John Coleman(founder Of Weather Channel) Slams Global Warming

[osmposm]

Nobody says we descended from "the apes", Roger - at least not the sort of ones you wish to compare us with. They suggest both the apes and we descend from common somewhat ape-like ancestors, but that one branch found huge evolutionary advantage in a big expansion in brain-power. It is not difficult for me (an atheist) to imagine that at some point in that ever-increasing complexity a tipping-point was reached that caused the process of self-awareness to seek 'answers' where there may be none. You should read the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin (a Christian writer, as it happens) on the relationship between complexity and consciousnousness. I can even postulate a primeval evolutionary advantage in spirituality/religious belief if they confer a calmer, less terrified reaction to a threatening and wholly inexplicable environment.

However, I don't think we can really go into this here. You will be unsurprised to learn that I disagree profoundly with the majority of what you say - not least your - dogmatic, dare I suggest - implication that post-1850ish culture has been worthless, and that the pre-1850ish world was somehow less chaotic and "evil" (fancy a life as an 18th Century peasant, anyone?). But seeing as this is essentially a Climate Change forum, and most of what you wrote is a very deep departure into the psychology of how and why we believe what we believe, rather than a real discussion of what we believe, I think it is not the proper place. Perhaps we should retire to the 'Serious Discussion' area of The Retreat?

Ossie

[Roger J Smith]

Just a few notes on the above two posts.

(.a.) AGW evidence is not compelling to me or thousands of other North American weather people, I can't call myself a professional because I was blacklisted for holding the wrong views, a primary sign of the circular logic and reasoning at the heart of the AGW lobby, but that's a side issue, thousands of American forecasters dispute AGW from their own daily experience and it has absolutely nothing to do with the oil lobby, which certainly is active but we would all be thinking the same thing without their biases showing, it's like saying we shouldn't fight Hitler because Stalin is fighting him. You can't choose your allies in a complex global confrontation, but you do have to make choices. The big problem for AGW is scaling, not cause and effect. Greenhouse gases may provide a warming signal of some magnitude, and there was for sure a natural signal of warming in the subarctic in the period 1975 to 2000. Beyond that, the evidence is mixed and inconclusive even on the premise that any warming must be AGW. If there is no warming of consequence in many regions, how does that provide compelling evidence of warming? The Toronto data for example shows no statistically valid signs of warming, almost all the warmth records remain in the pre-AGW era as I've repeatedly demonstrated. And this is a significant location right in the most interactive mixing zone of the hemispheric climate. You know, if we're doing all this to lengthen the snow season on Jan Mayen from 300 to 302 days, it seems a bit pointless really.

(.b.) Sorry, I don't think all culture or science since 1850 is worthless, but the trend of developing cultural worth in many other fields was arrested and then reversed by neo-Marxist influences in my view, not that anyone cares what I think anyway, if this world is such a paradise then why would many of us prefer to live in Mozart's time rather than in this multicultural zoo where moral relativism and degradations of every sort are celebrated as triumphs of the human condition? The "18th century peasants" of America fought a war for independence, created a landmark constitution, enabled the liberty and democracy of millions who could not count on the good graces of a British aristocracy and noblesse oblige as their chief guarantees for justice or freedom. Two of the four presidents considered worthy of "top four" status on Mount Rushmore were numbers one and three in the series, Washington and Jefferson, most of the rest of the herd were disappointing downgrades. The music of the high Baroque is clearly one of mankind's greatest intellectual and spiritual achievements, my generation "can't get any satisfaction" and needs to light up a smoke. Need I go on trashing modern culture? Has Britain had writers of the calibre of Shakespeare, Defoe or Dickens since the late Victorian age? The last composer of any real merit was Camille Saint-Saens, although I like the work of a few 20th century composers, clearly they are in the afterglow of a great era. The same could be said for most sacred music as well, perhaps you've run across "God of concrete, God of steel" in the Anglican hymn book?

The life of the late 18th or early 19th century might have been harder than ours for most, but that's good, we are too soft and reliant on the nanny state instead of our own resources. Many made light of Sarah Palin's ability to hunt and provide a meal from the wild, but when everyone did that in our pioneer days over here, we had a less corrupt and decadent society. Real ideas could rise more naturally in science, while nowadays, it is easy for the orthodox to crush all dissent and alternate thought. My life and career prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and no one in the profession has ever lifted a finger to change any of that. I have no respect for the science as it exists today, or for much of social science either, which has sold out morality in favour of moral relativism which will sweep away all the foundations of civilized life and replace it with some sort of mob rule manipulated from above by elites that can buy influence and power. This is already pretty much the standard of politics in most of the western world. If we were confronted one more time by a serious external enemy, we would fold up like a cheap tent, this generation doesn't even have the stomach to find Osama bin Laden in a cave, let alone defeat a vast and organized enemy intent on our destruction.

