...but when I read a post describing a retired professor as "the world's leading weather expert" I ask myself, 'who bestowed such a lofty title on this man?' Was it the National Weather Service? The American Meteorlogical Society? The Royal Meteorlogical Society?

Nope. Try John Hinderacker.

No doubt Dr. Willaim Gray deserves credit for his work in predicting the number of hurricanes we will see in a given year, but does that make him "the world's leading weather expert"? Surely a post denouncing 'media bias' offer something more than just the opinion of a guy in Minneappolis, who seems to consider himself an expert in just about everything. I suppose Hinderacker can escape the criticism of advocating a double standard or engaging in his own 'media bias' because we all know 1) that Hinderacker is biased and 2) what he does on his blog should never be confused with journalism.

After all, would'nt real media ask Dr. Gray what studies he has conducted to reach his conclusions on global warming? Surely a man of science would understand the scientific method and its importance on proving or disproving scientific theories, right?

I guess that 'biased' media that Hinderacker condemns forgot to tell us that Dr. Gray does not base his theories on global warming or scientific studies, but rather, on his untested observations. Maybe that is why Hinderacker has taken up his cause- birds of a feather!

And to think that the decrease in grant money Dr Gray is lamenting about has nothing to do with his combatitive personality, the strengths or weaknesses of his proposed research and his willingness or ability to follow the scientific method, but ONLY shows some apparent conspiracy to keep this guy from exposing "the myth" of global warming.

Just because a scientist, or John Hinderacker, said something does not mean that it is true, and when that person is criticized for an unproven belief, it is not evidence of bias, the unproven belief being true, or some conspiracy to prevent the unproven theory from being tested. If Gray is so sure of his theories on global warming, why is he so reluctant to use science to prove them?

Call me simple minded, but when a scientist elects to mask their theories in scientific talk while avoiding the use of the scientific method, I wonder what they are trying to hide.

To quote Hinderacker "Since Dr. Gray is generally recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting hurricanes, this is news." I will grant you that Gray is considered an expert in forecasting hurricanes, and if Hinderacker wanted to limit his description of Gray's area of expertise to that area alone, I would not quibble with the designation. But being an expert in forecasting hurricanes makes him an expert on global warming because...? Gee, Hinderacker never says, but implies that because he is an expert in forecasting hurricanes, he must be an expert on global warming. (In a very broad sense, Gray does address cycles of temperature, specifically as they relate to the temperatures of the oceans and atmospheric currents, but he does not address the causes of the changes in the cycle. Forensics are not his specialty.) That is like saying that because a podiatrist works with the foot and is capable of surgically removing a lesion from the foot, they are capable of performing the same operations as an orthopedic surgeon.

And I represent the 'biased media' because I had the audacity to call into question John Hinderacker's description of Dr. Gray? It would be easy to ignore if Hinderacker did not attempt to portray himself as 'unbiased' and the media biased. I truly hope you can see the bias Hinderacker is himself offering in the post.

The 'untested observations' language came from other articles I read, including this one in the WaPo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html (I can hear the shouts now: Liberal Rag! Media Bias!) I also saw a PBS documentary not long ago on the 'naysayers on global warming.' The show documented the 'scientists' who have gone from claiming that there was no link between cigarettes and cancer to claiming that there is no evidence of 'unnatural' global warming. I do not recall if Dr. Gray was in this group of naysayers, but the description of the 'scientific study' (or lack thereof) used to promote the claims made by Dr. Gray were addressed in that documentary.

So let me turn the tables: you seem so certain that Dr. Gray is basing his opinions on some scientific study or research, perhaps you could provide me with the references to the scientific research Dr. Gray uses to support his theories? Sure, the theory is cloaked in scientific language, but that does not mean it follows the scientific method. Perhaps you are certain of something uncertain? Surely you have a handy reference to the scientific studies, the peer reviewed articles, the detailed scientific theorems, that Dr. Gray bases his opinions on, or you would not have accused me of being so certain of an uncertainty.

And lets not confuse my own skepticism of Dr. Gray's claims with a casual dismissal of his views. I have no problem with Dr. Gray expressing his belief that global warming is a hoax. I have no problem with Dr. Gray casting a skeptical eye at a scientific principle offered by others. I think a dose of skepticism is good. If Dr. Gray expressed his views as his beliefs, not as scientific study, who am I to argue? But I do have a problem with Dr. Gray dressing his opinions up as scientific principles, and with people like John Hinderacker pretending that everything a 'scientist' says is deduced using the scientific method. Ronald Reagan once said "trust, but verify." That is the essence of science- can the theory be duplicated, or confirmed, buy others using the scientific method? Albert Einstein did not say 'trust me, I know this' but set forth a postulate, a procedure for testing that postulate, and the results he found. These efforts can be duplicated, and if another scientist conducting the study found that Einstein's conclusions could not be supported by the experiment, we would not consider Einstein's conclusions to be scientific in nature. So why are Dr. Gray's notions treated differently?

