General discussion

Global Warming opinion from founder of Weather Channel..

LINK

Just an FYI....

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you ?believe in.? It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won?t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Global Warming opinion from founder of Weather Channel..
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Global Warming opinion from founder of Weather Channel..
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
If the 'movement' notices this guy at all, I'm sure they

will write him off as unqualified, ill informed, and funded by nefarious corporations. Meanwhile, the 'movement' will continue on its way led by political hacks and actors who want our money to implement their agenda.

- Collapse -
Farmer's Almanac

It seems that the last 3-4 yrs. just haven't jived or at least been pretty close to what to expect. Many times its right on the nose and others not. Not that I put full faith in the almanac, it just prepares one for things that seemly do come as mentioned. IMHO, it looks like weather we haven't experienced on a "normal" basis. Winters haven't been so harsh and yet it seems more wet or not too during the summer. In other words, its not what I have come to expect of years past. Maybe, I put some faith that man has come to tip the scales of weather if only for a short period or pushed a normal grand cycle into an earlier phase. Since, the weather has always been a chancy science, it hard not to believe some pseudo science as it fits. -----Willy

- Collapse -
Other "signs:

It used to be possible to look at the wooly worms to see if they predicted a colder than usual winter. But te wooly worms are very rare around here many more.

About all I can do now is watch the activity of the squirrels to see how eagerly they are collecting their winter food.

And how soon or late the White Throated Sparrows are stopping here on their migratory pattern. (They just arrived here.)

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
So what is the message here ?

Respect the science?
------------------
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with motives, manipulated data to create in allusion [sic]. Other environmental whacko type support the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims... Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists teamed up with movie, media and other liberal journalists to create this wild scenario of environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for very gullible citizens.

I do not oppose environmentalism... And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won?t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time... the outrageous scam will be obvious... we have been duped. The sky is not falling... natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway...

------------------

BTW... I did edit it for length, but after rereading it, I don't believe I changed any basic premiss in the essay.

- Collapse -
The message is:

science or Hollywood PR and glitz? Al Gore as the global scientist? Science or methods of obtaining grants for research? It is pretty straight forward even in your quotes. Perhaps you think warming trends are a new phenomena for the earth's climate?

- Collapse -
But I don't see any science here.

All I see is a rant full of anger and resentment.

Perusing the ICECAP site, I also see a bunch more ranting about everyone's favorite poster boy, Al Gore. I know he makes an easy target for the non questioning man on the street that this site is targeted towards confronting. The thing that sites like this will never comprehend though, is that their knee jerk targeting of the enviro-nuts favorite spokesman will just galvanize his supporters even more. Gore has done more to hurt a substantive discussion of the subject than anyone else, simply because he is an easy political target. Any source that brings his name up as part of the argument against man's influencing of global climate loses all rights to claim any sort of scientific objectivity.

In short, Gore's name should never be mentioned by either side if they wish to claim scientific authority.

Sites like this one (with "statements" like the one Ed has quoted here) is just so much preaching to the choir. It does nothing to actually persuade me or anyone interested in actual science. All it does is further politicize a subject. It's claim to any scientific credibility are lost because the site uses the same slanted techniques that it vehemently condemns the "liberal" media of doing.

Look, the only validity this one article can claim, is the man's professional credits and reputation. He offers nothing else... certainly makes no effort to stick to the subject of science and climate change. It is an op-ed piece full of politics and not a whole lot more.

- Collapse -
It's the opinion of someone who is qualified...

to have an opinion on this subject. That's all.

He is far more qualified than Al Gore or Sheryl Crow, for instance.

Attacking the messenger does not negate the message. Besides, how do YOU know who that site is aimed at?

- Collapse -
I attacked no one.

Nor, did I use any language such as...

"Scam, dastardly, manipulated, whacko type, bogus, wild scenario, radical, gullible, politically correct silliness and rude dismissal, outrageous scam, duped, etc."

The man you quote and claim as qualified to have an opinion on this subject, did use these terms. I can't speak for you Ed, but I believe how one delivers a message speaks just as much as what the content of that message is.

You already know my opinion about anyone who has to invoke Al Gore's name when trying to discuss climate science.

- Collapse -
Al Gore...

is the leader and one of the driving forces behind "Global Warming." He is the guy many think should be President. HE is the one pushing the agenda and raising the funds. It's utterly ludicrous to say Gore shouldn't be discussed in conjunction with this issue.

