Dr. Bill Gray Responds To Pope Francis

Originally posted in The Coloradoan.

——————————–

Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical Is Unwise and Should Not Be Acted Upon

by Bill Gray

It is unfortunate that Pope Francis has let politics and erroneous climate science sway his judgment into advising the world to change much of its energy usage from cheaper fossil-fuels to more expensive renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.). Such changes will slow-down the globe’s future economic development and adversely affect the poorest people of the world. And such changes will not significantly improve our global climate.

Pope Francis’s Encyclical gives a rather pessimistic view on the current status of humanity with its large wealth disparities and its market driven economic systems which appear to many to put profit above the overall benefit of society. Yet it is the extensive use of fossil-fuels and the free-market economic system which has so greatly raised the living standards and life expectancy of the world over the last 150 years. Increased (not decreased) fossil-fuel usage will be necessary if society is to continue its wondrous economic and human-life improvements in the coming decades.

None of us can know of the unique new beneficial economic and human advancements that will be coming if plentiful and cheap fossil-fuel energy is available and if society continues to encourage individual imagination and well rewards individual achievement. The fostering of such a future creative society will likely have the best chance of any other system of discovering and developing new energy sources which would be able to gradually relieve our dependence of fossil-fuels at energy costs much lower than we will encounter by turning to wind and solar energy at this time. Society will encounter no serious global warming or environmental degradation over the next 50-100 years from rises in atmospheric CO2 amounts.

I have spent 60 years studying, teaching, and forecasting weather and climate. This lifetime study has convinced me and many hundreds of my older and similarly experienced colleagues that there is no physical way that the expected atmospheric CO2 gas increases over the next 50-100 years can possibly bring about the large amounts of global warming (2-4oC) that has been projected by the climate models. The primary climate change which a doubling in CO2 gas will bring about is not temperature but an increase in global rainfall (~3%) which should be overall beneficial for humanity. Contrary to the current general belief, global temperature rise, due to a doubling of CO2 later in this century, should be expected to be quite small (0.2-0.3oC). Most of the global temperature changes of the last century have been of natural origin. There has been no global surface warming in the last 18 years as CO2 amounts have risen.

The failure of the climate models are related to their inability to explicitly resolve the globe’s many individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements. Due to faulty assumptions these cloud models produce unrealistic upper tropospheric temperature and moisture rises as CO2 amounts increase. These increases in moisture block too much radiation loss to space and cause unrealistic warming. By contrast, observations show that increases in global deep Cb clouds from CO2 gas increases brings about an opposite (drying) response. Observed upper tropospheric drying from Cb clouds acts to enhance radiation flux to space and bring about temperature decreases.

Those who demonize fossil-fuel usage do not understand or appreciate the great economic technical and human advances which fossil-fuels have brought to society. Our modern society with its higher living standards and increased lifespan would not have been possible without the large amounts of cheap energy which fossil-fuels have provided over the last century-and-a-half.

The many environmentalists and politicians who cite the climate models for justification of their warming pronouncements do so because these climate model results fit so well into their global government and other political control agendas. The real science behind what changes CO2 gas increases will bring about does not concern them. It is what the climate uninformed public can be lead to believe which is most important. Most of the believers of large CO2-induced global warming lack the necessary climate background knowledge to be able to know how unrealistic their climate warming ideas really are. They get caught up following the popular view.

We should all try not to be swayed by this politically generated and driven fictitious warming threat, whether it comes from our Government, the UN, the IPCC, or now from the Pope.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Dr. Bill Gray Responds To Pope Francis

  1. BRAVO! THE POPE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF!

  2. Chewer says:

    Dr. Gray is true scholar and a gentleman!
    The funding by government institutions to the irrational academic parties, have brought us to this point.
    With the world economies and capitalist engines under constant attack, the fraud waste and abuse will continue until the printing presses and insanity are stopped.
    The NSF, DARPA, ONR, AFRL, DOE, etc… used to fund worthwhile projects, but due to the economical environment created by the psychotic, they can now only fund professor wages, which is very unfortunate for mankind.

    • omanuel says:

      Regretfully, you are right. AGW is now a religious United Nations scam:

      On 4 July 1776 the Declaration of Independence assured us that we were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      The US National Academy of Sciences hid this benevolent REALITY from the American public after frightened world leaders united nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) on 24 OCT 1945 into a giant, worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Scientific (UN)Truths”

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Introduction.pdf

      • Chewer says:

        The fears of our fellow man and his actions goes back to our survival roots and becomes manifested in a wide variety of ways, including NAS’s reach and beyond…
        Success through creativity and hard work of the masses falls under attack by the weak minded and psychotic.

      • omanuel says:

        By a strange coincidence, the Climategate emails that surfaced in late NOV 2009 have now revealed the Secret Social Experiment that began when frightened world leaders united nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) on 24 OCT 1945 into the “Orwellian Ministry of Scientific (UN)Truths.”

