The great hope of snow lovers
22 posts
11 users
4k+ views
bawalker
November 14, 2007
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
I saw this on a news site earlier which the founder of the Weather Channel had commented on regarding global warming after looking the facts. While this is a touchy subject on here and seems to result in things being moderated, I think this offers us snow lovers a great hope that not 'all is lost'. It's up to everyone to take a gander and decide for themselves...

******
Founder of Weather Channel disses 'global warming'
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow.com
(http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/11/founder_of_weather_channel_dis.php)
November 14, 2007

A prominent meteorologist with more than 54 years of experience is calling global warming an "outrageous scam" and a "manufactured crisis."

John Coleman has been a television meteorologist since 1953. His credentials include being the first weather forecaster for the television show Good Morning America, and founder of the cable-based network The Weather Channel. Currently, Coleman forecasts the weather for the San Diego television station KUSI.

About six to seven years ago, Coleman says he began to hear about supposed "global warming" and decided to research the subject deeper and to investigate it from a scientific stance in order educate his viewers.

"I'm not talking about reading media accounts. I'm talking about getting down to the basic research papers," he explains. "And the more I read them, the more doubt I had -- and eventually the whole case just collapsed, when you really study the documents. And it became very clear that it was a manufactured crisis."

According to Coleman, the science that supports arguments favoring global warming "has been manipulated" and much of the data has been "manufactured," resulting in what he calls "bad science" that, unfortunately, passed peer review. He argues that the research passed that review only because of an underlying agenda held by scientists. He claims they wish to strike fear of environmental catastrophe if people do not hold to their radical ideas.

In a blog posted on KUSI.com, Coleman dispels that fear by stating that the earth is not in peril. He states that natural cycles in weather are more responsible for any climate change, and that over the next two decades there is an equal chance for a cooling trend as there is for a warming trend. He also believes that once the dire predictions of global-warming scientists fail to pass, people will realize they have been "duped."
******

Here is the link to the blog on the KUSI website:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11154171.html
David
November 14, 2007
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
No comment........ ;\)
jimmy
November 14, 2007
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
hmmmmmm.... ;\)
Scott - DCSki Editor
November 14, 2007
Member since 10/10/1999 🔗
1,132 posts
Let's see.. Am I going to trust the scientific judgment of an attention-starved teleprompter reader who has absolutely no scientific background or education in this area, or am I going to trust the unanimous assessment of hundreds of independent, highly respected, highly educated scientists across the world who have been researching this topic for decades using the traditional scientific method? Scientists usually don't have an agenda. It kind of goes against the very concept of science, which is the unimpassioned search for truth.

The only thing that is manufactured is the idea that there's some kind of uncertainty within the scientific community about all of this. The problem is widely acknowledged; the only debate at this point centers around the magnitude of the problem and what we can do about it.

There will always be outliers out there like Coleman, and the media will occasionally quote them in an effort to "balance" stories (because that's what we learn to do in journalism school). But it's really not balanced when you have one non-scientist who claims to have read a bunch of scientific journals, and came to a different conclusion than thousands of scientists with things like PhD's and scientific instruments and such.

Coleman presented his "conclusion" on a blog, instead of submitting it to a refereed journal like Science or Nature, like a real scientist would do. And if you read his blog posting (which is surely generating all kinds of ad impressions for his employer), you'll notice that he says scientists are wrong, without providing any evidence to support this position whatsoever. No evidence or scientific analysis at all. What exactly were these problems he had with the science? He doesn't say. He merely throws around words like "scam" and "outrageous" and how "incensed" and "outraged" he is about the whole thing. Coleman, by the way, was at the Weather Channel for its first year, and then left. In his KUSI bio he writes that "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." The Weather Channel regularly features programming on climate change.

Drats, I took the bait. I guess I'm going to have to delete my own post! \:\)

What I meant to say is that, as always, this really isn't an appropriate topic for DCSki. There are plenty of other forums and venues to debate this topic.
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki
dcmidnight
November 14, 2007
Member since 11/11/2006 🔗
125 posts
As a former scientist back in my college days I have a real concern with the topic of global warming. The beauty of science is that it can be debated and discussed openly in a public forum. Ideas can be heard and hypothesis researched. Unfortunately, global warming has become such a political issue that debate is no longer welcome or even encouraged. If you speak out against global warming you are seen as a kook or a hack or a pro-oil lobbyist - or a Republican. There is no debate left in this field. You are either with Al Gore or you are an idiot and a fool and cast aside. This makes me sad. There are a lot of points left to debate in this field such as the affect that the human overpopulation and industrialization has had on the temperature of the Earth. But no one wants to debate anymore, just charge ahead with solutions. Solutions that may very well be right for part of the problem but they may have tremendous negative consequences elsewhere.

