Global warming is a Scam. who else thinks so. I do and i am not afraid to say it out.?

Question

John Coleman is a meteorologist and weatherman from San Diego who has been in the field for 55 years -
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ - and he is also the founder of The Weather Channel. You get the picture, the guy is a poster child for credibility. That's likely all about to change for the veteran meteorologist because he decided to take on the machinery that is the Global Warming activist movement.

also, what do you think about kyoto?

Answer 1

There is no debate that the world is warming, because the Earth is warming (it's natural). But there is a debate on whether it is human caused or just a natural cycle.

Kyoto is a bad route to go for the US. If we did sign on to Kyoto, it would be very bad for the US economically. The US should only sign if all countries commit to lowering emissions. This would allow an even playing field. It would be better despite others opinions.

The US should show its leadership by lowering emissions efficiently while still being strong economically.

Answer 2

This "poster child" is apparently not in sync with his Weather Channel. The Weather Channel Position Statement on Global Warming was issued November 2007. It says, in part:

"To what extent the current warming is due to human activity is complicated because large and sometimes sudden climate changes have occurred throughout our planet's history -- most of them before humans could possibly have been a factor. Furthermore, the sun/atmosphere/land/ocean "climate system" is extraordinarily complex, and natural variability on time scales from seconds to decades and beyond is always occurring.

However, it is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.

More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists."

As far as Kyoto, apparently the U.S. response was to participate in programs like The Climate Registry. Forty U.S. states are on board, plus 4 Canadian provinces and Sonora, Mexico.

So, I don't think that human-induced climate change is a scam at all. I've amassed a collection of about 25 websites, each with information that offers insight into the processes as well as potential solutions. I'm not sure why Yahoo Q&A seems to be behind in what's going on in the real world. Research now is building on data accumulated since the 1950's, and the combination of university research, business, and government is finally starting to break the logjam. I expect that within the next few years more programs will be set in motioin and funded locally, nationally, and internationally.

I can't say I understand it all, not a lot of it even, but I'm learning more every day, finding new sites every week, and getting more fluent with the terminology. I've attached a few of the links to give you an idea of the scope of reliable material that's available online.

I'm trying to be part of the solution. Anyone's who not is part of the problem.

Answer 3

The whole global warming issue was decided by a vote of scientists and politicians. Any time you "vote" on what is a fact, you gotta know you are in trouble. When you figure that humans are barely a blip on the Earth's timeline, you realize that we don't have the capability to augment our environment to the degree these alarmists claim. As for Kyoto, it is an even bigger scam. The US was the only country that actually lowered their emissions to any significant degree and we did it without signing the agreement or changing any of our emission limits laws. Europe and China, who did sign not only didn't meet their commitment, their emissions increased substantially. The biggest manmade destroyer of ozone are the wild fires in Africa--do you see anyone slamming them for not being part of Kyoto? Do you see any of these junk science idiots blaming them for polar bear drownings or hurricanes? We need to stop allowing politicians and celebrity high school dropouts from teaching science to the illterate masses.
By the way, meterologists DO study climate change and record a great deal of the relevant data we use for REAL forecasts.

Answer 4

It's interesting that you should choose John Coleman. If I was looking for someone to add credibility to an argument against manmade global warming he wouldn't be the first person I'd choose.

Certainly he's an educated person and a fine meteorologist, he also knows a good deal about climate change but he's not an expert on the subject. There are overlaps betwen the disciplines of climatology and meteorology but they are two separate subjects.

Although he founded the Weather Channel his opinion is completely at odds with that of the channel. The Weather Channel's official statement on climate change states "...the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over."

The wording is a bit unfortunate as it kicks Coleman in the teeth and rejects him as being an expert", perhaps not the kindest way to treat your founder. From what I can gather he is isolated amongst the other metoerologists at the Weather Channel who unanimously agree that current climate change is primarily human induced.

