Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen
IGNORED

John Coleman(founder Of Weather Channel) Slams Global Warming


PersianPaladin

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City

    The founder of The Weather Channel has launched a vociferous attack against the theory of global warming.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

    Interesting views to say the least. Although personally, I feel he is wrong.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • Replies 55
    • Created
    • Last Reply
    Posted
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
    The founder of The Weather Channel has launched a vociferous attack against the theory of global warming.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

    Interesting views to say the least. Although personally, I feel he is wrong.

    It's not a recent thing, PP, he's been on about it for a while - I see the video was uploaded in March.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

    I find it a tad confusing to hear this from a self confessed 'man of science'. I've met plenty of folk more suited to the garbage he was promoting but ,it appears, a more questioning mind quickly overcomes the blind arrogance he was spouting in favour of either belief ,as the evidence for our impacts amasses every year, or ,in the least a 'juries still out', stance.

    I heard nothing of the dramatic changes we have witnessed recently most notably the Arctic meltdown. A simple "the icecaps won't melt" doesn't really cut it now does it? I would imagine his 'major' was climate science/meteorology and .as such, he must be aware of our understanding of past climate shifts and how 'novel' the pattern of our current one is.

    When Mr Nobody spouts off like this I'm saddened, when a person who reaches out to millions does the same I'm worried.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

    Get used to it, lots of North American meteorologists don't believe in global warming and think the whole business is over-hyped. They will continue to think that as long as warming does not exceed certain minimum values in the arctic. Since they probably look at the weather in the arctic every day they are working, they have a perfect right to such an opinion.

    Since sea levels are not rising dramatically and sea ice this past month has begun to return to more "average" values, there would be no rational reason for anyone to expect a sudden shift in this opinion over here.

    It does not mean that all such people are oblivious to all issues related to the political debate, each will have his own opinion on the need for alternative technology and other changes. It is more about the pure science of the question, has the theory been adequately "proven" beyond reasonable doubt, or is it still in the formative stages? When the proponents changed the emphasis from global warming to climate change and began to try on the tactic of pointing at extreme weather events, some of which are better associated with colder climatic regimes (like severe windstorms), many in the North American weather community saw an obvious political ploy in that decision. This was spontaneous and not funded by some mysterious right-wing cabal or "the Big Oil Companies" which really don't have any influence over 90% of the skeptics.

    GW, you can give your global warming sermon every day of the week for the next ten years, but you won't change too many minds, only the weather will change minds, and the weather has not signalled beyond a doubt what it plans to do. Until it does, there will be debate, dissent, and skeptics. Get used to it. You may be right, but you may be wrong.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    Get used to it, lots of North American meteorologists don't believe in global warming and think the whole business is over-hyped. They will continue to think that as long as warming does not exceed certain minimum values in the arctic. Since they probably look at the weather in the arctic every day they are working, they have a perfect right to such an opinion.

    Since sea levels are not rising dramatically and sea ice this past month has begun to return to more "average" values, there would be no rational reason for anyone to expect a sudden shift in this opinion over here.

    It does not mean that all such people are oblivious to all issues related to the political debate, each will have his own opinion on the need for alternative technology and other changes. It is more about the pure science of the question, has the theory been adequately "proven" beyond reasonable doubt, or is it still in the formative stages? When the proponents changed the emphasis from global warming to climate change and began to try on the tactic of pointing at extreme weather events, some of which are better associated with colder climatic regimes (like severe windstorms), many in the North American weather community saw an obvious political ploy in that decision. This was spontaneous and not funded by some mysterious right-wing cabal or "the Big Oil Companies" which really don't have any influence over 90% of the skeptics.

    GW, you can give your global warming sermon every day of the week for the next ten years, but you won't change too many minds, only the weather will change minds, and the weather has not signalled beyond a doubt what it plans to do. Until it does, there will be debate, dissent, and skeptics. Get used to it. You may be right, but you may be wrong.

    Excellent post Roger, far to much scaremongering going on with very little in the way of actual evidence. GW maybe you can answer this question. Why is there no greenhouse signature above the tropics, after all that's where it should be but no weather balloons can find this signature?
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: on A50 Staffs/Derbys border 151m/495ft
  • Location: on A50 Staffs/Derbys border 151m/495ft

    I'd be quite happy to let the AGW proponents have their way IF they could come up with a way to cut carbon emissions without the cure having a bigger carbon footprint than the savings.

    If it costs more (eg wind turbines) then it must cost more because it's obviously consuming more.

    Roll on the world recession. Perhaps when too many people have stopped producing too many goods and services we don't need and stop riding around the world delivering them - maybe we'll reduce pollution.

    But who am I? I don't have a relevant degree or, better still, a doctorate to cement my credibility. Just a nobody really.

    "He's as blind as he can be,

    Just sees what he wants to see,

    Nowhere Man can you see me at all?"

