Guest Post By Bill Gray


Last week I had the pleasure of dining with my two favorite Fort Collins octogenarians – Dr. Bill Gray and Sue Brackenbury.  Their mothers were best friends, but Bill and Sue hadn’t seen each other for decades. Both have been icons of the community in Fort Collins for many years, where Bill’s late wife was mayor in the 1980s. Today is Sue’s 86th birthday, and Bill has a special gift for us.

The Practice of Personal Attacking Global Warming Skeptics – Rather than Responding to Their Scientific Criticisms
By Bill Gray

 While visiting the Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Poona, India in August 1966 I met and interacted with a young (~21) and promising Indian meteorologist named Jagdish Shukla.  I have not been surprised to see his later scientific rise and very successful meteorological career in the US.

At an evening social event in Poona (August 1966) a number of us (including Shukla) were discussing the then recent China-India War (1962) over China’s infringement on India’s northern border and the political tensions which had continued up to that time.  China was then in its isolated cultural–revolution period and was belligerent to most outside nations.  China’s strong intervention in Korea (1950-53) was still relatively fresh in people’s minds.  The US was in the early stages of the Vietnam War and there was worry about China’s possible intervention on the side of the North Vietnamese as they had done in Korea.  China was also rapidly advancing in its effort to develop a nuclear bomb.  Some people (at the time) were advocating the bombing of China’s nuclear facility before it had developed the bomb (as Israelis did to the Iraq nuclear development facility a number of years later).  We discussed the desirability of the US and its allies taking such action.  As best I can remember, I did not advocate taking such action and I’m glad that no such action was ever taken.

Fast forward 35 years later to a NOAA Climate meeting Shukla and I attended in Washington around 2001.  I was trying to obtain NOAA funding for my CSU project hurricane research which was partly involved with seasonal prediction.  My talk at this meeting was directed to the complicate nature of the earth’s climate system and the lack of confidence we should have in the then current numerical climate prediction models of rising CO2 amounts causing large global warming.  I specifically criticized the unrealistic positive water-vapor feedback in the climate models, the inability of the models to resolve individual convective units, the lack of proper inclusion of deep ocean circulation processes in the models, and other factors.  This was not what the government officials and most of the meeting attendees wanted to hear (and I didn’t get the funding I was seeking).  I now see that I was naïve in thinking that the global warming question was not totally dominated by governmental and environmental politics unrelated to the science behind the warming issue.

I expected and was prepared for negative comments about the meteorological problems I had pointed out in my talk.  The first response came from Shukla.  But he didn’t question anything I had just presented.  He went directly after me personally – by announcing I was the type of fellow who had earlier advised the bombing of China’s nuclear development facility.  He implied by this that I was the type of person too far out of the mainstream to be trusted on any of the serious questions concerning the AGW topic.  Shukla was not at all hesitant about bringing up and twisting what he thought I had said 35 years earlier.  I was 36 at the time I was then in Poona and about 70 when I gave my later NOAA talk.

These types of personal attacks on us AGW skeptics (unrelated to the physics or science of the topic) are not so unusual.  I have heard a number of similar stories about the aggressive isolation and criticisms of skeptics who do not follow the global warming party-line.  Most skeptics, as a result, are not able to obtain federal grant support.  They pay a high price for trying to tell the truth.

The attempt of the warming crowd to discredit us skeptics can take many forms other than the merits or demerits of the scientific questions we ask.  Warming proponents will typically not discuss or defend the physics behind the AGW hypothesis or how their climate models produce the large global warming results they do.  They tend to have a ‘take-it’ or ‘leave-it’ mentality or they typically refuse to discuss the warming mechanisms within their models on the grounds that the scientific questions have already been settled.

The warmers usual response to criticism seems to be to try to dig up whatever negative personal information they can uncover about the skeptic and then from this manufactured degraded outlook to imply that the science behind the skeptics criticisms must be similarly flawed.

Why are the warmers so afraid to have open and honest discussion about the basic nitty-gritty assumptions of their AGW hypothesis?  I think it is because they well know (but will not admit) that the science behind the AGW hypothesis is ripe with conceptual errors and, in the long run, be proven to be wrong.