History is filled with things we knew with certainty about science - only to realize later we couldnt have been more wrong.
David
November 14, 2007
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
^^^^^^^^^ EXACTLY what he (Scott) said ^^^^^^^^^^


edit: added Scott because someone got their post in before I got mine
The Colonel - DCSki Supporter
November 14, 2007
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
3,098 posts
One day last week I was driving and Rush Limbaugh was on the radio when I turned it on and I heard him say something about a listener sending him an email about global warming being proved a deliberate "scam". He was all excited. Then after the commercial break he came back and said he had personally been scammed and the email was a hoax. Many of the words I heard him read from the email were identical or nearly identical to the article posted by Brad. Have we DCSkiers also been scammed, even SCOTT???
The Colonel \:\)
fishnski
November 15, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
 Originally Posted By: Scott
Let's see.. Am I going to trust the scientific judgment of an attention-starved teleprompter reader who has absolutely no scientific background or education in this area?
...........AL GORE???.................................

The problem is widely acknowledged; the only debate at this point centers around the magnitude of the problem and what we can do about it.
......Spend Billions of our hard earned money of which a whole lot goes into these Scientists Pockets?..To fight a problem that is way too powerfull for man to control?..they(Scientists) got to eat too & to think that all the grant money they could recieve to help build up their projects & their pockets couldn't sway their "Opinions" is a little Naive!............

There will always be outliers out there like Coleman, and the media will occasionally quote them in an effort to "balance" stories (because that's what we learn to do in journalism school). But it's really not balanced when you have one non-scientist who claims to have read a bunch of scientific journals, and came to a different conclusion than thousands of scientists with things like PhD's and scientific instruments and such.
.

.................AL GORE?................................

...Just wondering somthing Scott...you got a thing for Dr. Hiedi Fliess of the Weather Channel?..The lady that does all those GW segments?..Don't let her charm sway you Scott..stay in control Buddy!....Oh & I thought that Mr Coleman had been with the Weather Channel for 6 years not 1.

PS..The Snow pack has really spread from asia/Siberia into Eastern Europe now & is looking real good..Arctic ice is progressing smoothly & the 5 day f-cast is for a rapid increase. We will be seeing up to 4 inches of snow in the higher elevations of West by God Va by Fri..the 2nd accum snow so far & its still not T-Giving..More snow I think for T-giving Weekend....Bottom line is ..Sure.. stay on top of polution but lets not get crazy with this GW Thing..It could really get out of control..STAY COOL!
crunchy
November 15, 2007
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
 Originally Posted By: bawalker

About six to seven years ago, Coleman says he began to hear about supposed "global warming" and decided to research the subject deeper and to investigate it from a scientific stance in order educate his viewers.


this should say it all. 6-7 years ago he *began* to hear about this? some environmental groups have been studying and warning about GW for at least 20 years! Greenpeace was warning about the global effects on the climate and greenhouse gasses from the slashing of the rainforests in the late 80's for god sake!
fishnski
November 15, 2007
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
Going back 20 years?!!? Heck thats almost as far back as to when those same groups were screaming about the next ice age coming!.....Its snowing in the Alpps right now..
KevR
November 15, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I may favor the weatherman on this, after all they usually get the next days weather forecast right on the money...

;-)

Actually I can see why folks want to be or are skeptical -- the weatherman themselves rarely get it "right", and their trend forecast is based on computer models.

Are not then science GW folks using computer models too? How can we trust that.

So yes as I understand it much of the scientific predictions are based on the fact that within the last few years climate models have been able to replicate the overall weather TREND of the 20th century... based on real data points as input, hit "start", get cup of coffee, output="matching avg temp trend line of 20th century"

Pretty cool stuff...

So -- second cup of coffee, second set of inputs for 21st century -- add in MORE CO2 (after all now we have china), MORE this, more that... (shows what i really know i don't even know what the real inputs are!)

Anyway -- HIT START -- results: 10 degrees warmer on avg in 100yrs, or whatever...

That's it in a nutshell I think -- at least for the temp, sea level predictions all that...

Then of course you have the real-data points FOLKS THINK reflect that warming: shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, etc...

And finally the pesky bit about the carbon cycle...

Not to worry, peak oil will save us in the nick of time... :-)

jimmy
November 15, 2007
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
Global warning has nothing to do with science, it's just politics. Now that they've done an impartial scientific study, we all know that the only scientists that have an agenda are the ones who don't believe in global warning the debate is over??? We can debate the current conclusions about climate change till H freezes over. you say the arctic ice cap is shrinking i say the antarctic ice cap is growing u say tomato i say tomata isn't this fun?