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire
    Roll on the world recession. Perhaps when too many people have stopped producing too many goods and services we don't need and stop riding around the world delivering them - maybe we'll reduce pollution.

    "He's as blind as he can be,

    Just sees what he wants to see,

    Nowhere Man can you see me at all?"

    That's right,not sure what the immediate ramifications would be but it'd make what we have spin out for a bit longer. We'd still not coax climate into following our whim,though :) .

    Hey,you can never get too much of The Beatles!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    Look, we all know that AGW was invented by Maggie Thatcher in order to give Gordon Brown an excuse to raise taxes, and that she used her time machine to tell Arrhenius about it.

    Clearly global warming is a myth because today is colder than yesterday and how is that possible if the world is getting warmer? :)

    btw does anyone know of any professional British meteorologist who does not believe in AGW? I don't mean questions the role of CO2 or certain model predictions, but does not believe there is any AGW at all?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
    Look, we all know that AGW was invented by Maggie Thatcher in order to give Gordon Brown an excuse to raise taxes, and that she used her time machine to tell Arrhenius about it.

    Clearly global warming is a myth because today is colder than yesterday and how is that possible if the world is getting warmer? :)

    btw does anyone know of any professional British meteorologist who does not believe in AGW? I don't mean questions the role of CO2 or certain model predictions, but does not believe there is any AGW at all?

    I think any professional meteorologist would be wise to keep their personal beliefs to themselves regarding AGW. As voicing ones dissent would be frowned upon by the powers that be!
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
    Look, we all know that AGW was invented by Maggie Thatcher in order to give Gordon Brown an excuse to raise taxes, and that she used her time machine to tell Arrhenius about it.

    Clearly global warming is a myth because today is colder than yesterday and how is that possible if the world is getting warmer? :)

    btw does anyone know of any professional British meteorologist who does not believe in AGW? I don't mean questions the role of CO2 or certain model predictions, but does not believe there is any AGW at all?

    not in my experience still with some contacts in the UK Met O

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

    Quite right it would show that they don't understand the difference between weather and climate and to be fair if your a professional meteorologist and can't tell the difference between trends, weather, climate etc then they deserve to be frowned upon.

    (BTW the above said semi tongue in check ! ).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    The problem, of course, is that so many people - especially those who profess not to believe in AGW - still think AGW is all about CO2 ....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs

    Those IPCC chappies have been promoting "dodgy" data:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...C-mostviewedbox

    They obviously didn't question it because it provided exactly the sort of info they, and various governments, required in order to justify increased taxation.

    I expect another messenger is about to be shot.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
    The problem, of course, is that so many people - especially those who profess not to believe in AGW - still think AGW is all about CO2 ....

    I think that train of thought has changed quite a bit over the last couple of years Andy. Very few people deny that there is a certain amount of AGW. Its down to the amount and if they still believe its just down to CO2 then it shows what a poor job that governments and the media as a whole, are doing in educating people.. I think that brings it down to the media being influenced by governments too much and governments aim to trade carbon.. Not that there is anything political in climate change you understand... (coffs).. :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
    ........and sea ice this past month has begun to return to more "average" values,.....

    I agree with a fair bit of your post, Roger, but I am puzzled by this. I was under the impression that the most generous interpretation of this autumn's re-freeze was that levels had got back to the sort of figures we had (at that date) 2002-2005. Judging from the NSIDC chart they were still always at least 1.2 milllion sq km below the 1979-2000 mean, and have since widened somewhat to about 1.5 million. I don't think I'd call 2002-2005 a very useful mean to be comparing with when looking for signs of real recovery:

    post-384-1227046373_thumb.png

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Cornwall
  • Location: Cornwall

    What is the difference between global warming and climate change?

    What proof is there of the former and of the latter?

    Why do supporters of the former always predict 50 years ahead

    when they won't be around?

    I am new and naive and need to be treated acccordingly

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
    I agree with a fair bit of your post, Roger, but I am puzzled by this. I was under the impression that the most generous interpretation of this autumn's re-freeze was that levels had got back to the sort of figures we had (at that date) 2002-2005. Judging from the NSIDC chart they were still always at least 1.2 milllion sq km below the 1979-2000 mean, and have since widened somewhat to about 1.5 million. I don't think I'd call 2002-2005 a very useful mean to be comparing with when looking for signs of real recovery:

    post-384-1227046373_thumb.png

    That chart is interesting indeed. Just look how quickly the ice melts in the summer period and then the extent of the recovery is large compared to the similar seasonal recovery in the 1979-2000 period. This suggest to me a superficial layer of re-freezing and thawing over the respective area. It is pertinent to assume that back in the 1979-2000 period there was a lesser extent of melting in that seasonal period suggesting a greater overall ice-shelf mass underneath and naturally a different vertical SST profile.