Reread your post. You did indeed attack that website.

The man you quote and claim as qualified to have an opinion on this subject, (isn't he?) did use these terms. I can't speak for you Ed, (thank God for that!) but I believe how one delivers a message speaks just as much as what the content of that message is. (believe it as much as you want; it's illogical nonsense)

- Collapse -
Questioning something is the same as attacking?

Then would you please quit attacking me, Ed?

- Collapse -
Questioning?
Al Gore. I know he makes an easy target for the non questioning man on the street that this site is targeted towards confronting.

The thing that sites like this will never comprehend though, is that their knee jerk targeting of the enviro-nuts favorite spokesman will just galvanize his supporters even more.

it's [sic] claim to any scientific credibility are lost because the site uses the same slanted techniques that it vehemently condemns the "liberal" media of doing.

-chuckle-
- Collapse -
so? You're the one bandying the term "attack".

One would think you would be pleased with my criticism of Gore and those who claim him as their authority.

You're an unfathomable guy, Ed.

- Collapse -
By some perhaps...

but do they fathom much anyway?

Whatever.

- Collapse -
This is not an attack.

All I see is a rant full of anger and resentment[/n]

It must be Newspeak. We aren't in Kansas anymore Toto.

- Collapse -
You are absolutely right.

To quote you verbatim... "This is not an attack."

Especially considering Ed's comment was that I was "Attacking the messenger..." which I categorically did not do. I made no attack on the man any more than I would be attacking you if I say that your statement appears to be full of anger.

Boy, I'm just lucky I didn't call him "mum". You really would have had reason to give me what for, then !

Shocked

- Collapse -
That ziinnngggg that you didn't hear was my last post

going over your head.

Let me be more direct. You attacked the man. You may deny it, but denials do not alter the fact.

- Collapse -
I will live in my world...

... you may live in yours.

Let me be more direct... I don't really care. You lost all credibility with me this week when you tried to manufacture some significant point out of me using the term "mum". Since you failed to recognize I was mocking you, let me be crystal clear. I was mocking you.

Next ?

- Collapse -
But his opinion differs from the clear consensus

of the scientific community, as thread after thread here have detailed. And this guy seems to have a personal axe to grind -- maybe because he's a meteorologist and Gore's not? But Gore is not speaking based on his own knowledge and expertise -- he's presenting the collective wisdom of the scientific (and especially climatological/meteorological) community.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
It's interesting that you think that Gore can speak on a

subject about which he has no personal knowledge or experience, but an experienced professional has a 'personal axe to grind'. I think you've got their motives switched. It's Gore that clearly has a 'personal axe to grind.'

Clear consensus? I don't think so.

- Collapse -
Axe to grind....

Maybe he's seeing a wrong in society and he's not happy about it? I realize he's not as expert as glacier hikers, whose opinions we are supposed to heed, but at least he's not threatening Nuremburg type trials for those who disagree with him, eh?

"Collective wisdom"... that's a good one.

- Collapse -
Here's a new example of the collective wisdom, EdH.
Energy poses major 21st century crisis: scientists

>> Energy poses one of the greatest threats facing humanity this century, the world's leading academies of science warned Monday, highlighting the peril of oil wars and climate change driven by addiction to fossil fuels. [emphasis mine -- DK]

Nations must provide power for the 1.6 billion people who live without electricity and wean themselves off energy sources that stoke global warming and geopolitical conflict, the scientists demanded. "Making the transition to a sustainable energy future is one of the central challenges humankind faces in this century," they said.

Their report, "Lighting the Way: Toward A Sustainable Energy Future," is published by the InterAcademy Council, whose 15 members include the national science academies of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Brazil, China and India. It was authored by a 15-member panel whose co-chaired was 1997 Nobel Physics laureate Steven Chu of the United States. <<

I consider this group a lot more knowledgeable and credible than the clearly piqued "Founder of the Weather Channel," but I'm sure you disagree with that assessment. Hmmm -- 15 National Academies of Science vs. one TV meteorologist. That's a really hard call -- NOT!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
Also from ICECAP

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

Lots of "experts" on that site

- Collapse -
They cover all their bases.