I am but one of many AGW skeptics who have been subjected to the warmer’s attempts to isolate, ignore, and personally marginalize us, in order to deflect attention away from the basic scientific problems confronting the AGW hypothesis and its model output representations.  I doubt that the global warming crowd would so act if they were really confident of the reality of their science.  The warmers are now on a downward slide (which I believe they know but won’t admit) and cannot or will not face-up to the fact that they have picked the wrong horse to bet their future scientific reputations upon.  The older warmers are now too far down the AGW road to be able to gracefully extricate themselves.  Other warmers may feel that their prestige-enhancements and the governmental funding rewards they have gotten have been worth it – even if their warming alarms are later proven wrong.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Guest Post By Bill Gray

  1. Stephen Richards says:

    Great post Tony. Three great people.

  2. Mike Riordan says:

    Great post. Dr Gray sums up the current situation in a single sentence :

    “The warmers are now on a downward slide (which I believe they know but won’t admit) and cannot or will not face-up to the fact that they have picked the wrong horse to bet their future scientific reputations upon.”

  3. CheshireRed says:

    If AGW theory was able to withstand legitimately close scrutiny then advocates would’ve simply taken on sceptics and beaten them fair and square in public debates. Their point-blank refusal to debate tells its own story, as does the now accepted tactic of attacking the sceptical messenger personally.
    As Bill says, many have simply gone too far and too long down the alarmist road to turn back, as they know their reputation’s would never recover from admitting they’ve been party to the costliest mistake in scientific (and human) history.

  4. Al Ziegler says:

    I have been saying the same thing for years. When anyone puts forth a scientific study that sheds doubt on AGW, the warmists attack the skeptic’s character, credentials, or their funding. They never attack the science.

  5. Mac says:

    Dr. Gray asks why. Why? Because of something I’m sure he knows full well. Because climate change is a cult. It’s not science at all. Scientists debate and discuss, gather evidence and report honest data, and behave respectfully. High priests and cult leaders attack, threaten, and harass, invent and alter data, and attempt to destroy the opposition. Science is provable. A cult’s beliefs aren’t provable at all, and are usually hysterical and delusional and prophesize the end of the world.

  6. Owen says:

    I will never forgive the Climate Liars. Ever. I will never accept their apology. I will consistently remind them of their lies, their vitriol and hatred towards the skeptics until the day they die. They have proven themselves to be nothing more than mean spirited, corrupt, petty human beings that deserve nothing but disdain and contempt for their disgusting actions. On the other hand I have nothing but admiration for the Skeptics, who throughout this horrible ordeal have shown themselves to be among the best humanity has to offer. I salute Tony Heller, Bill Grey and all the rest who fought the good fight. Your integrity, honesty and bravery are examples for us all to follow.

    • FTOP says:

      Bravo. As sickening as the behavior of these zealots has been, the real tragedy is the bastardization of science.

      The IPCC turned science into demagoguery and the government agencies poured taxpayer funded propaganda to drive the religion forward.

      It will be a formidable task to root out all the activism cloaked in science that has permeated government research.

      For those who love and admire truth, it is a lost generation.

  7. john whale says:

    It’s a real life example of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

  8. John S says:

    The intellectual, cultural, and political elites show their true colors and they are not pretty. However, I hope those who are feeling these attacks will not turn and do the same. To ID/creationists, pro-life proponents, Christians, those who have questions about vaccinations – to name a few. I am asking for a checkity-check of ourselves for hypocrisy.

    Of course this is the problem, since most of Mr. Grays opponents are no doubt atheists. With no ultimate authority there is no basis, standard, or purpose for morality, just do what is right in your own eyes. In which case there is no such thing as ‘wrong’ to them and we might as well be reasoning with a candy cane.

