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 position, and which is more credible?

Do you guys seriously think that the channel is more motivated by money than its founder?

Do you think Coleman founded the channel for the betterment of mankind? Noooo, he did it for money!! Let's try to use a little logic here.

William - the ozone hole is a seperate problem from global warming. They have many parallels (scientists warning that something needs to be done, Montral Protocol vs. Kyoto Protocol), but while we solve the former, we have done little to solve the latter. In fact the ozone hole is a good example of why we should be taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 1

It is because John Coleman is a TV weatherman in San Diego, not a climatologist.

Some think that if you are on TV you must be an expert on the subject at hand. Look at how many on Y/A get their facts from TV/radio pundit entertainers.

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

Most evidence does suggest a link between increased levels of CO2 and global temperatures (through not just looking at lins on a graph as most people do but by doing full analysis of variance and correlation analysis. I'm not sure why people cant understand how these Strong links between warming and anthropogenic CO2 can be ignored. Sure their was warming in the past but the difference between warming then and warming now is that past causes of warming such as solar intensity, variations in earths orbit around the sun,Volcanic eruptions,Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, Changes in ocean currents ect. These drivers of global temperatures are relatively known and intensely studied. Most of the changes is past temperatures can be explained but know everyone seems to ignore what we know and are suggesting that the scientist are ignorant and dont have a clue about what they are doing. I would suggest that it is us that is uninformed and in need of education. Maybe if people went to school they would have a better grasp of science and mathematics making it easier to understand the theories and models the scientists base their theories on.

Answer 4

The Montreal Protocol and Kyoto have the greatest intentions regarding ozone, they are achieving none of it.

In September 2007, Canadian Environment Minister John Baird issued this press release tell the world Canada challenged 191 countries to accelerate the elimination of ozone depleting refrigerants. http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=DB7F1DFA-58DE-4BAC-8A16-B36EF2417EA6

At the same time Baird is presenting that information, we are reporting to him that Canada as well as other countries are using refrigerants in 100% of new building construction. The refrigeration in the buildings is treating a symptom that couldn't be seen. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see what the Montreal Protocol was missing.

Kyoto is about reducing emissions and imagine this. This year California had heat waves and got knocked off the electrical grid. The Governor travels and meets about reducing emissions without impacting economy while California creates massive greenhouse gas emissions treating a symptom.

This isn't a knock on California, all states and provinces have the same problem with buildings, they are generating emissions reacting to symptoms and none of them are addressing the extreme heat they are generating.

Answer 5

I think it just proves the point that there just isn't enough info out there to state empirically one way or the other whether or not global warming is man-made. More research needs to be done. That's how science works, someone states an hypothesis and others try to prove or disprove it. Politicians need to take a step back and let the scientist determine the true facts one way or the other.

Answer 6

These idiots are looking at 100 years of an increase in temperature and link it to Carbon Dioxide. What about all the rising temperatures in the past before the world was industrialized? Only morons believe that we have control over the temperature, I wish we could I like warm weather.

Just 30 years ago science journals were fearing another mini-ice age, that didn't happen. Environmentalism is just another religion with the planet being God, sin being Carbon Dioxide and hell being our planet on fire.

Answer 7

Who said the official position is that credible?

The data do NOT support the claim that the majority of the warming is due to human activity, and it is FAR from unanimous among climate scientists.

No meaningful debate has occurred, because those espousing the man-made global warming are not willing to debate the data or their assumptions.

Answer 8

His is far from the only one to differ from the theory that temps are a result of global warming. The ozone "hole" which was to the "major cause" of global warming has closed to its smallest diameter in thirty years. There has always been warm and cool cycles and indications are that we are in a warming cycle to be followed by a cooling cycle. That said, I have no idea, it's way beyond me.

Answer 9

Are you serious? I did not know that. I take it he's not at the helm of The WC any more?

I don't subscribe to global warming...oh wait...climate change. Heidi Cullen is such an airhead for demanding the revocation of all meterological licenses for local forecasters that don't agree with her. A local forecaster on the ABC affiliate here in Birmingham AL, James Spann, offered to have her come here and debate global warming. She declined. I wonder why.

Answer 10

It doesn't matter. Their opinions have nothing to do with facts and scientific study.

Two logical fallacies are often used when talking about global warming often combining the two.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Just because there is a consensuses doesn't make it true.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Just because an "expert" says it doesn't make it true.

Science requires formal testing and methodology that we can all repeat and get the same results. Not opinion. Once we have verifiable scientific tests (not observations like a glacier melted) we can start to make conclusions.