        The purpose was to save the world from possible nuclear annihilation. The cost was an end to the integrity of government science and to constitutional limits on formerly independent governments.

  3. Marsh says:

    Agree totally with Dr Gray & Chewer ; there is no logical reason for society to turn away from fossil fuels & fund nonsense projects; in any case… CO2 does Not cause Climate Change.

    In the long term, natural attrition of Oil will drive technological change with alternate means of
    energy resources ; only concern is for localised pollution ; Not the farcical & fictional AGW.

  4. gator69 says:

    Dr Gray is spot on, as usual. Nobody knows from where the next great breakthrough in technology will come, and if we keep killing millions per year through misallocation of resources, we just may miss that next crucial genius.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    The poop should have listened to real scientists rather than alarmist troughers like Schell-whatever.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html

    • ThomasJK says:

      Popey has been listening to Pachamama and maybe Gaia. He is inclined to do so by his true religious leanings.

  6. Andy DC says:

    If you want to contrast the capitalist, free market system to the communist/socialist system, just compare West Germany to East Germany before the fall of the Soviet Union. There really is no comparison, with respect to prosperity, standard of living and way of life. You can do same with South Korea vs. North Korea and many other countries as well.

  7. cfgj says:

    Don’t you think Francis consulted with Jesus about this before going public?

  8. AndyG55 says:

    I doubt Jesus would bother answering him.

    Jesus is just means to an end for his socialist agenda to him.. just like AGW is.

  9. bwcacanoer says:

    Often temperature increases supposedly to be caused by “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” are stated to be from 2-4°C by the extremists but “only” 0.2-0.4°C by non-extremists. Converting 2°C gives 35.6°F while converting 0.2°C equals 32.36°F. An increase of either 32 or 35°F would both seem catastrophic. What am I missing?

  10. Tried to post the link to this on various Facebook media, personality walls, messages, etc. as I have done in the past. Appears to be some formatting changes, maybe some kind of internet problems, but I was generally unsuccessful. If you get 86’d seems a certificate or merit badge would be in order.

  11. Robertv says:

    “It is unfortunate that Pope Francis etc ”

    It was planned this way.

    In God we trust but not in the pope he also is just a man .

  12. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Brilliant summary of the climate con-undrum …

  13. Walt Walters says:

    The Pope should stick to religion and leave scientific comments and political comments to those that are “TRAINED” experts in those fields.

  14. mogar2 says:

    “Those who demonize fossil-fuel usage do not understand or appreciate the great economic technical and human advances which fossil-fuels have brought to society. Our modern society with its higher living standards and increased lifespan would not have been possible without the large amounts of cheap energy which fossil-fuels have provided over the last century-and-a-half.”

    No Dr Gray, they understand it. This is what they are fighting against not CO2, that is just a tool. Their agenda is total control over the individual. Controlling someone’s carbon footprint gives them exactly that.

  15. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  16. PhD says:

    Wonderful ….. Intelligence shines light on the AGW dark foreboding left religion ….. I think most are surprised that a Pope would ever again comment on science after the dastardly hopeless mess they caused in the early dawn of modern science. An encyclical is ONLY meant for comment on spiritual ideas and NEVER on populist topics …… Shame on you France’s !!!!

  17. Gus says:

    There is nothing about our “global climate” that requires any “improvement.” It remains fundamentally unchanged even throughout the 19th and 20th century mild warming of a mere 0.7C or so. It is normal for global temperature to rise or fall by up to a degree C over a century, based on the analysis of 8000 years of reconstructed climate data [1]. The so called “climate science,” as falsely narrated by IPCC (in contrast to the real climate science) is indeed erroneous, which is aptly illustrated by satellite and other observations, none of which confirm it, and by deeper analysis of the subject that finds human activities and the so called “greenhouse gases” to have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate [2].
    [1] doi:10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
    [2] doi:10.4236/acs.2014.45072

  18. Joe Bastardi says:

    My hero speaks!

    • Just wish he would have put some science behind his statement. Would have made for a more powerful punch to wannabe socialists (ie: the students in high school about to be brainwashed by their teachers, administrators, school boards and the College Board).

  19. Dan says:

    Missing the point – fossil fuels are not a renewable energy source. the end will come, ready or not

  20. Gene Triplett says:

    I live in the middle of nowhere and have noticed at times temperatures are significantly lower here than in even small towns nearby. This is not a greenhouse effect. Is atmospheric thermal pollution ever mentioned or studied?

    • gator69 says:

      Yes, it’s called the “Urban Heat Island” effect. Problem is, as you have noticed, it is not just an urban problem.

      I too live in a rural setting, and it is easily 7-10F cooler here than the nearest large city, and often cooler than the tiny towns in my area. All one needs to have a heat island is pavement, any pavement, or buildings or cultivated fields. As a young man I worked in corn fields that were much hotter than the surrounding natural landscapes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s