I honestly do not know how to respond to the 'funding' issue. On one hand, conservatives object to government hand outs, but some now suggest that Dr. Gray is somehow entitled to funding for 'research' just because he applied. Even something far more important, like welfare, is need based. And where is a discussion of the proposals where funding was rejected? I certainly did not see anything, although Dr. Gray speculates that he has not gotten funding for his research because of his views (as do you timothy). So why does it show bias against Gray's views, and not a) an ill conceived project, b) an irrelevant project, c) the need for more important or worthy research elsewhere, etc.? You may be right, that the denial of funding is because of his views, but viewing the same 'evidence' as you, I do not reach the same conclusion and do not see the denial of funding as proof of the matter asserted: that the Government is biased against Dr. Gray in funding because of his views on global warming.

sorry about the font size...

Hey, no yelling here, just w.bloggar incompetence. I yell in much larger font.

I did point out why he is competent to speak out regarding climate change modeling (from which the global warming estimates come), but you are unable to see it. Take then the advice of another atmospheric scientist. Or, you can make more accusations regarding his integrity.

Again, I would love to know how you know that one side is using the scientific method and one side is not (everyone on one side is, and everyone on the other side is not? What about the people in the middle, or do the environmental inquisitions not leave room for that?). You have done little but type insinuations ranging from absurd suggestions that Dr. Gray does not understand climate science sufficiently to comment on climate change, to suggesting that he does not make use of any scientific method (as you broadly defined it) to support his assertions. Oh and now, that he might be in the pocket of some nefarious consortium of businesses that are anti-air regulation (that was a good one). I suppose next we can speculate about the possibility that he is part of some secret apocalyptic cult that hopes to usher in the end of the human race by way of climate science ignorance (beware!).

I am familiar with the PBS effort to smear any scientist who would question predictions of significant future global warming by way of association with your jukebox folks (or to some consortium of businesses). You should direct the show's producers to this guy, I would love to see what they do with him. This is the activist's shameful approach to winning political battles. And it is a shame that you give it so much credence.

Also, I did suggest the possibility that political views can be an obstacle in the hunt for government grants, so while I do appreciate it, no need to apologize.

I did not point out my uncertainty, I firmly believe (no uncertainty here) that climate scientists, like Dr. Gray and many others with a variety of scientific hypotheses, are well qualified to be labeled experts in climate science. Pielke does more than “bemoan the hostility” as you well know (I am assuming you read the whole thing). But, since your summary of Pielke’s post is inadequate I will quote his post directly:

“Thus, while I feel that Professor Gray is often blunt and nondiplomatic in his statements, the scientific issues that he raises should be scrutinized objectively, and not dismissed since they do not conform to one’s perspectives on climate variability and change. He has the national and international professional credentials and stature in climate science such that his views are critically important as we debate the science.”

(I linked to it in a previous comment).

I started by raising the possibility that there is bias in the grant-awarding process. I said nothing about Dr. Gray’s theories being true or false (and still have not) or the extent to which he “followed the scientific method.” You brought up his knowledge of science and his use of scientific methods, to “prove” what he claims, in your very first comment.

You wrote:

"Just because a scientist, or John Hinderacker, said something does not mean that it is true, and when that person is criticized for an unproven belief, it is not evidence of bias, the unproven belief being true, or some conspiracy to prevent the unproven theory from being tested. If Gray is so sure of his theories on global warming, why is he so reluctant to use science to prove them?

Call me simple minded, but when a scientist elects to mask their theories in scientific talk while avoiding the use of the scientific method, I wonder what they are trying to hide."

You say in the quote above that Gray is “reluctant to use science” and that he is electing to mask his theory in scientific talk while “avoiding the use of the scientific method.” The absence of peer-reviewed research, written by Gray, is not proof, not even evidence, of either of these two charges you made.

Nonetheless, I played along and tried. I am not entirely sure what you now mean by “the scientific method” in this context. But you asked previously (turning the table) for “references to the scientific research Dr. Gray uses to support his theories?” I gave you three in a previous comment that pertain to one of his criticisms of global warming predictions. These are references he lists, in a paper he wrote describing his criticism. You ignored them. As an aside, one of them (the Christy, et al. paper has been updated just this month and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research—Pielke’s site has the reference, and I’m starting to feel like a marketing rep for Pielke’s blog).

Smear may be just a little over the top, but not much. And, conservatives don’t just have conspiracy theories—they are one and it is vast!