's not that termites are natural and anthropogenic GHG are "evil"...it's that we have far more control over anthropogenic emissions than termite contributions. It's like asking "why is a reckless driving crash death evil when we're going to age and die anyway?"
Heck, the Grim Reapers doesn't care when you go...but if you do, then you'll minimize the negative effects of factors over which you have control.
But neither they or we have the power to change the global environment.
From where did we get the 21% oxygen atmosphere? Where are the trilobytes or dinosaurs? While the earth may adjust and "recover" from changes, that doesn't mean things return to the same state...and it certainly doesn't mean that we can chauvanistically believe that we will be part of the "after" scenario. The concern isn't so much that the earth will survive, but will our way of life?
We didn't always.
Allow me to ask. If we could develope a technology to reduce CO2 levels to 60% of current levels, would you be willing to utilize it?
bump
Yet I'm still to take as a matter of 'consensus' that a pack of politicized, grant-grubbing academics can tell me what the climate will be like in 100 years.
No thanks. I ain't buying it. Call me a skeptic or what ever other dirty word you may choose. ;~))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.