Why is Coleman's opinion about global warming so different from the Weather Channel's?

Question

There have been dozens of questions in Y!A the past few days about John Coleman's comments regarding global warming. Basically he claims the whole thing is a massive scam. Coleman is the founder of The Weather Channel, so people seem to think he's a credible source of information (even though weather is entirely different from climate).

Here is The Weather Channel's official position:

"More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations show 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. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over."

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

So why is The Weather Channel's founder's opinion so different from the channel's official position, and which is more credible?

Mark - when you start of a series of statements with the word "FACT", you should really make sure they're factual. Just saying "FACT" does not make them true.

Nuff said - the same applies to you. Saying "it is a known fact" does not make something a fact.

Answer 1

Here are the things to look for in Coleman's background that would denote professional technical competence in this area, enough demonstrated scholarship and understanding to have a meaningful opinion:

1. Publications in the peer-reviewed literature related to climate dynamics, atmospheric physics, radiative transfer, or other topic directly related to understanding how climate operates.

2. Participation in the peer-review process, either as a journal editor or as a peer-reviewer, handling or reviewing manuscripts related to climate dynamics, atmospheric physics etc.

3. Attendance at national and international meetings and sessions at those meetings where very recent research results in this subject area are discussed and presented. Examples of such meetings would be the AMS national meeting, the IUGG meeting, the AGU meetings.

As near as I can tell, Coleman has none of those items on his bio, there are zero publications of any kind from him on *any* subject in Science Citation Index, ACS SciFinder, or Google Scholar. There are no records of him presenting papers on climate science at any national meeting I can find. I didn't bother to check, but if I do I have no doubt his name will be absent from the masthead of the Journal of Atmospheric Science, Journal of Climate, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, or Weather and Forecasting. If he does have a Ph.D., he is the first one I have seen that does not specifically list it. Essentially, he is the same as any one of the skeptics here in that he simply hasn't got a demonstrable understanding of the topic large enough to argue against the conclusions of the IPCC. Furthermore, he doesn't back up his case with any hard numbers, cited studies, or detailed reasoning, which is a symptom of someone arguing from authority, not from technical competence. People want to believe him because he is saying what they want to hear, but his words shouldn't carry a presumption of truth or accuracy in this subject area. As I said before, he has at best an educated layman's understanding of climate physics and should not be taken seriously.

In contrast, Heidi Cullen, whom skeptics hate, has a Ph.D. from Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and has published work on climate dynamics in journals like Climatic Change, International Journal of Climatology, and PNAS. She you can take seriously as an expert.

Answer 2

While no one can answer for another's belief it could stem from the fact that the Weather Channel statement you quoted is just plain wrong.
The CO2 studies most often quoted have been shown by more recent, accurate studies to be off by a factor of 3-4 in the amount of CO2 increase. Despite this fact, those pushing global warming keep quoting the inaccurate figures.
The computer models were constructed without involving trained statisticians. When they were reveiwed by the head of the American Statistical Association there were errors found that alterred the projected changes to the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude.
As for the supposed proof of human influence consider this FACT. The average temperature increase in the last 150 years has been 1 degree C, 2/3 of that increase occered in the last half of the 19th century. The remaining 1/3 of the increase occured in the twentieth century. Dring the fifty years the 2/3 of a degree increase occured there was virtually no fossil fuel use. During the 100 years that saw temperatures increase 1/3 of a degree we saw the massive increase in fossil fuels.
The actual rate of temperature increase in the last 100 years has been 1/4 that of the previous fifty years.
As for the conclusion being nearly unanamous among climate scientists that is far from true. Climate scientists are at the forfront of denouncing global warming hysteria.
Keep in mind that the people who run the weather channel have backgrounds in business and TV production. They may employoy meteorologists in their programs but they are no more knowledgable than people at any other network.
As always. the global warming position is being pushed by non-scientists who loudly claim that all the scientists agree with them, while ignoring the fact that the majority of those who actually do research into climate change are their loudest critics.

Answer 3

Thanks, Dana, I hadn't dug hard enough on this one, I guess. To answer your question I had to know more about the man, which I hoped would help to determine his credibility or lack of it thereof. In particular, in his diatribe -- the one that is so popular here lately -- he mentions his father and a brother with their Phd's with some disdain, and I suspected a bit of a grudge there.

