$wpsc_last_post_update = 1503550525; //Added by WP-Cache Manager $wpsc_last_post_update = 1503550525; //Added by WP-Cache Manager Weather Channel Founder and Long-Time TV Weather Guy John Coleman Slams Global Warming « Dvorak News Blog
This will get a lot of views I can assure you. Interesting tidbits within.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4




  1. Wretched Gnu says:

    phht… As a “scientist”, he says, he “knows” there is no climate change caused by human activity.

    Please.

    That’s not science. That’s evangelism.

    It’s all just “the little guys picking on the big guys”! Wow, what an analyst!

    And notice that he doesn’t want to talk about the thousands of scientists who have never been invited to the UN.

  2. Deep-Thought says:

    # 62
    Pardon, are you listening to my arguments?
    You can if you want throw another dozend instances at me where science was wrong or unclear.
    That proves only that it science is not absolute and sometimes surprising.
    Hell yea, would be bad if it would not be so.

    Still, it is not like predicting a sports game. Sport games are usually fairly balanced.
    If it is totally unbalanced (professional vs. amateur) you still can not predict the outcome with certainty.
    But you would be right if you say it is pretty likely the professionals win.

    The track record of science is btw. completely awsome.

    “Mr. Coleman has as much right as anyone in debating the facts on global warming.”
    Hell yea!

    “I’d say he’ s better qualified than many folks on this blog on the subject.”
    Sure, I just say I rather listen to the professionals.

    “One many not agree with his findings, but he shouldn’t be ridicule for challenging the science and scientists behind global warming. Any scientist should freely be able to challenge another’s hypothesis without fear of being called ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘evil doer’.”
    Bullshit. If you say something outrageous like this you will get this kind of response.
    The bigger will be your smile if it turns out you where right.
    But until then, life is hard.
    Going with the masses is easy. If you have a completely different theory, expect the others to be absolutely sceptical.

    Should I be respectful to anyone who says the earth is flat?
    No of course not!
    Well, I don’t say Mr Coleman is stupid. I just say you will be ill adviced to listen to him.

    “That’s not science. That’s religion.”
    Oh come on!

  3. Deep-Thought says:

    # 91
    I don’t believe it!

    You are trying to lecture us about statistics!?

    Your fathers experience does not contradict any statistic. There will be always someone you know who got over 100 years old smoking and drinking.
    That tells you absolutely nothing!

    I find it really offensive of you that you call this a lie without even knowing one little bit about statistics!
    You are a sorry asshole. Go away.

  4. Mr. Fusion says:

    #91, thruther,

    statisticly my dad who has been smoking 70 years should be dead. Instead he is still working still driving and could probebly whip most men half his age.

    Statistically speaking, you must fall into that large portion of the population that is between totally ignorant and know less than enough.

  5. cgp says:

    The GW debate needs to go back to first principles.

    That the radiative forcing of a 300ppm molecule in the atmosphere has a lasting effect over the first and vastly more influential water vapour effect in the form of clouds ‘continents of clouds’ that reflect and hold in heat. This hypothesis is so ridiculous any debate about trends whatever has no basis.

    There is the crasping idea that although water vapour has a strong feedback effect, CO2 has a background lasting effect has is building up global temperatures. This is crazy, totally illogical. How the hell can a small effector dominate the major actor.

  6. Mr. Fusion says:

    #93, Deep thought,

    “One many not agree with his findings, but he shouldn’t be ridicule for challenging the science and scientists behind global warming. Any scientist should freely be able to challenge another’s hypothesis without fear of being called ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘evil doer’.”

    Bullshit. If you say something outrageous like this you will get this kind of response.
    The bigger will be your smile if it turns out you where right.
    But until then, life is hard.
    Going with the masses is easy. If you have a completely different theory, expect the others to be absolutely sceptical.

    Nope. Any theory should be open to challenge. BUT, you don’t challenge a theory by just decrying it and calling it a false god / bullshit / etc. You challenge it with facts.

    Weather is not synonymous with climate and a weather man is not an earth scientist or climatologist (although it is possible one person can be both).

