Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has once again spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories being regularly disseminated by alarmists in the media and the scientific community.
In an interview published by Wisconsin’s Capital Times Monday, Bryson spoke about the money involved in this "religion," and when asked about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" marvelously responded (emphasis added throughout):
"Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."
But Bryson had loads more to say on this issue (better fasten your seatbelts!):
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
Think Bryson will be interviewed any time soon by Katie, Charlie, or Brian? Regardless, the article continued:
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
"It's like there is an elephant charging in [sic, the room] and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."
For the alarmists who love to depict every skeptic as being on the take of oil companies:
Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
How refreshing. Can the alarmists in the scientific community – and folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – claim that they are doing their “work” for nothing? Read on:
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
"Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Bryson then pointed out how the media work:
Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Of course, then some ignoramus will copy the opinions of this graduate student and dissiminate them throughout the blogosphere as yet another example of the consensus. NewsBusters members should be very familiar with this:
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said.
Sound familiar? And this is why many view all of this nonsense as “junk science”:
"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
Yep. I’ve witnessed that as well. Of course, what is the real science involved:
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide.
For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Yet, the most wonderful part of this interview was:
Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Bravo, Mr. Bryson. And thanks.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
It is a religion with some of
June 18, 2007 - 12:16 ET by SQL_SamIt is a religion with some of these people... what would FSM do?
(FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster)
Found - a FSM!There is no s
June 18, 2007 - 13:10 ET by FastEdFound - a FSM!
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
This is great! Is Fox news
June 18, 2007 - 12:16 ET by doubledown552This is great! Is Fox news running it? I would think they would but who knows with this Global Warming histeria. Seems everyone and their brother are experts and believe this garbage, all without looking at tangible evidence. "Well Al Gore said....". That is not evidence, prick.
Morals....? Who needs those?
Double down
June 18, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Cool ArrowDrudge carried it this morning.
Reid Bryson
June 18, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Cool ArrowThis guy is obviously a hack.
This is the first time in history concrete has absorbed heat. Who ever heard of cities causing local climate change?
Put him in the Witness prot
June 18, 2007 - 12:24 ET by wiwfPut him in the Witness protection program, he's about to get killed by the Alarmist S-Ps!
This guy rocks :D
My favorite is that the UN is
June 18, 2007 - 13:07 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarMy favorite is that the UN is now claiming the Darfur problems on global warming. It won't be long before one of the talking heads links George W as the cause of the Darfur problem.
<shakes head and throws another stick of stored carbon on the fire>
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
I've already heard that. Th
June 18, 2007 - 16:17 ET by seldumondeI've already heard that. That cruel, heartless warmonger Bush off fighting in Iraq while ignoring Darfur. It must be because he hates black people.
Finally, there's news about a
June 18, 2007 - 13:13 ET by RedGuyBlueStateFinally, there's news about a SANE person in Wisconsin. (Feingold's grandstanding makes me disappointed that I'm from WI.)
To second Noel's emotion: Bravo, Mr. Bryson.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."
-- Fred Thompson as Admiral Josh Painter (The Hunt for Red October)
a religion
June 18, 2007 - 13:48 ET by bulbasaurGlobal warming is a religion.
Infallibility – “the debate is over”
Indulgences – “carbon offsets”
Evangelists – weather channel personalities
Heretics – dissenting scientists
Inquisition – accusing dissenters of being on the payroll of oil companies
Armageddon – global warming
Christ figure – Algor
Devil figure – republican
Original Sin – man polluted environment through greed
Cultic worship – recycling, separating plastic, glass, paper
Semi-tangent here. The AGW
June 18, 2007 - 14:11 ET by Phan of TruthSemi-tangent here. The AGW believers will attack dissent and will do whatever necessary to smear real, credited scientists like Bryson and further their need to believe in something, because it seems to me that most have abandoned their faith in God , America, objectivity, morality, et all long ago. It was in the upper 50s-low 60's all last week at the Jersey Shore. That's just "climate change." I see. I remember it just like that in June 2002 here and I wouldn't be suprised to see that it was like that in June 1992 either, or 1982 or 1972...