What really scares me is now that a lot of really bright people have drunk mother of the internet ozone owlgore's koolaid that we're going to start wasting a bunch of resourses on solving a ~problem~ that we don't know the magnitude of or whether it's just a naturally occuring phenomenom, yeah i know the earth is round but look at what a good job we did reversing the coming of that ice age that SCIENCTISTS 30 years ago warned was immenient.
KevR
November 15, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I think many big decisions are made on less qualified data by people that run the world...

Having said that the *real* problem is we could wait until we are ABSOLUTELY sure all the glaciers have melted and the sea levels are 2 feet higher...

But then we can't put the dang genie back in the bottle...

So it's a bit easier but perhaps almost as painful to try to tape the bottle shut...

Lose a few wishes, who wants that?

oh well...
Scott - DCSki Editor
November 15, 2007
Member since 10/10/1999 🔗
1,132 posts
 Originally Posted By: fishnski
Going back 20 years?!!? Heck thats almost as far back as to when those same groups were screaming about the next ice age coming!.....Its snowing in the Alpps right now..


And through the magic of science, we're able to do some pretty clever things like looking at ice core samples that contain a detailed climactic and atmospheric record of the Earth going back thousands of years.

The data is simply overwhelming. Science is pretty good at producing data. The interpretation of the data is where theories come in and are tested. That's the traditional scientific method: gather data, produce theories, test theories. What's so alarming is that many of the theories are now being proven, and show that if anything, scientists were too conservative. But projecting into the future is tough, no question. Much of the science has centered around drawing correlations in the past.

I think it's very unfortunate that the issue has become political. Knowing some of the scientists doing this research day to day, I can tell you that they could care less that this has become a political issue -- they have no concern for that and don't pay attention to it at all. They have no agenda. They do not get funding from groups such as Greenpeace. They didn't watch an Inconvenient Truth. They are using state-of-the-art technologies to try and understand our world a little better.

Ultimately, solutions to the problem will of course have a political basis. The political system isn't set up well to react to problems like this. Any solution will hurt, and since politicians are constantly running for office, they'll be hesitant to support anything that hurts. And consider that some of the companies that profit so much from the status quo -- say, the big oil companies -- have record-breaking profits, and no shortage of lobbyists.
crunchy
November 15, 2007
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
 Originally Posted By: fishnski
Its snowing in the Alpps right now..


ding ding ding!

HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PITTSBURGH PA
442 AM EST THU NOV 15 2007

MDZ001-WVZ023-041-161100-
GARRETT-PRESTON-TUCKER-
442 AM EST THU NOV 15 2007

...SNOW ADVISORY IN EFFECT FROM 6 PM THIS EVENING TO 12 PM EST
FRIDAY...

THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR WESTERN MARYLAND AND NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

.DAY ONE...TODAY AND TONIGHT

PLEASE LISTEN TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR GO TO WEATHER.GOV ON THE
INTERNET FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING HAZARDS.

SNOW ADVISORY.

RAIN WILL CHANGE TO SNOW THIS EVENING...WITH ACCUMULATIONS OF
2 TO 4 INCHES OVERNIGHT...MAINLY ABOVE 2500 FEET IN ELEVATION.

.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...FRIDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY

PLEASE LISTEN TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR GO TO WEATHER.GOV ON THE
INTERNET FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOLLOWING HAZARDS.

SNOW ADVISORY.

SNOW WILL LINGER THROUGH FRIDAY MORNING...WITH STORM TOTAL
ACCUMULATIONS OF 2 TO 5 INCHES.
dcmidnight
November 15, 2007
Member since 11/11/2006 🔗
125 posts
I'm sorry but I cant agree that the data is simply overwhelming and the debate is by no means over as to why the Earth is warming. In August, NASA just took a big hit over having to revise their recent average US temperature figures down .2 degrees because of an error in the way they were not adjusting the temperature readings based on the time of day the readings were taken. New studies and data are coming in all the time. Just this morning there was a NASA report on CNN about circulation reversal in the Arctic current and that the changes in the Arctic climate may not in fact all be due to global warming. The study was conducted by NASA, NOAA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"


There is so much data and research going on every day that its simply irresponsible to jump to one conclusion or blindly race towards solutions when we cannot by any means say we have a grasp on what the problem even is. John Stossel has been doing a series of reports on 20/20 on the shunning of debate on global warming that has been pretty interesting.

As I stated in my previous post, it makes me sad that this is no longer a topic for spirited discussion or debate.
KevR
November 15, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Except I don't think there is much debate within the community -- instead you have a few talking heads who amplify legit science debate for their own purposes that just confuses the lay public.

To me at its simplist the question to all the detractors -- How do you get around the basics of the carbon cycle?