To me, the "wonders of the modern age" are just a joke, and a bad one at that.

[PersianPaladin]

Just a few notes on the above two posts.

(.a.) AGW evidence is not compelling to me or thousands of other North American weather people, I can't call myself a professional because I was blacklisted for holding the wrong views, a primary sign of the circular logic and reasoning at the heart of the AGW lobby, but that's a side issue, thousands of American forecasters dispute AGW from their own daily experience and it has absolutely nothing to do with the oil lobby, which certainly is active but we would all be thinking the same thing without their biases showing, it's like saying we shouldn't fight Hitler because Stalin is fighting him. You can't choose your allies in a complex global confrontation, but you do have to make choices. The big problem for AGW is scaling, not cause and effect. Greenhouse gases may provide a warming signal of some magnitude, and there was for sure a natural signal of warming in the subarctic in the period 1975 to 2000. Beyond that, the evidence is mixed and inconclusive even on the premise that any warming must be AGW. If there is no warming of consequence in many regions, how does that provide compelling evidence of warming? The Toronto data for example shows no statistically valid signs of warming, almost all the warmth records remain in the pre-AGW era as I've repeatedly demonstrated. And this is a significant location right in the most interactive mixing zone of the hemispheric climate. You know, if we're doing all this to lengthen the snow season on Jan Mayen from 300 to 302 days, it seems a bit pointless really.

Why is there an anamolous acceleration of subarctic warming in the late 20th century; and why do you dispute that greenhouse gas input from humans has resulted in extra energy in the system? I do respect your views though and I always encourage people to question the status-quo and not accept things merely for fact. However, its about finding which side comes up with the most compelling evidence and I feel that there is more evidence for anthropogenic forcing in influencing our climate. I do think such forcing has been exaggerated by the AGW lobby but it is there. Global warming is not an even process; and there is a lag time where some areas warm up at greater frequency while other areas cool in response to the extra energy and the changing pervading dynamics. Naturally, the oceans and maritime areas are at the front-line of global warming and these places are very slowly transferring this energy as to eventually influence a wider area.

(.b.) Sorry, I don't think all culture or science since 1850 is worthless, but the trend of developing cultural worth in many other fields was arrested and then reversed by neo-Marxist influences in my view, not that anyone cares what I think anyway, if this world is such a paradise then why would many of us prefer to live in Mozart's time rather than in this multicultural zoo where moral relativism and degradations of every sort are celebrated as triumphs of the human condition? The "18th century peasants" of America fought a war for independence, created a landmark constitution, enabled the liberty and democracy of millions who could not count on the good graces of a British aristocracy and noblesse oblige as their chief guarantees for justice or freedom. Two of the four presidents considered worthy of "top four" status on Mount Rushmore were numbers one and three in the series, Washington and Jefferson, most of the rest of the herd were disappointing downgrades. The music of the high Baroque is clearly one of mankind's greatest intellectual and spiritual achievements, my generation "can't get any satisfaction" and needs to light up a smoke. Need I go on trashing modern culture? Has Britain had writers of the calibre of Shakespeare, Defoe or Dickens since the late Victorian age? The last composer of any real merit was Camille Saint-Saens, although I like the work of a few 20th century composers, clearly they are in the afterglow of a great era. The same could be said for most sacred music as well, perhaps you've run across "God of concrete, God of steel" in the Anglican hymn book?

I do agree that we have suffered a loss of creativity, social altruism and freedom of thought since the age of mass corporate media has seemingly brainwashed the minds of youth. However, there are still excellent writers out there in the world and you are forgetting that J.R.R. Tolkien was a 20th century writer and he produced a great work of literature, entire languages and mythologies with deep applicable meaning for all times.

The life of the late 18th or early 19th century might have been harder than ours for most, but that's good, we are too soft and reliant on the nanny state instead of our own resources. Many made light of Sarah Palin's ability to hunt and provide a meal from the wild, but when everyone did that in our pioneer days over here, we had a less corrupt and decadent society. Real ideas could rise more naturally in science, while nowadays, it is easy for the orthodox to crush all dissent and alternate thought. My life and career prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and no one in the profession has ever lifted a finger to change any of that. I have no respect for the science as it exists today, or for much of social science either, which has sold out morality in favour of moral relativism which will sweep away all the foundations of civilized life and replace it with some sort of mob rule manipulated from above by elites that can buy influence and power. This is already pretty much the standard of politics in most of the western world. If we were confronted one more time by a serious external enemy, we would fold up like a cheap tent, this generation doesn't even have the stomach to find Osama bin Laden in a cave, let alone defeat a vast and organized enemy intent on our destruction.

To me, the "wonders of the modern age" are just a joke, and a bad one at that.