But what I discovered instead was interesting. In the KUSI bio I found, he jokes, "Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam," so maybe "scam" is just a favorite word of his. But he goes on to say of The Weather Channel, "That's my baby", he says. "The bad guys took it away from me, but they can't steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year."

So he has an axe to grind, maybe trying to put The Weather Channel on the spot, I don't know. Older people I know sometimes feel it is their right to speak their peace when the same people 20 years earlier were more forthright in how they expressed their opinions.

That said, he's entitled to his opinion, and the people that buy into it are just looking to substantiate their own beliefs. Me, I want to know the truth, the whole truth, and I'm in this for the long haul, as it were. I've got a list I've amassed of nearly 30 credible websites. Mr. Coleman's diatribe didn't make the cut.

Answer 4

because the current frenzy over global warming is being driven by the companies that stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars from the so called crisis if the Kyoto Treaty is Ratified. Is is a known fact that in order to produce the numbers the scientists have skewed and moved the numbers around to match their models. Nasa released their numbers this summer to which the media and global warmists completely ignored. 1900 was warmer than 2000, there has not been a warmest year since 1998 four of the ten warmest years of the last century ocurred in the 1930s. But this info was completely ignored. While global Warmests play u the Arctic Cap melting, they havent played up the fact that the Antarctic cap is increasing in size. Any scientist that debunks the current science being used is called down and labeled as an idiot by those scientists that have allowed themselves to be caught up in a political movement. We have enjoyed an unusually long period of warm weather between normal Ice Age times. The earths temp cycles tend to run in about 10,000 year cycles and in all actuallity, we are over due for a colder period to begin, could we be holding off the next ice age, you bet. another ICE age could wipe out three fourths of the worlds population. If you want to see who is behind the money driving global warming, its the companies who stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars off of the tech to reduce the emissions. G.E. owns NBC, NBC owns many of the channels pushing green weeks and global warming. go figure. Using your own figure of a century worth of data, how do you equate NASA's figures into the argument? did you even know NASA released these figures last summer? bet not.
Edit: Heidi Cullen also has a political axe to grind, She has already stated any scientist who does not agree with her should have their credentials taken away. So with her, its my way or the hiway.

Answer 5

Have you ever heard of something called public relations? You cannot alienate viewers. It does make good business. There are so many people who are so emotional about this issue that they will stop watching the weather channel.

The fact that he claims that global warming is a scam, that does not make it true. That is his opinion. But when you claim that the debate is over, and that global warming is a no brainer, well here is a man with a PHD, with a background in science, and he (and the vast majority of meteorologists) do not believe that man is responsible for most of the rise in temperatures.

Climate change is not just about a rise in temperatures. It is also how a rise in temperatures will cause a change in weather patterns which will cause more extreme weather, hurricanes, floods, droughts, cold weather. Meteorologists are experts in these matters. And they are saying it is a scam. That is why you have to take them seriously.

Answer 6

Which happened first? Heidi the GW witch on the weather channel calling for removal of all Meteorologists from the AMA who didnt accept AGW as fact or the Coleman statement?

An old man in the "bis" since 53, been around a long time probably soaked up alot of info his title don't alude to, or a relative newcomer to the Study of atmospheric sciences that only PHD'ed in a rather narrow spectrum of Climatology and maybe has a couple years actual field work for NOAA.

As I recall half her qualifications were a good face for TV

Answer 7

The Weather Channel is a business, and John Coleman is a scientists. Documentaries about the horrors of human caused climate change attract more dollars for advertisement than the truth does.

Answer 8

There is nothing to be gained by a high profile company disagreeing with the IPCC.

In their wisdom, the IPCC didn't predict anything about the future except in really vague language - so they can never have their predictions proved untrue.

Pretty much every politician and large organisation seems to understand that if you don't go along with the IPCC's findings then a few people get really angry with you which is not good.

Any debate is over when people stop bringing new ideas to the debate. This would seem to be the case for AGW.

Answer 9

Dana, interesting you should mention Heidi's old school - Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. In April Goerge Kukla, Emeritus Professor of Climatology there, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/an_unrepentant_prognosticator.php

Most of the profs at Lamont-Doherty believe in global warming, but Kukla does not. And from what I hear, some of the younger profs there are also about ready to announce they are skeptics. One of them posts on ClimateAudit anonymously. The science no longer supports catastrophic AGW.

Answer 10

Because they are clearly driven by science, and he is clearly driven by politics, using words like "dastardly" and "whackos".