    Above someone mentioned that there was significant new ice forming in the Arctic Ocean. That was entirely expected and forecast by climatologists (not weather forecasters). It is because with global warming (climate change) the old ice is melting. The open water allows new ice to form. When there was still old ice present, new ice couldn’t form nearly as well or as much. That is a climate fact, not a weather fact.

    That it will be cold at the North Pole tomorrow is a weather prediction. That there will be open water there next year is a climate prediction.

    *

    NOTE, someone above scoffed that polar bears are drowning. Polar Bears are good swimmers. They are land animals though and there is a limit to how long they may swim before succumbing to fatigue and drowning. That happens when the ice flow they happen to be on breaks up and there is no other appreciable flow or land mass they can shelter on.

  7. Mr. Fusion says:

    #39, Ivor,

    That is just some wacko site you linked. Christian evangelical nay sayer with an expert opinion on everything. I did notice that the name of the publisher wasn’t mentioned. That gives this article as much credibility as the toilet paper I bought yesterday. Actually less, the TP is softer on the butt.

  8. Deep-Thought says:

    # 97
    Come on, how hard is it to accept that even a layman can rate scientific theories for quality and probability of being true?
    If we could not do this, we could have just stayed in our caves and forget it all.

    Scientists don’t come wandering down from some hill in their white coats and presenting us the truth they gathered up there in some way.

    I don’t say any climate theory is right or wrong. I’m not in the position to do this.
    But I say to you this man provides a bad theory as far as I can see it.
    I can’t say he is wrong. Nobody can for a fact.
    But calling him a lunatic is far in my area of expertise.

  9. moss says:

    “Can’t say he is wrong” Yes we can.

    I spent 2 years reading peer-reviewed journals on the topic – before the IPCC review was published confirming everything I’d already read. This all is readable by a layman.

    The so-called controversy is a political phenomenon, not a scientific topic worth reviewing. It’s crap opinion contradicting scientific study – because science doesn’t match the politics of the dweebs who are too lazy to read the work themselves.

    It took the work from the Max Planck Institute – available in English – to finally convince me about global warming and industry’s role. The know-nothings who prate otherwise in these comments aren’t reading anything more demanding than TV Guide.

  10. MattBoehm says:

    I’d recommend listening to some of the speeches by the recently deceased Michael Crichton if you’re interested in learning some of the flaws of global warming.

    Here’s a short synopsis of some counter-arguments:

    It’s politicized science and science by consensus. You can see this just from the reliance on the incorrect argument that so many % of scientists agree with it. Science isn’t about consensus, it’s about fact!

    The earth’s temperature/climate naturally change. We are currently coming out of the little ice age and the sun is in a period of increased output. Change is natural and who has the hubris to say that climate should stay the same when it’s been fluctuating since the dawn of time.

    There is no proof that an increase in CO2 levels is the primary cause for temperature change. The CO2/global temperature chart used by Gore simply showed a correlation, and looking closer reveals that CO2 peaks follow temperature peaks, suggesting that rise in temp causes rise in CO2 levels (due to warmer oceans being able to dissolve less CO2.)

    Even IF global temperatures were rising as a result of CO2 levels, we won’t be able to stop that. We spend billions of dollars trying to curb CO2 output without making a dent. Especially in times of economic downturn, we can’t afford to waste so much money. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

    I have spent countless hours examining this issue and am only giving a brief snapshot here of course. It’s hard to prove either side of this argument because it’s not really in the scientific domain anymore, it’s about politics. Both sides are quick to discredit the other, so many are not left knowing who to trust. I just personally believe we waste too much money because we are scared of unfounded sensationalist claims.

  11. #100 – moss,

    Well said!! Thanks for sharing. And, you got the level of condescension exactly perfect.

  12. grog says:

    when i was a child and made a mess, my mother made me clean it up. now i clean up after myself.

    the human race should clean up after itself, mother nature can only do so much.

    it’s time to grow up.

  13. Deep-Thought says:

    # 101
    “It’s politicized science and science by consensus. You can see this just from the reliance on the incorrect argument that so many % of scientists agree with it. Science isn’t about consensus, it’s about fact!”