I especially like the mention of worrying about ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared... which will occur again, possibly soon. An eminently reasonable statement to make, yet the site spends some time whining and complaining about Al Gore rather than concentrating on "real" data.

The FAQ's and Myths section is rather entertaining, too.

Just one more example of "do as I say, not as I do"

It's a sham... I mean shame.

- Collapse -
And if we look to Mars...

It's polar caps are shrinking too. Dang rovers.

Bob

- Collapse -
Meteorology as a science
Generally speaking, each science has its own unique sets of laboratory equipment. However, Meteorology is a science short on "lab" equipment and long or wide on field-mode observation equipment, see List of weather instruments. In some aspects this may appear to be nice, but in reality can make simple observations slide on the erroneous side.
In science, an observation, or observable, is an abstract idea that can be measured and data can be taken. In the atmosphere, there are many things or qualities of the atmosphere that can be measured. Rain, which can be observed, or seen anywhere and anytime was one of the first ones to be measured historically. Also, two other accurately measured qualities were wind and humidity. Neither of these can be seen, but can be felt. The devices to measure these three sprang up in the mid-1400s[14]
and were respectively the rain gauge, the anemometer, and the hygrometer.[15][


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorologist

As to his biography, all I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)

http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html

I believe he has every right to express his opinion. However, I also believe that calling those who are concerned about the possibility global warming and it's ramifications as being scammers is, first, unprofessional , and second, that he, like them, has no absolute proof.

At this point in time, I lean more toward the evidence of the ice cores.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
- Collapse -
"Unprofessional"

not if it's TRUE.

How much lab equipment is used in meteorology is irrelevant to the man's opinion.

No one has absolute proof of anything. That burden is withg thise who assert something. Thedy have not proven anythihg.

Ice core samples can be interpreted many ways. If they prove anything it's that the climate has undergone changes over the millennia. I have seen them used to show that we are headed for another ice age.

- Collapse -
If doctors are not in agreement.....

..... about the best approach to treat medical conditions, they don't call each other charlatans! They keep up with the results achieved and the research done.

Mr. Coleman might be a meteorologist, but I have not seen where he is a climatologist.

I could not find any references as to his opinion on the ozone layer.

Politicians look to climatologists to provide the facts concerning such issues as global warming, the greenhouse effect, and the hole in the ozone layer. It is not always possible, however, to provide simple answers. It is not yet proven, for example, that global warming is solely due to industrialization. One thing that climatologists are sure of, though, is that pollution created by human beings, in the form of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has resulted in the decrease of ozone in the stratosphere over the past 20 years or so and an associated rise in dangerous solar radiation reaching the Earth?s surface. The rise in skin cancer is thought to be due to these changes and has led to efforts to encourage people to reduce their exposure to the Sun, such as the ?slip(on a shirt)-slop(on sunblock)-slap(on a hat)? campaign in Australia and New Zealand.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781534527/Climatology.html

A climatologist studies the climate looking back into the past sometimes thousands of years ago, and also looking into the future decades and centuries to come.
Meteorologists generally deal with the current weather, the recent past and the near future in the next couple of weeks.


http://www.northeasttimes.com/2004/1104/kids.html

Scamming is a felony, and thus a very serious charge to bring without proof, which in this case won't be known for years, one way or another.

Personally, there are more important issues facing me, this country, and the world than arguing about something that no one can absolutely prove.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
John Coleman is highly regarded and well respected in

Chicago. If he brings a charge, he has good reasons behind it.

Suggesting that an experienced meteorologist lacks the credentials to speak on climatology strikes me as several steps too far. Someone who has spent many years in meteorology has more than a passing knowledge of climatology.

What Coleman does have is freedom from restrictions. He can say what he thinks is true without worrying about repercussions on his academic career and his funding. That is something that many 'doctors' of science do not have. It's interesting how scientists who question the warming dogma are written off as kooks or unqualified misfits.

- Collapse -
There are professional meteorologist

....... organizations that I would suspect hold to certain standards.

Others professional people, not only doctors, have them.

Thus it surprises me somewhat that he has no restrictions.

In an earlier post I said he had every right to express his opinion. My quarrel is with how he said it. Again, claiming "scam" is very serious. And I still consider it unprofessional.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

- Collapse -
It's not unprofessional if it's true.

We need to focus on what is true rather than what some consider to be polite. Polite won't help us, but truth just might.

CNET Forums

Forum Info