    The problem that Mr. Gray faces is much deeper than the climate and science. Appeals for civility, fairness and morality are baseless from the outset. As it has been wisely stated “For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves”. They have no interest in surveying themselves because they have suppressed the knowledge of God. In this sense, ‘Science’ has made its own bed in which it must now lie. The majesty of Creation and our own conscience be damned.

  9. Scott Scarborough says:

    It will not effect their careers. When a group this large, with this much power, backed by the news media goes against reality and it becomes obvious that what they are preaching is not real, they just cease mentioning it and eventually most people forget… because it is not mentioned in the news. Then they will go on to some other scam. And again, you will be called a “denier” if you don’t believe them.

  10. BobW in NC says:

    Ah, yes, us ‘deniers.’ This lovely and reprehensible ad hominem, “denier,” is due entirely (with ‘thanks’) to columnist Ellen Goodman in her 2007 piece published in the Boston Globe:

    “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” (Goodman, Ellen. No change in political climate. The Boston Globe, February 9, 2007.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      I note the date of your link is Feb. 9, 2007.
      There is a post on October 9, 2006 by Roger Pielke, Jr (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research – cstpr; Prometheus, On Language). Therein, Roger Pielke writes
      Let’s be blunt. The phrase “climate change denier” is meant to be evocative of the phrase “holocaust denier”. As such . . .
      Comments following suggest earlier usage and it should be clear that Pielke is referring to multiple previous usage of the word.
      In his article (1995 & book – ’97) “The Heat is On: The warming of the world’s climate sparks a blaze of denial”, Ross Gelbspan used the word repeatedly.
      It is likely the “first usage” cannot be determined.

      The host here is a fantastic “finder” of things – perhaps he already has this one nailed.

  11. Jon says:

    Troubling and explanatory, note the payment for deception modeling part, near the middle of article………