    Please stop! You make my eyes blead.
    Never use Fact and Science in one sentence, the outcome will always be shit.

    Science gives good answers, bad answers and god or bad questions.
    And there is a process called the scientific method to see which is which.
    And because because we don’t have all informations first hand we usually need to resolve to meta analysis and damn consensus.
    I have good reason to trust a theory when a majority of scientists in this area trust it too.
    This is a completely reasonable process to rely on.

    If some whacko tells me the gross of scientist in this area is wrong, I give his opinion no value.
    That will change the minute he really has a argument. Because then other specialists will agree with him.

    This is awful and inefficient. But since there is no truth we can gather from some divine source or whatever, this is just the process how knowledge and progress is made.
    Learn to deal with it! It is important.

    Fact[tm] is something for historians to bang their heads over about.

  14. Mr. Fusion says:

    #101, Matt,

    I’d recommend listening to some of the speeches by the recently deceased Michael Crichton if you’re interested in learning some of the flaws of global warming.

    Crichten was a physician, not a scientist. As good as his grasp was on some biological ideas, that doesn’t mean he was correct.

    It’s politicized science and science by consensus. You can see this just from the reliance on the incorrect argument that so many % of scientists agree with it. Science isn’t about consensus, it’s about fact!

    So if ten (or 100) physicians look at you and say your appendix is about to burst and one lay person / pastor says you need to pray harder, who will you listen to? Scientists that have reviewed the facts as presented make their own mind up, this isn’t group think.

    There is no proof that an increase in CO2 levels is the primary cause for temperature change. The CO2/global temperature chart used by Gore simply showed a correlation,

    And this information came from … lay people or earth scientists?

    Even IF global temperatures were rising as a result of CO2 levels, we won’t be able to stop that. We spend billions of dollars trying to curb CO2 output without making a dent. Especially in times of economic downturn, we can’t afford to waste so much money.

    Can you point out where we have spent ANY money curbing CO2?

    Your link is just another fraud that pretends to expose something. It doesn’t. Anyone may make a site with phony numbers.

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #100, moss,

    A tip of the hat. I acknowledge those more intelligent than myself.

  16. SnotLikeBlasterpoop says:

    You have to do what you believe. I believe smart cars are embarrassing and smart growth communities are a tool of the devil. Therefore, working on the assumption that global warming is real, I will do everything in my power to make the human race go extinct rather than suffer through what’s being promoted as a “green” lifestyle. I’m hoping to win the lottery so I can spend it all on CO2 release.

  17. ECA says:

    I dont care if its REAL or not…
    WHY not improve WHATS NOT WORKING…

    With the Garbage Island in the Pacific..
    With POLLUTANTS Floating DOWN the river..

    Better ways of doing things..
    Better Fuels to FORCE competition..
    ALTERNATIVES…rather then being FORCED to buy 1 product..

    WE advance, and we INNOVATE…and we get BETTER.

  18. Selvy says:

    Pretty typical. The main proponents of global warming turned out to be individuals from more radical Leftist movements who found they couldn’t get very far with it…but by fudging statistics and shaping the information provided through the media (and government) have found the means to cow the opoosition and make some headway. Unfortunately for them global ‘warming’ is not demonstratably accurate. It is junk science. Sheese, I remember a TV special on around 1993 with various celebs and so-called scientists. They projected that close to 2010 we’d practically be boiling. Gee, it’s almost 2009…is it really hot?

    There is climate change, which is NATURAL. This world changes constantly according to various factors. We can make life hard for ourselves through poor utilization of water resources, desertification of arable land, etc., but that is not the same thing. People need to stop pushing to pay for a problem that doesn’t exist, cannot be ‘fixed’, and instead push their intentions and resources towards problems which do. Environmentalism has become a dogmatic religion all its own, that is the true denial that is being seen here.

  19. #109 – Selvy,

    Pretty typical. Someone who doesn’t like the thought that we might go extinct, so on this one subject out of so many looks for reason to claim greater knowledge than the scientists.