I keep reading about these
June 18, 2007 - 17:00 ET by ScottyDogI keep reading about these huge temperature shifts. Correct me if I am wrong but we are talking about less than one degree.
I did not realize that 1 degree was huge until the GW proponents defined "huge" as a shift of less than one degree centigrade.
Is this Mexico or the USA
This morning, in the Boston a
June 21, 2007 - 06:45 ET by ThisnThatThis morning, in the Boston area, the temperature is 57 degrees. It's going to get up to the mid-80's this afternoon, then cool down this evening to the mid-50's to about 60. That's a temperture swing up of 27 degrees in less than 12 horus; and down again 24 degrees in the next 12 hours. Way more than 1 degree. Extreme global warming followed by global cooling, dontcha think?
In January/February 2008, there will be days when the high temperature is 30 degrees, followed by a low of 10. So, in a little more than 1/2 year from now, Global Cooling will take hold (in Boston) to the tune of 50-60 degrees from current conditions. That's a lot. Why isn't anyone worried about this impending disastor 7 months from now? I know I am. I'm stocking up on firewood now; shopping for overcoats, hats, and mittens; and trying to get good deals on snow shovels and snowblowers. All those fools out there that are worried about 1 degree have quite a surprise waiting for you!
Wow!! This man is a genius!
June 18, 2007 - 17:03 ET by whatajoyWow!! This man is a genius! Wonder if Gore would ever work for his cause WITHOUT pay. Now that is undeniable passion! Bravo!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Take it easy! We're not making a western here.
~ Uncle Junior (The Sopranos)
And the tree hugger said
June 18, 2007 - 17:18 ET by Army BratAnd the tree hugger said "Well...wouldn't it be a good thing to save gasoline and energy even if there is no AGW?" uh....duh... how stupid can you get? Hell yes I want to save money on gas and my electric bill! I guess the concept is if you don't believe the AGW crap then you're evil and want the earth to die early. They generally just don't see the downside (at all) to the things the radical earth firsters want done. Carbon credits... what a rip...
It's the evil people in this world that are figuring out how to cash in on the AGW hysteria. Happy Trails...
Bryson has alarmist history
June 18, 2007 - 17:14 ET by brewski01For a short time during the 1970s, a number of climatologists theorized that the Earth was heading towards an ice-age. Leading this group was Reid Bryson, whose work was the primary inspiration for a number of CIA reports and the book The Weather Conspiracy. At one point, Mr. Bryson wrote that:
“There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not
merely something of academic interest.” Bryson warned, “It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.”
However, this theory was soon abandoned. Bryson recanted his earlier warnings and eventually retired (in 1986, by my calculations). Meanwhile, the above quote became fodder for a million GW Denier websites, evidence that scientists "can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warming".
And then, just last week, Reid Bryson pops up in the "Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News" , the magazine of the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative, an association of Wisconsin energy producers. In "The Faithful Heretic", he spends a several pages trash-talking the science behind anthropogenic Global Warming, employing most of the standard skeptical talking points.
And suddenly, the guy once ridiculed for being wrong about Global Cooling has become a prophet for GW Deniers everywhere!
Brewski
June 18, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Noel SheppardBrewski,
Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to reference where you stole this from? Or, is this your website: (http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/Global%20Cooling%20Reid%20Bryson)
Are you M.J. Murphy, or did you just cut-and-paste his work without attribution?
ns
Brewski
June 18, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Noel SheppardBrewski,
Furthermore, when you cut-and-pasted this piece, why did you choose to leave out the links? Was it because one of the articles included in the blog was by a Stephen Schneider who suggested that Bryson's involvement in these CIA reports might have been overstated, and that Bryson publicly repudiated the reports shortly after their publication? Furthermore, according to Schneider, Bryson had by 1974 altered his views when new evidence suggested he might have been wrong.
Didn't feel that was important, or just didn't read all of the information contained in the blog you plagiarized from? ns
Noel, Very nice burn on th
June 18, 2007 - 18:34 ET by doubledown552Noel,
Very nice burn on that guy. Isn't plagiarism a crime? This is so typical of these sorts of people. State "facts" and have NO clue where they came from. And then leave out information that refutes what they have just said.
