The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day. It has been reported that the founder of the Channel, John Coleman, describes global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accuses global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
And as Coleman points out - he is knows what he is tlking about on the topic of AGW.
quote:
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
Originally posted by M Batchelor: The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day. It has been reported that the founder of the Channel, John Coleman, describes global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accuses global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
And as Coleman points out - he is knows what he is tlking about on the topic of AGW.
quote:
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
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. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.
Originally posted by legjoints: The Weather Channel itself has this to say:
quote:
Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over.
I think we can all agree on that!
Certainly. The only people debating whether or not climate change is primarily caused by human activity are those who don't understand the science or those with vested interests in stalling curbs in greenhouse gas emissions. What the climate scientists are discussing is how quickly things are changing and likely to change, the relative influence of various feedback effects etc..
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
"Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.
Well it's good to have a balanced view from the opponents. I was going to highlight the name-calling, but realised that I'd be highlighting more than half of the text.
Originally posted by M Batchelor: The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day. It has been reported that the founder of the Channel, John Coleman, describes global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accuses global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
And as Coleman points out - he is knows what he is tlking about on the topic of AGW.
quote:
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
On the other hand the Sunday Times in conjunction with the Met Office states:
"In the 10,000 years from the middle to the end of the last ice age, global average temperatures roses by 5 degs C. This is the fastest rate of increase during any period for which the ice cores provide a record - a rate of just 1 degree per millennium. Even cautious forecasters now predict a rise during the 21st century of at least 3C, or 30 times the rate that melted the ice. Most experts believe this is an underestimate."
"Defenders of unrestricted energy use resort to the arguments handed down to them by the asbestos and tobacco industries - the absence of absolute proof. They point to the unreliability of computer modeling and the wide disparity in predictions of likely future warming and sea-level rise. This is largely because scientists do not know how much carbon will be pumped into the atmosphere during the 21st century. What they know for certain, and what all the models are agreed upon, is that an energy policy of "business as usual" is a recipe for drowned cities, epidemic disease, catastrophic hurricanes, killer heatwaves, drought and famine"
Have we not already had evidence today of the above? I guess they could have added mass migration of populations.
If your interested in a sustainable future who you going to go with?
Originally posted by legjoints: Certainly. The only people debating whether or not climate change is primarily caused by human activity are those who don't understand the science or those with vested interests in stalling curbs in greenhouse gas emissions. What the climate scientists are discussing is how quickly things are changing and likely to change, the relative influence of various feedback effects etc..
Well if I employed any group of scientists who are unable to have meaningful debate - I'd sack 'em!... they are clearly not doing their job. How much of our money are these people being paid to NOT have meaningful debate? ...and to prevent other scientists from doing so?
You obviously wish to live in a world of such 'experts' Legjoints, where there's no need for 'meaningful debate', you want some totalitarian authority figure to decide what's best for you... perhaps you would have been happier in Nazi Germany of Stalinist Russia? I prefer being free in a free world... with 'meaningful debate'.
quote: Originally posted by legjoints: Certainly. The only people debating whether or not climate change is primarily caused by human activity are those who don't understand the science or those with vested interests in stalling curbs in greenhouse gas emissions. What the climate scientists are discussing is how quickly things are changing and likely to change, the relative influence of various feedback effects etc..
Well if I employed any group of scientists who are unable to have meaningful debate - I'd sack 'em!... they are clearly not doing their job. How much of our money are these people being paid to NOT have meaningful debate? ...and to prevent other scientists from doing so?
You obviously wish to live in a world of such 'experts' Legjoints, where there's no need for 'meaningful debate', you want some totalitarian authority figure to decide what's best for you... perhaps you would have been happier in Nazi Germany of Stalinist Russia? I prefer being free in a free world... with 'meaningful debate'.
Originally posted by legjoints: Certainly. The only people debating whether or not climate change is primarily caused by human activity are those who don't understand the science or those with vested interests in stalling curbs in greenhouse gas emissions. What the climate scientists are discussing is how quickly things are changing and likely to change, the relative influence of various feedback effects etc..
Well if I employed any group of scientists who are unable to have meaningful debate - I'd sack 'em!... they are clearly not doing their job. How much of our money are these people being paid to NOT have meaningful debate? ...and to prevent other scientists from doing so?
Who said there's no meaningful debate? There's just no meaningful debate on whether or not climate change is primarily caused by human activity, just as there is no longer a meaningful debate on whether there's a link between smoking and cancer, just as there's no longer a meaningful debate on whether the earth is flat or round...
If you flat-earthers want to carry on discussing these things on your blogs and forums, fine, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to write a coherent paper and back up your assertions with some evidence, then maybe you can pass the peer-review process and get it published, and then there will be a meaningfful scientific debate on what you've written.
quote:
You obviously wish to live in a world of such 'experts' Legjoints, where there's no need for 'meaningful debate', you want some totalitarian authority figure to decide what's best for you... perhaps you would have been happier in Nazi Germany of Stalinist Russia? I prefer being free in a free world... with 'meaningful debate'.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
"Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.
Well it's good to have a balanced view from the opponents. I was going to highlight the name-calling, but realised that I'd be highlighting more than half of the text.
He manages to get in nearly all the conspiracy claims and insults going. Adding "religion" and "believer" would have completed the set.
Originally posted by legjoints: Who said there's no meaningful debate?
You did.
quote:
There's just no meaningful debate on whether or not climate change is primarily caused by human activity
Solution: Sack the scientists - they're clearly not doing their job.
quote:
just as there is no longer a meaningful debate on whether there's a link between smoking and cancer
That's no reason to ban cigarettes - unless you're in Legjoint's Nanny State. There is no longer a meaningful debate on whether there's a link between crossing the road and getting run-over... So in Legjoint's Nanny State there is now a consensus on banning all road traffic in public places?
quote:
just as there's no longer a meaningful debate on whether the earth is flat or round...
But if an 'expert' told you the world was flat and there's no 'meaningful debate' - you'd believe him without question?
quote:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
If the cap starts to fit a little too closely... play the Godwin's Law card to divert attention.
quote: just as there is no longer a meaningful debate on whether there's a link between smoking and cancer
That's no reason to ban cigarettes - unless you're in Legjoint's Nanny State. There is no longer a meaningful debate on whether there's a link between crossing the road and getting run-over... So in Legjoint's Nanny State there is now a consensus on banning all road traffic in public places? Big Grin
Where did this rule about banning things appear from? I see no logical progression here. However, if smoking caused not only your death but the death of all those around you, then maybe a ban wouldn't be such a bad idea. Also, if crossing the road resulted in you being run over 90% of the time, then maybe road safety might be more of an issue.
By nature we are risk takers - but sometimes the risks are just too great... maybe a bit of nannying might not go amiss if our future is at stake.
C4 Forums 