    Why People Can’t Face the Truth about Obama
    By Deborah C. Tyler 12-28-15

    Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress and discomfort caused when important beliefs, attitudes or values, called cognitions, are inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory to each other. In the 1950s the psychologist Leon Festinger theorized that the mind spontaneously, continuously reduces cognitive dissonance to enable goal-directed functioning in a paradoxical, inconsistent, deceptive world. Festinger’s discovery founded a rich tradition of research which has demonstrated how the mind resolves contradictions. IT PROVIDES A POWERFUL WAY TO UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE CAN’T FACE WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS DOING TO AMERICA.
    Research has demonstrated countless times that cognitions do not have to be true to create dissonance, they just have to be believed. Barack Obama was elected to reduce the dissonance between the beliefs ‘America is the land of the free’, and the falsehoods ‘America is still racist’ and ‘President Obama will go a long way to solving the problem of racism.’ Because ‘America is racist” is false, its corollaries are equally false. ‘We must elect a black Democrat — not black Republican — because Republicans don’t emphasize America is racist. Obama is fabulous, no need to know much about him, or whether he can lead the nation. He will make us feel better about ourselves’.
    AMERICA IS BARACK OBAMA’S PREY. HE IS TEARING AMERICA APART AND FEEDING THE PIECES OF HER LIFE TO HIS FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC FELLOW TRAVELERS. HE IS NOT TRANSFORMING THE NATION BUT TERMINATING IT. Even the most transformational administrations have NOT enabled the murder of Americans by declared enemies, weakened the national defense, mocked the concerns, and dimmed the hopes of average Americans as this president has. Even the highly transformational Franklin Roosevelt did not return Nazi generals to the enemy during the war as Obama did in the Bergdahl swap. Roosevelt did not entertain and enrich Nazi bigwigs as Obama has the Muslim Brotherhood. IMAGINE ROOSEVELT FACILITATING GERMAN ATOM BOMB RESEARCH AND ENRICHING THE AXIS POWERS AS OBAMA HAS IN THE IRAN DEAL. No president has erased the nation’s borders at land and sea as Obama in advertising inducements for an invasion from around the world. No president in American history has aided enemies, undermined the economy and derided the American people as the current commander-in-chief.
    If the Obama election were going to reduce the dissonance he would have started his administration thusly: “As I have said, we are one nation, going forward together. Mine will be the first truly color-blind administration in American history. Every appointment I make will be based solely on qualifications and proven competence without reference to race.” Of course, this is the opposite of what Obama did. He fine-combed through America searching for scraps of racism. He strengthened the lie that America is a racist nation as cover for his destruction. AMONGST INNUMERABLE EXAMPLES: ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER INTRODUCED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BY IMPLYING THE WHITE MAJORITY ARE ALL RACISTS, BUILT A DOJ WHOSE FOREMOST CONCERN IS RACISM, CARRIED FORWARD BY LORETTA LYNCH, WHO JUST SAID A STREET STREWN WITH AMERICAN CORPSES MURDERED BY JIHADI TERRORISTS IS A “WONDERFUL” OPPORTUNITY TO FIGHT RACISM.
    America is racist, so illegals can enter unchecked. America is racist, destroy her free markets, send billions to nonwhite people as “warmist” reparations for her ill-gotten success. America is racist, empower and enrich her enemies like Iran. Barack Obama and his ilk experience zero cognitive dissonance regarding the contradictory beliefs ‘America is about freedom’ and ‘America is racist’. They never believed that America or her Constitution are about freedom. They believe the incurably evil and racist America must be eliminated for the good of the world.
    Before the mass denial of Obama’s hatred is explained by dissonance theory, let’s mention subdissonant Americans. Subdissonant Americans have no discomfort whether America is about freedom or racism because they are too intellectually limited, dumbed-down, or drugged out to care. If asked “Why does the sun shine?” a six-year-old will answer, “That is what the sun is ‘post to do.” This is termed the moral explanation of concrete thinking. Based on IQ distribution, approximately 15% of the population do not think beyond the moral explanation, and do not recognize a president who isn’t doing what he is supposed to do. Other subdissonant groups are those too ill educated or addicted to care about freedom or racism.
    Festinger’s induced-compliance paradigm of dissonance theory explains why black Americans may be the last group to face Obama’s destructiveness — because his policies have hurt them the most. In a famous experiment, people were instructed to lie to others and say a boring task was interesting. The induced-compliance paradigm found that people paid only $1 to lie convinced themselves they were telling the truth more than people paid $20 to tell the same lie! This counterintuitive effect has been replicated many times. People who received minimal external motivation for managing dissonance — those paid the least — produced stronger internal justifications to deny their actual experience. The underpaid believed their own lies better than those paid twenty times more. The overpaid say, “I’m in it for the money, period.” This is why many very wealthy people slug the colada in Obama’s banana republic while the poorest blacks continue to justify the president, even as they get poorer.
    Obama is destroying America overtly and covertly. By promoting policies which are normalizing harmful drugs, undermining the natural family, and generally promoting moral chaos he slyly increases the number of subdissonant Americans, people too ill or distracted to care. He has brainwashed or bought off virtually the entire government including the Republican establishment. A noble people who years ago would have resolved dissonance by believing in America’s goodness and standing firm against tyranny no longer do.
    The social psychologist Elliot Aronson advanced cognitive dissonance theory, FURTHER EXPLAINING WHY PEOPLE CAN’T FACE OBAMA’S HATRED AND DESTRUCTION. Aronson’s self-concept model theorized the central purpose of dissonance reduction is to preserve positive self-image (I am a good person) and self-justification (I was right all along). Because so many Americans now have been convinced we are a racist nation, to maintain a positive self-image people cannot face the truth about Obama.
    The loss of opportunities and the diminishing of hopes which Obama’s policies have inflicted create a monumental need for self-justification among his supporters. “The president shows us America is still racist. We were right all along.” THEY HAVE LET GO THE TRUTH THAT AMERICA IS ABOUT FREEDOM. No one knows how many still stand upon that truth, how many care, or if there are enough big lies left to elect Hillary.

  12. dp says:

    Jagdish Shukla – the RICO petitioner that is now exposed as something of an embarrassment to the climate hysterics. I think Dr. Gray is a master of tongue in cheek.

    I have not been surprised to see his later scientific rise and very successful meteorological career in the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.