Morals....? Who needs those?
DD
June 18, 2007 - 23:52 ET by Noel SheppardDD,
Much like Tony last Sunday, Brewski never saw it comin'...everything just went black. :-) ns
Father of Climatology
June 18, 2007 - 18:45 ET by River CityDamn the internet! In can be used for good or evil.
Good catch Noel!
Brewski.......... Brewski....
June 18, 2007 - 23:46 ET by ViperBrewski.......... Brewski............ Anyone.......... Anyone..........
Viper....Pop a Top ...Again..
June 18, 2007 - 23:50 ET by bigtimerViper....
Pop a Top ...Again....
LOL!
You're probably to young to know that song....
Cheers anyway.
Not too young.... just not fa
June 18, 2007 - 23:59 ET by ViperNot too young.... just not familiar with that one. Will check it out though. Just seems that bueller took the day off instead of responding to Noel.
Viper
June 19, 2007 - 00:06 ET by Noel SheppardV,
When people are caught plagiarizing, they never come back to the same thread. He'll skulk away for a while, and be back when he thinks everybody's forgotten his stupidity.
We've got a lot of posters like that. In fact, my understanding is one has come back today filling these AGW threads with a lot of nonsense and insipid vitriol. Fortunately, once I've put someone on mental ignore, I never pay anymore attention to anything they post.
More people here should adopt such a philosophy, as this would make all the undesirables go away and stay away. ns
Noel,I must agree with you th
June 19, 2007 - 00:19 ET by ViperNoel,
I must agree with you that not paying attention to posters of "nonsense and insipid vitriol" makes sense and have often wondered why many jump into the fray with ones like that. Montana L is one that comes to mind. As someones tag line states, "it makes no sense to argue with an idiot... they'll just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Keep up the good work and I'd say that was more of a knockout that a slapdown.
DVC
Noel,I must agree with you th
June 19, 2007 - 00:19 ET by ViperSorry about the double post.....
Viper,I think Brewski went fo
June 18, 2007 - 23:53 ET by Dave RViper,
I think Brewski went for another beer. Or three.
Noel,
That was one of the best slap-downs I have ever seen on this site.
Dave
June 19, 2007 - 00:02 ET by Noel SheppardDave,
Candy from a baby. We should ban him immediately for being so obvious.
To paraphrase Bogie in Casablanca, I don't mind a crook...just a cut-rate one! :-) ns
Noel,We should ban him immedi
June 19, 2007 - 00:09 ET by Dave RNoel,
We should ban him immediately for being so obvious.
LMAO-Actually, if I were Brewski, I'd pull the plug on myself. :-)
Brewski: I would give Bryso
June 18, 2007 - 23:44 ET by Seabeach4348Brewski: I would give Bryson a lot of credit for having the guts to admit that he could be wrong on something where he once thought for sure that he was correct.
This is something that you will NEVER see Algore, the bloated and blustery Crusader of Climate Change, do! "The debate is over...."
Darn if there ever really was a bona fide debate on AGW (or is it ACC now??) the hand-wringers who believe this junk would look like complete fools!
Bryson's record speaks for itself
June 21, 2007 - 04:32 ET by brewski01I'm not familiar with the terms AGW or ACC?? Perhaps you can enlighten me.
To your comments; ten thousand climate scientists around the world agree
that mankind's release of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon is
definitely what is fueling the constantly rising temperatures and other climate
changes observed around the world. But you, the staff of Newsbusters/Media
Research Center/CNSNews think that quoting one retired academic disproves the
majority. It would appear any scientist or politician who disagrees with your
position is automatically branded a liberal fool, but someone who agrees with
you can get a fake title like 'Father of Climatology',
That some of the responses on my comments are from paid staffers is rather
obvious. Not professional is your posters prevalent and childish name
calling in place of actual debate. What happened to civil debate where
one person makes a point and someone with a different opinion makes his or her case?
I copied the text posted on my comment because it said exactly what I wanted to
say, but it had no source reference. But then, the Wisconsin Capitol
Times didn't post the real source of the article they quoted from either. Perhaps you should remove it.