    Sorry. You’re dead wrong. And, if we listen to you … we’ll all be dead wrong.

    You don’t like the facts. That doesn’t make them false. Link to the peer reviewed articles stating your case. Go ahead. I’ll wait. It shouldn’t be hard. There are a half dozen or so.

    Unfortunately, there are thousands stating the other side.

    I posted a link above to a spot where I listed a dozen or more. But, don’t go there. You might learn something. You might learn that you’re wrong. You might learn that we’re destroying an ecosystem on which we depend for over thirty trillion dollars worth of services per year. You might learn that the amount that it will take to solve the global warming crisis will be negligible next to the costs incurred by global warming.

    So, don’t look at my post number 40 on this thread and definitely don’t click the link.

    Ignorance is bliss. I’d hate to ruin your bliss.

  20. cgp says:

    #109 is a Pagan

    there is no arguing with them, nor now with the damn money traders who see the next market to exploit.

    the founding dogma of the new Paganism … that a 300ppm C02 molecule dominates water vapour has never being explained, is counter to logic, system control theory, and heat and mass balancing.

  21. #111 – cgp,

    I guess I shouldn’t expect too much from someone who can’t even get the post number of the post to which s/he is replying correct.

    We’re already at 385 ppm, possibly much higher according to some peer reviewed papers.

    The point is that we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, as is methane. Since we’re doing nothing that reduces your favorite molecule and mine (water, the stuff of life), we can treat it as a relative constant.

    We know we’re increasing CO2, methane, and a number of other molecules that warm the planet. And, we see the planet warming far more than can be accounted for by an increase in solar radiation.*

    Further, even slight warming by CO2 and others would heat the air. Warm air holds more water vapor. This may be a positive feedback loop. It’s true the clouds are hard to model. Attempts to model the clouds may be at least part of the reason that the models have so drastically underestimated the effects and magnitude of climate change.

    If you don’t believe that the CO2 can overcome the effects of the clouds, look at Venus. Venus, due to its much higher albedo, actually receives less sunlight than Earth. And yet, it’s temperature is much higher.

    Without the effects of greenhouse gases the average temperature of the surfaces of the two planets would be Earth: -18 celcius Venus: -41 celcius. With greenhouse gases, especially CO2 in the case of Venus, the average temperatures on the surface of these planets are Earth: +15 celcius and Venus: +430 celcius.

    So, if CO2 is enough to cause Venus to go from -41 celcius to +430 celcius, I think it is incredibly obvious that dramatically increasing our CO2 will cause severe global warming. Do you see it otherwise? If so, how?

    These numbers were taken from the climate science text book ‘Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming’ by S. George Philander.

    Please note that we have already increased our greenhouse gases from 280 ppm to 385 ppm. That is a huge increase. And, our Kyoto targets are much higher than our current level.

    * The peer reviewed articles I’ve seen on the subject show that 5-15% of global warming can be accounted for by increased solar radiation. One said 5-30%. Even if we take the high end of the extreme estimate, that leaves us responsible for the other 70% of the observed warming. Reduced solar radiation will not be able to overcome our contribution.

  22. jbenson2 says:

    #6 Hey Mustard Man, try paying attention to the news for a change, instead of believing in your own ideological bent.

    Barack Obama’s transition team has tapped former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera, a longtime proponent of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” to head the team looking for the man or woman who will soon give Democrats a 3-to-2 advantage on the Federal Communications Commission.

    It’s another troubling sign that Democrats are serious about trying to reinstate the long-defunct FCC regulation, which can more aptly be described as the “Censorship Doctrine” because of its chilling effect on free speech. In effect from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was an obstacle to open discussion of public policy issues on the radio; its removal in the Reagan years spawned the robust talk radio marketplace of ideas now enjoyed by millions.

  23. Rick Cain says:

    I thought we learned a long time ago to stop listening to old white men.

  24. cgp says:

    #112 double check yes 112

    The case of venus … heat from massive volcanic contusions on its surface.

    retention of this heat by the never opening 100% cloud cover of sulfurous acid compo what ever. This demonstrates the heat retention of the clouds (400 deg surface temp) and that the reflectance equals the sunshine else things would change.