    Judge my hypothesis how you like; I'm not an expert but I feel there are experts who can corroborate that. AGW is real; although I feel that certain politicians and media have exaggerated it or used it to promote unfair measures. There is pathological science on both sides of the debate and this really needs to be resolved with good solid and credible evidence. My view is that we need to reduce pollution, curb wastage in all areas and have a sensible environmental policy based on renewable energy. Mother nature will simply react to any surplus energy that we emit in the form of greenhouse gases. Even the current experience of cold anamolies and deep amplified tropicward waves and incursions far south may be a result of feedback mechanisms as the amount of energy in subpolar regions is intensified.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
    What is the difference between global warming and climate change?

    What proof is there of the former and of the latter?

    Why do supporters of the former always predict 50 years ahead

    when they won't be around?

    I am new and naive and need to be treated acccordingly

    Feel free to browse through the threads toby.. You'll find some details on here.. :lol:

    If you feel you are not treated accordingly then feel free to pm a mod for help..

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Dunblane
  • Location: Dunblane
    What is the difference between global warming and climate change?

    What proof is there of the former and of the latter?

    Why do supporters of the former always predict 50 years ahead

    when they won't be around?

    I am new and naive and need to be treated acccordingly

    Welcome Toby,

    Since the early-Twentieth Century, the mean temperature of the Earth’s near surface and oceans has been increasing (by about 0.75C). In most sensible quarters the temperature is projected to continue rising. That is what global warming is – it does exactly what it says on the tin.

    What is the difference between global warming and climate change? This is actually a good question, but it requires (as do many aspects of global warming) an understanding of the timescales involved. A very important point is that global warming does not mean that every year, or every two or every three or four years will be warmer than the last. What is does mean is that the Earth’s surface temperature will, on average, continue to rise. It does not mean that there will never be a cold winter in the UK again – but that warm periods will be warmer and cold periods less so. Climate change, again, means simply that the climate (i.e. the ‘average weather’) will, over a long(er) period of time, change – be it warmer, cooler, drier, wetter, windier. Key point, again, is timescales. Climate change, as far as I understand it, can operate on longer timescales. Things that drive climate change can include; Milankovitch cycles (i.e. the orbit and motion of the Earth round the Sun), plate tectonics, long-term changes in ocean circulation – the list is endless really.

    Now – the question is have humans altered the Earth’s climate. For me the term global warming refers to the recent climate change we have experienced for the last ~100 years, and it does seem highly likely that our output of greenhouse gases has had, at the very least, a significant impact.

    What proof is there? Well – we have measured the temperature, and the mean temperature has risen. This does not mean that everywhere on Earth the temperature has risen by the same amount at the same rate – in some places it has risen more, some less. Anthropogenic gas concentrations have been measured, and are increasing. The thermal effects of greenhouse gases have been understood since the nineteenth century, and crucially, there is no other reasonable ‘non-human’ explanation which accounts for the entire observed rise. For sure natural cooling factors have come into play, but the overall trend is upwards.

    Why the 50 year ahead predictions? Well I guess because we want to try and infer what the climate will be doing in the future…makes sense doesn’t it?

    Anyway, I have rambled on for too long. Just be wary of the rhetoric you see on here. Various posters will repeat certain key words (e.g. hoax, taxes, Gore, Hansen, cooling, cycles, natural) over and over in the hope of appealing to the audience and winning the debate. Try and understand the science behind this issue, and remember that scientists are not always the best communicators; they revel in, and are comfortable with margins of error and uncertainties - non-scientists aren’t. As Churchill once spoke...

    ‘These professional intellectuals who revel in decimals and polysyllables…’

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire
    Various posters will repeat certain key words (e.g. hoax, taxes, Gore, Hansen, cooling, cycles, natural) over and over in the hope of appealing to the audience and winning the debate.

    That'll mean me,then :lol: !

    It's often said that anything can be blamed on global warming/climate change/whatever phrase for 'it' is currently precedent. Well,here's proof!

    http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxicwiBQ7Q&....wordpress.com/

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
    I like this:

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    As you say, anything and everything can be blamed on global warming/climate change. B)

    Indeed. It's obvious that's why we've lost the first two one dayers against India :lol:

    Incidently, an analogy just came to mind for those who might argue that because warming or ice melt or whatever has occurred, for natural reasons, in the past, then any warming, ice melt or whatever today can also be attributed to natural reasons.

    There have always been forest fires on Earth, usually caused by lightning strikes.

    Does this mean all forest fires today are caused by lightning strikes?

    Or, in addition to lightning strikes, might human activity also be responsible for the increased rate of forest fires observed over the past few thousand years?

    It's very much the same with global warming :)

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Hayes, Kent
  • Location: Hayes, Kent
    Or, in addition to lightning strikes, might human activity also be responsible for the increased rate of forest fires observed over the past few thousand years?

    Where's the evidence for your hypothesis in your analogy?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
    .............................. the increased rate of forest fires observed over the past few thousand years?

    Genuine question (s) coming up.........Has there been an increase? How do we "know" this?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...