I don't know why Mr Coleman should go against his own channel, profession and the world's leading experts on the subject. Perhaps it's because, as one staff member commented "he's gone senile".

http://climate.weather.com/globalWarmingStatement.html
http://climate.weather.com/science/globalwarming/

Answer 5

Wow, he's read DOZENS of scientific papers. Now that's credibility for you.

Well, I've read thousands of scientific papers. I read them every day. There is no scam. There is no global conspiracy to fake the data. The data are taken by too many people in too many places to fake. The loss of Arctic sea ice is already moving faster than even the most pessimistic models have predicted.

Changing the climate is like steering a supertanker: it takes a loooong time to do it. By the time the worst effects are upon us, it will be too late to turn back the clock, because of positive feedbacks in the climate system. We can prevent the worst of it, cheaply, if we act now. But you can't buy back an extinct species at any price.

Answer 6

Rule number one on global warming. Do not discuss the science, attack the person who disagrees, repeat the mundra.

I think the following quote of his is particularly telling.

"Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid."

As for the Kyoto accord. There are many climatologists who support global warming theory, who say the Kyoto does not go far enough and will not do anything to reduce global warming.

Answer 7

Yeah, so this means we can continue to cut down trees and use cars that are causing people to die of lung cancer, right? Yay!

Why are you trying to prevent people from trying to improve the environment!? Even if you don't believe in climate change or global warming surely you have to see that all these steps people are taking is helping the environment. Stop being capitalist pigs and look and see that fossil fuels are a limited resource and we are going to have to look into renewable energy some time in the future anyway. If you don't want to believe the facts right in front of you, don't, but stop being so short sighted and look ahead into the future of your children, or your childrens children.

Answer 8

You go to the weatherman for information on climate science?

Are you going to go to the dentist if you break your arm?

Weather and climate are completely different. Meteorologists do not study climate science. You're dismissing the experts' opinions because they're not telling you what you want to hear, and instead choosing to listen to a paranoid conspiracy theorist because you like what he's saying.

It would be nice if humans weren't responsible for global warming. If we're responsible it's totally inconvenient because it means we have to do some difficult things to fix the problem. Unfortunately the scientific reality is that humans are the primary cause of the current warming. All scientific evidence supports this conclusion. No matter how much you or this Al Roker wannabe would like it all to go away, that's not going to happen.

Denial isn't healthy. Please take some time to learn about the science behind global warming.

Answer 9

Give me a break. The guy isn't a scientist, much less a climatologist. He has no evidence. He's just doing some political ranting. "Dastardly"? "Whackos"?

How can he see through the "scam" and 99+% of scientists, most every world leader and EVERY major scientific organization can't? The answer is simple. It's not a scam, he's wrong, and they're right.

Even The Weather Channel disagrees with him:

http://climate.weather.com/globalWarmingStatement.html
http://climate.weather.com/science/globalwarming/

Why would anybody intelligent believe him instead of thousands of Ph.D. scientists, backed by a massive database?

He seems to be a conservative. Maybe he should listen to Newt:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

Good websites for actual scientific info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 10

The IPCC reports contain careful science. Where is the scam? Yes, there are cycles; yes, local cooling occurs; but anthropogenic global warming can occur alongside (the decidedly smaller) natural warming, as well as alongside local cooling (the writer from Alaska seems to think that the temperature in one tiny spot on the globe is a proxy for the entire system). There is one effect of global warming that will be globally felt: rising sea level, both from thermal expansion and from melting land-ice.
John Coleman's diatribe against science ignores the rest of the world, as if the US was the only country with scientists. What do French and Indonesian scientists care about CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Democrats and Republicans, etc.?
John Coleman has read "dozens" of scientific papers. The IPCC represents hundreds or thousands. He is probably right that there is no "runaway" climate change, but he is probably (60%-95%) wrong that there is no anthropogenic climate change, or that it won't be harmful. Besides, who said the sky is falling? This is what's called a "straw man." Demonizing the opposing viewpoint, as John Coleman does, shows that he is just ranting, and probably upset about something else.