    The case of earth often gets quite alot of cloud yes. Have you noticed the effect of heat retention effect of cloud. Here water vapor is the greater greenhouse gas and is also the best reflector of heat on an overcast day.

    The IPCC state that CO2 is a radiative forcing factor, amongst others and is not the largest, water vapor is.

    But there is no discussion of the dominating effects of water vapour and whether any of the lesser forcers have a lasting effect. The IPCC just continue assuming CO2 has a cumulative effect and picks statements and error risks, and data interpretation to show a local climate warmup.

    I am for one totally (as blah blah blah ed previously) unconvinced as of the first principles that a 400ppm molecule as any effect competing with the H2O molecule. Nothing can compete with ‘continents of cloud’.

  25. #115 – cgp,

    I am for one totally unconvinced as of the first principles that a 400ppm molecule as any effect competing with the H2O molecule. Nothing can compete with ‘continents of cloud’.

    And yet, you fail to notice that the water vapor is a relative constant while the CO2 is changing rapidly.

    Further, your total inability to be logically convinced of something does not make it false. The observed fact is that warming is happening.

    So, let me just ask you this, exactly what field of climate science are you currently working in? What is your climatology background? Please point me to some of your peer reviewed published works.

    Oh, you’re not a climate scientist? Then what exactly makes you qualified to judge the work of those who are?

    Do you also deny relativity and quantum mechanics because they don’t make logical sense to you? Especially the latter, which denies the basic logic of cause and effect?

    Come now. There is some far more bizarre science out there that you (I hope) believe. And yet, you choose climate science, the one that threatens the ecosystem on which we depend, to decide that scientists are blithering idiots?

    I think you have some seriously flawed logic going on in that brain of yours. You may want to try a little introspection into whether you are just incapable of accepting horrifying truths.

  26. cgp says:

    #116

    I am a B.E. Chemical engineering 20 years back who has never ceased reading up on science anything.

    So I have enough basic thinking and analysis skills to ask first principle skills where I see basic bullshit being put up by who ever.

    The common qualification brush off doesn’t wash. I really have what I consider to be a healthy disrespect for current established boffins simply because they have put forward first principles that they take as dogma and which in my training and understanding of basic principles is doubtful.

    By doubtful I mean I ask the question, asking for supporting explanations. Hopefully the bullshit taunt will inspire
    such, but naa just the usual brush offs;

    By the way water vapor is not constant it is the weather, climate.

  27. #117 – cgp,

    Weather and climate are not the same. Water vapor is a relative constant for purposes of a discussion where one variable changes rapidly and the other maintains an average level.

    However, you may have a very real point. Cloudless water vapor will heat the planet. And, it increases with temperature. So, small variations from CO2 may be magnified by the positive feedback in increasing water vapor.

    As for why credentials must be considered when discussing climate science, take a look at the laundry list of fields required to truly be an expert in climatology. More important than credentials, however, would be links to peer reviewed publications on the subject as they have been reviewed by multiple people with training in different disciplines.

    From wikipedia:

    Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.

  28. BlackWidower says:

    Okay, I got a plan: Let’s do nothing and wait until the Earth’s temperature rises a few degrees, the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise and everything goes to shit. Then ask him what he thinks of climate change.

  29. “I’ve gone ahead and bookmarked http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/11/10/weather-channel-founder-and-long-time-tv-weather-guy-john-coleman-slams-global-warming at Digg.com so my friends can see it too. I simply used Weather Channel Founder and Long-Time TV Weather Guy John Coleman Slams Global Warming Dvorak News Blog as the entry title in my Digg.com bookmark, as I figured if it is good enough for you to title your blog post that, then you probably would like to see it bookmarked the same way

  30. Something that you can do that will help you cut costs is to find cheap (or free) packing materials. You may even have the ability to come across a place that will give their boxes away once they happen to be used. Buying boxes or containers yourself can be very costly, however, you can save money by checking using the employees at your local supermarket to ascertain if they will allow you to have some of their boxes free of charge.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 17566 access attempts in the last 7 days.