Sure everyone is running around now trying to take real data points now and say "Oh look gw" -- and some of them are revising their conclusions one way or the other -- but none of that to me at least enhances or detracts from the basics of the carbon cycle which we seem to well understand, and which is at the heart of temp regulation on the planet...

So in the end we have to deal with that ...
Roger Z
November 15, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
I actually got a little more convinced about global warming by reading an anti-global warming website. It was run by a scientist but there was nonetheless this strain of "let's bat everything down the other side says" that was resulting not only in questioning people's motives, but their character and calling up conspiracy theories that were starting to grasp for black helicopters and tinfoil hats. Just to qualify that, I think there were a lot of good comments but toward the end there things were getting weird.

I think it's undebatable that temperatures have risen over the last 30 years. I think one thing that is still open for debate is the relative contribution of natural versus manmade causes, where man's contribution is somewhere north of zero and south of 100 (is that wide enough latitude? \:\) ). One of the problems then arises- until we know the contribution of human-based sources, it becomes difficult to build a good projection model. And until we have a good projection model, it's hard to assess what the coming century is going to bring in terms of climate change. Add to that: there are almost no regional models of what climate change will mean. Think about this: if the average didn't change at all, but every place that was warm saw an increase in 10 degrees of temperature and an elimination of preciptation, while every cool place saw a decrease of 10 degrees and a doubling of precipitation, would we be better off than having a uniform, one degree global change in temperature?

And therewith lies the final problem: what are the costs and benefits of continuing manmade forcings on the climate? That's where the discussion de facto becomes political, no matter how sound the science is, because we're arguing economics and morals at that point. It's the most contentious and least ageed-upon point of discussion, and I think a lot of the accusations about the science stem from people who worry about the political, economic, and moral ramifications of the evidence. So they shoot the messengers- the scientists. I think this holds true on both sides of the debate- I noticed that both sides are impatient to the point of rudeness with people who want to revisit the data or models... unless the revisiting results in their favor.

My own position is that we need (as a society and as a species) to be as adaptible as possible to whatever gets thrown at us climatologically. Even if man was having no impact whatsoever on the climate, the temperatures still might change drastically over the next 100 years... so then what? Right now they're already saying that natural factors will cause the Colorado River to be significantly lower for then next several decades... how does arguing about how much additional impact that man is having on that natural process help out the rapidly growing population in the Desert Southwest?

Even if we weren't impacting the climate, it would still benefit us to ask how we can move to an economy based on renewable resources, and even if we are impacting the climate, we still have to ask whether we're going to be better or worse off because of it.

By all means, keep working on the models to refine them and improve the data, that is one of the imperatives of science. But I think we're losing sight of the bigger picture: the prospect of climate change is making us aware of our vulnerabilities to natural conditions. What are some steps we can take to help make people- particularly people already at the margins- less vulnerable to long-term changes in nature? Reducing our impact on the climate might be one of those steps, but it's certainly not the only step that we need to consider.
KevR
November 15, 2007
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
There are those that suggest GW might have GOOD benefits which are is just arguing for something even LESS known than what we have now. It's not a good position I think to gamble on greater unknowns.

We are probably moving towards some rough regulation of the planet's weather systems by humans -- that's if we are lucky and smart. That's where we should be putting our energeries. Do we want it "about like it is now?", or "Nah, a bit colder.", or even, "Well maybe a bit warmer still..."

We are moving huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that has been locked in the earth for eons, and then the side effect of that are secondary releases of more greenhouse gases from other natural sources such as permafrost and ice as the world warms a bit, thus providing a feedback mechanism into the system...

We *know* this is happening -- and we have measured fairly well the component of it that we are directly responsible for and some very likely results over the course of certain time spans due to these additional warming gases.

I don't think there is any debate to be had in this area... instead the debate centers around the details: rates, ranges, time spans, micro vs macro effects, etc...

So that leaves two rather simple choices: either figure out a way to re-capture the carbon from the atmosphere and regulate it, or stop producing it in the first place -- regulating it again.

That's it -- two choices. No more, no less.
boarderbabe
November 15, 2007
Member since 02/7/2005 🔗
33 posts
Bottom line is this.

If you recognize the threats and harms that we are doing to our planet, and are willing to make the sacrifices neccessary to bring things back into balance, then you "get it"

If you see this planet as something to be used at all costs as long as it does not interfere with your comfort and politics,
then you "just don't get it", and probably have suffered and will continue to suffer because you must live with yourself
Roger Z
November 15, 2007
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
Alright, Kev, it's put-up or shut-up time. I'll run my city my way, you run it your way, and we'll see whose right and whose house gets bulldozed for unreliable solar panels ;\)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/1...h/index.html?hp
dcmidnight
November 15, 2007
Member since 11/11/2006 🔗
125 posts
I used to love the original Sim City. It was the first game I got for my dads PS2.
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds