The founder of The Weather Channel says global warming is a myth, but....?

Question

The founder of MTV says that it's not. So does my dog. That makes it 2 against 1, therefore global warming is not a myth!

Seriously though, some random person who doesn't know anything about climate science goes off on an insane and paranoid rant about how it's all a big conspiracy, and we have to hear about it here half a dozen times?

Is this just another sign that AGW doubters have so little evidence to support their position? They all have to make sure everyone knows that some random guy with a TV weather station thinks it's a conspiracy? You can't come up with anything better than that?

How about Ted Turner - he's got a TV station, does anyone care what he thinks about global warming? Why can't these AGW doubters make a scientific argument?

Answer 1

John Coleman has zero publications in the peer-reviewed literature on climate. The equating of meteorology with an understanding of climate physics, in the absence of demonstrable proof of scholarship in the area of climate, is not credible. Coleman's opinion in this area is no better than any well-informed layman.

Similar statements can be made about nearly all of the people on Ron C's list. The simple fact is that of the people who actually do climate physics, namely the study of climate in its totality, essentially all of them believe anthropogenic greenhouse gases are affecting radiative transfer in the atmosphere, and thereby climate. The ones on Ron C's list who have the most credibility, still are concerned with one specific facet related to climate change (e.g., Christy, who isn't on Ron C's list but should be, is a satellite temperature guy). Other's on Ron C's list such as Pielke and Schwartz, do not strictly belong on the list because they would not dispute that man is affecting climate, just that specific parts of the whole theory are not well understood (Pielke for instance, thinks regional climate change cannot be predicted, Schwartz would argue the effect of aerosols is not well parameterized).

The peer-reviewed literature is *the* benchmark against which scientific careers are judged. Using this metric, the list provided by Ron C and John Coleman are a dismal sorry bunch.

Answer 2

I think the AGW people are still stuck on believing a weatherman would have the same knowledge as a climate scientist. So no wonder this is making news. They probably think some weatherman making a statement is scientific evidence. Sigh. I think why they ignore other arguments would fit under the psychology section.
LeBlanc: The reports in the 70s were based on theory-no scientific testing was done.
Meteorologists make an educated guess as to what the weather will do in a short-term environment. Based on all factors remaining constant. Which rarely happens. Climatologists take data from long-term patterns and make an estimate based on the average of how the climate has acted over the long-term. They are not the same and do not conduct the same tests.
3) During the course of human history, it is not advantageous for the climate to change this 'quickly'. The change is too rapid for our species, and many others, to adapt.
Common sense: Great civilizations have over-populated and exceeded the supply before (Aztecs, Mayans, Angkor Wat) and the survivors ended up having to abandon the area. With the population as it is now, how can we not have an effect when history has shown that there is 'too much of a good thing'?

Answer 3

All these people slamming John Coleman should check his biography. He was a meterologist for GOOD Morning America. And this is real life, not Wikipedia. Just because a bunch of people say it doesn't make it so! That is a logical fallacy! Argumentum ad populi. If everyone says that a tiny teapot orbits between Earth and Mars, does it make it so? NO! The burden of proof is NOT on the doubters. That's how Big Tobacco tried to make cigarettes seem less dangerous. "50 million smokers can't be wrong."
The graph that shows a deviation from the average temp is the average from 1960 to 1990. This does not factor the past 15 years almost in.

Answer 4

I don't know 'cept it says he was a meteorologist since '53
I been lookin At the supposed difference between Meteorologist and Climatologist I can't find much. I see Meteorologists with way more credentials than Climatologist and vis vers. Like the Global warming witch on the weather channel got her BS in a non related field and then PHD'ed in climatology. Climatology is really a sub field under Meteorology. Say's maybe a climatologist should be able to drill an ice core sample.
Some of these guys actually have the audacity to claim titles in both.

Answer 5

Dana,

“He’s not a climate scientist!” seems to be a mantra that you and other GWAs use constantly in an effort to dismiss any non-climate scientist you choose who declares an opinion on this subject.

The problem with this logic is that it has a rather large flaw: nothing will ever get done about climate change unless and until climate scientists achieve positions of political power. After all, if the President of the USA, or the Prime Minister of the UK (or whoever) announce that they are going to take action on climate change, because it’s a major threat, then you’d be forced to oppose that decision because “they are not climate scientists!”

Of course, in reality, I suspect that you would do no such thing. As long as their declared views coincided with yours, the issue of their lack of climate science credentials would suddenly become irrelevant.

I think you’ll find the word for this is ‘prejudice’.

A case in point: Al Gore. A man with no climate science qualifications, whose film has been labelled as partisan and erroneous in a UK court of law, but also a man who you unfailingly support, even to the point of claiming that the British court was wrong, because you say so. (Let it not be said that you lack confidence!)