I agree again; people have become too accepting and almost like robots these days but there are still many who are enquiring and dissenting. Just take a look at the link in my signature for example; we have scientists questionning the official theory of 9\11...with solid and well argued forensic evidence that is challenging the government-sponsored reports. In that light, I believe these dissenting voices over the government reports because they provide solid evidence. Whereas those dissenting AGW do not provide solid evidence and can often be disputed.

[trevw]

On the religion question I'm afraid I come from the school of thought that groups gods with fairies, ghost and other myths.. Invented either to entertain or to explain things that a culture at a certain level of development finds hard to explain.. Every deity I have heard of seems so obviously created by the culture that invented it that I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe in (what seems to me) such an obvious fiction..

Also, I'm no expert on the history of war and terrorism etc. but throughout history has not religion caused more death and misery and been the excuse for more human injustice than any other cultural construct? (admittedly it has created some beautiful and lasting buildings on the bones of the poor who starved to pay the taxes required to build them)

Obviously a lot of good is also done in the name of religion and it has inspired the work of numerous artists, but I would be interested in some kind of quantitative comparison (if such a thing were possible to do I imagine this would be the kind of paper that might get you lynched if it came out pointing the wrong way.. B) )

I guess this is all going 'a touch off topic' but interestingly (to me) I found the delivery of John Coleman's statements on the video somewhat reminiscent of a kind of religious sermon, lots of statements informed purely by belief but little in the way of substance or evidence, just reassuring statements that everything will be fine.

Trev

[osmposm]

To me, the "wonders of the modern age" are just a joke, and a bad one at that.

Roger, Roger, this is not really the place for this discussion as I've said. But since you feel so angry - and you do seem very angry - about how irredeemably awful the modern world is and how worthless its achievements, then perhaps you should turn off the computer permanently, move to a log cabin in the woods, and live on what you can grow and kill.... though I guess you'll still need electricity so you can listen to the Bach. And I'm sorry I don't have a magic wand to send you back where you think you want to go, the 18th Century - though you would have to take pot luck on being one of the tiny percentage of the population that had the time, energy and means to access its cultural achievements. I don't think the agricultural workers my family employed knew much of the work of Mozart: judging by their median ages at death they had more pressing matters on their minds.

I suspect, though, that the real key to your anger is this: "I can't call myself a professional because I was blacklisted for holding the wrong views, a primary sign of the circular logic and reasoning at the heart of the AGW lobby, but that's a side issue." Is it really a side issue for you? I wonder. "The life of the late 18th or early 19th century might have been harder than ours for most, but that's good........Real ideas could rise more naturally in science, while nowadays, it is easy for the orthodox to crush all dissent and alternate thought. My life and career prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and no one in the profession has ever lifted a finger to change any of that." The ideas of Darwin himself had a long and oft-ridiculed journey, strongly opposed by much of the scientific and still-powerful church establishments, before slowly coming to general acceptance. I doubt that he had a much easier time than you, battling the consensus - except inasmuch as he had money and connections, being lucky enough to have been born on the right side of the great divide that was then the norm. I can't imagine many of my gt gt gt grandfather's estate servants - or Thomas Jefferson's slaves, however much he disliked slavery - had much of a chance to formulate 'real ideas' that could 'rise naturally' since few of them had the chance even to learn to read or write. I don't dispute that latterly many valuable babies have been thrown out with the bathwater, but I still believe that on balance most of the bathwater badly needed throwing out.

I am sorry that things have not turned out as you'd hoped in your life and career. As it happens they haven't in mine either, and I have had my share of bitterness about that. I've also fallen into the trap of blaming almost everyone and everything else for it. But 'twas ever thus, and in my opinion disappointed middle-aged men like me need to be careful about having too one-sided a view of the way the world is, and how its degeneracy and blindness to is to blame for our woes.

Oh, and who ever said the modern world was a paradise?

Anyway, let's get back to the Climate Change debate. Nobody here, I hope, is preventing you from impressing us (as you constantly do) with your knowledge, level-headedness and original thought.

Ossie

Edited November 24, 2008 by osmposm

[RedShift]

Just a few notes on the above two posts.

this generation doesn't even have the stomach to find Osama bin Laden in a cave, let alone defeat a vast and organized enemy intent on our destruction.

To me, the "wonders of the modern age" are just a joke, and a bad one at that.

I really hesitate to reply to this and add to the entire off-topicness - but, Roger, would you care to tell that to the families who have lost sons/daughters/brothers/sisters fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq? Your right-wing, christian fundamentalist dogma is beyond a joke. Could you explain what a 'multicultural zoo' is ?

Your entire rant tonight leaves me feeling disappointed that your weather predictions are taken seriously here. You are clearly bitter towards the scientific community for some past rejection, could you tell us why? Your resentment is oozing from every word you type.