Judging by the comments I've read I suspect you will ban me from this
site. And for what? Disagreeing with you? If that's the case
I'm not sure why you let people comment. Or are comments just for those
who agree with everything you say?
Before you lecture people d
June 21, 2007 - 05:20 ET by Jack BauerBefore you lecture people don't you think it might be a good idea to find out for yourself what the widely used acronym AGW stands for.
It's no secret, except maybe to a lib***l fool. Ignorance may be bliss for you, but it isn't for us.
Actually, AGW was defined wit
June 21, 2007 - 06:33 ET by ThisnThatActually, AGW was defined within the article Brewski quoted from (but didn't reference) in his June 18 - 17:14 post (Noel actually provides the reference and quotes in his June 18 - 18:12 post above, showing the AGW definition). He's either lying now, or too stupid to pull out definitions that are printed before him in black-and-white. Yeah, I know the article didn't use the acronym AGW, but a curious mind would have gone back and figured it out.
He doesn't, obviously, have a curious mind. His mind is simply curious. IMO.
Or he's a bit better at pas
June 21, 2007 - 06:37 ET by sarcasmoOr he's a bit better at pasting than he is at reading/thinking.
JMR
”First they ignore you, t
June 21, 2007 - 14:10 ET by brewski01”First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~Mahatma Gandhi. Two guesses where we are at now.
You're gonna have to be a l
June 21, 2007 - 05:25 ET by sarcasmoYou're gonna have to be a lot more annoying to get banned, mere ignorance of obvious stuff like what "AGW" stands-for ain't sufficient. And does anyone get paid to post here? I must be missing something (like my paychecks!). And I don't know if Noel is paid or not, but when he busts you for doing cut and paste jobs without attribution, he's busted you. Rather than speculating about his compensation, mightn't it be better to just admit you were busted?? The Wisconsin paper was very clear about its source, unlike you.
JMR
Brew,Your "thousands of
June 21, 2007 - 06:21 ET by ThisnThatBrew,
Your "thousands of scientists" argument is what we call a fallacy in Logic 101. Have you ever heard of this guy named Galileo? In his time he said the sun was stationary, and the earth revolved around it. This was contrary to popular belief, and he was convicted, placed under arrest, and all of his works were banned. Although he is now called the "father of modern physics", he died blind and under house arrest.
The point here is that in Galileo's case, yes -- one man was correct; thousands were incorrect.
And yes, we here at NB will listen to the facts and arguments of one man, vs. the rantings and sheep-like instincts of thousands, to get to the truth. When the "thousands" come up with convincing arguments, we will then listen to them instead.
As for being "banned" -- aint our style. We would rather educate, convince, and lay out the facts to get to the truth. Galileo-style.
Thousands of scientists not a fallacy
June 21, 2007 - 19:26 ET by brewski01Just how powerful is the scientific consensus about global warming? Consider a December 2004 article published in the journal Science, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego. Oreskes reviewed the peer-reviewed scientific literature for papers on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. A random sample of approximately 10 percent of the 928 studies revealed not one disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming.
Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science, has noted, “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around (global warming) is rare in science.”
Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences stated during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing for the Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 27, 2006: “I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer…In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history.”
These and many more commonly referenced studies are what NewsBusters and your parent organization Media Research Center are trying to dispel. As you should know and I think it only fair your readers know, ExxonMoble gave Media Center $100,000 specifically earmarked to change public opinion and cause uncertainties about climate science.
I came across this while se
June 19, 2007 - 00:49 ET by RESTLESS 1I came across this while searching something else. This guy makes some good points about Kyoto, but I still think he gives too much validity to global warming. Still, at least he is looking for ways to spend less money, and that ain't all bad.
Al Gore makes sane people w
June 19, 2007 - 01:38 ET by daveinbocaAl Gore makes sane people want to yak and hurl and projectile spew just because of his self-defeating drawling nonsense, and the joke that this slack-jaw mouth-breathing knuckle-walker can talk about science is a bigger joke than Billy Jeff's wagging his finger at the American people and saying "I did not have..........[you know the rest]."
An unfunny joke, but Gore makes thoughtful people sick.