Why do you find it impossible to simply state: “Ignore An Inconvenient Truth, it’s irrelevant – it’s the science that counts.” To mirror your comments, I would argue that your constant, irrational support of An Inconvenient Truth “Is… just another sign that” GWAs “have so little evidence to support their position”.

As long as there are people like you, who will constantly trumpet prejudiced, partisan (and often plain wrong) views that are far more extreme than the so-called consensus that you claim to be quoting, then I, and many others, will justifiably remain sceptical.

Answer 6

Simple. Because the hard evidence shows that , with very little prejudice, that global warming is occuring now. So if one uses a scientific argument, then the preponderence of evidence would only support the theory that global warming IS OCCURRING and not the other position. The rate and final consequences of global warming is however, debatable. It's sad to think that some people think our environment is some static thing that doesn't get affected by our actions. Our environment, our bio-sphere, is inter-related with everything that's alive. When one aspect is affected, the effects will definitely show up elsewhere.

Peace

Answer 7

i'm an Earth Scientist (properly, BS, besides, yet i'm engaged on graduate college!) and that i tell all of us who asks me (and maximum of my pals have asked me repeatedly) that worldwide Warming is genuine. there is not any longer basically a mountain of peer reviewed articles (that's extremely probable the cruelest difficulty i've got ever seen) there have additionally been committees (admittedly commissioned with the aid of assorted governments) to deliver at the same time those articles into ordinary to understand soundbites. i visit additionally ask you to think approximately this: the Permian extinction (in simple terms till now the upward thrust of the dinosaurs), which eradicated ninety% of all life in the international on the time, which contains interior the seas (that have been usually exempt from mass extinctions), replaced into probable led to with the aid of a international temperature improve of in simple terms 8 to 10 stages Celsius. think of-- regardless of if that's exaggerated, which mistake could you particularly make? Taking no action and having worldwide Warming be a fact, or taking action to shrink pollution and have worldwide Warming no longer be a fact? in case you're taking the 2nd decision, the worst accessible result could be a cleanser atmosphere!

Answer 8

I'm curious to know whether you heard about this in any fashion other than the earlier posting. And I want to know more about that dog of yours!

Many people have an informed opinion on the topic. However, Mr. Weather Channel did not elucidate succinctly why he believes GW is a myth.

I'm all for hearing what the other guy is to say, as long as he or she isn't ranting, name-calling, and gets the message out there in a constructive way. This was just a plug for The Weather Channel, I guess, or a vacuum in the so-called news that brought this up to the fore.

Answer 9

You are right. Just because one person says global warming is a myth, does not make it so; however, meteorologists are experts in weather patterns. The fact that most of them disagree with climate change theory (increases in co2 will warm up the atmosphere which in turn will cause more droughts, more floods, colder temperatures, warmer temperatures) you have to take them seriously.

The other point you have to remember is that you are saying that global warming is a "no brainer" and that "the debate is over". So when people makes statements AGW is a myth, in effect what we are saying, the debate is not over.

Answer 10

Doubt is the best way to deny anything-fact's, especially, but the people who deny, don't live where a catastrophy from global warming has ruined their live's, and that is why they doubt, they pour psychological warfare on society so that they can gain an audience and divide the poor inhabitant's of this planet time to change course and save the planet from it's overheating mode, which is just starting to kick off in medium to high gear, (in twenty year's, the issue is will the planet survive, and how many people will there be, if so)....

Answer 11

I'm so sick of global warming skeptics. The whole thing is getting old.

ROCK HARD UNDEBATABLE FACT.

CO2 Is a greenhouse gas. The level of C02 in the atmosphere has increased to 384 ppm as of 2007. This is 30% higher then pre-industrial levels.

It is an undebatable fact that C02 increases the greenhouse effect. It is an undebatable fact that emissions of CO2 by human activities amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons). There is no other natural cycle or any other event on Earth that creates this much C02

THIS CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER TIME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

THE CONCENTRATION OF THE EARTH's ATMOSPHERE is undoubtedly changed.

http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=GoldilocksGreen

I hate biggots making statements that contradict scientific fact because denial is the most basic human reaction when an idea contradicts your established thinking process.

When we look at skeptics from now on we should analyze them psychologically as well. Perhaps they aren't enough to understand? Delusionism? Take a look around you. Drought, wildfires, increased sea level, ice caps melting, increased heatwaves, warming winters, hotter summers, what's it gonna take for these psychological delusionists to see the reality that human actions with fossil fuels, ie burning consuming oil, have a very negative and hazardous effect on the ecosystem of this planet?

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071108-ap-rain-prayer.html

Perhaps we need psychiatrists now with the scientist to help make analyzations.

Please do your part and wake up and help solve anthopogenic climate change, most of the world already is. And if you are in denial please go get some psychological help, what else are you denying in your life?