Good bye Global Warming Theory

I'd trust the climatologists who have been working on climate science for decades before I would trust a "weatherman". lol

 

Coleman is a TV weatherman, no meteorologist degree, no scientific background, just an old time TV weatherman, and I know for a fact that is correct.

 

I think you may be the brainwashed one. I'm sorry we couldn't help you after the last 6 months of debating the subject of science in here and in other threads. I can only hope you one day take some classes and obtain a better understanding of how the earth works so that you may be more accepting of scientific data, which while falable, is still must more rigorously tested and trustworthy than radio show hosts, weathermen, and politicians. I will refrain from entertaining your posts from this point forward. Be well.

 

This thread is dead. You can't have a reasonable discussion with somebody who uses opinion pieces to prove their "facts".

 

You can't be serious. TV Weatherperson = Paid Liar. They make up most of what they report.

 

The guy's main claim to fame is that he yodels the station call sign.

Yes, he's old. One wonders why he never moved beyond weatherman. Plenty of others have moved on to higher positions at other local stations.

All I can say is....he's no Bob Dale.

 

The fact is that the earth has always had many fluctuations in climate behavior from numerous ice ages to heat waves. I will admit that humans can trigger changes, but the earth will change whether we are here or not. Even the magnetic fields have had wide fluctuations in the millions of years the earth has existed.

 

There's a nice takedown on Coleman's rant at:
John Coleman, Global Warming, and the Price of a Gallon of Gas | ideonexus.com

Which concludes:

One skeptical meteorolgist is enough to overturn the G8, Brazil’s Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, France’s Académie des Sciences, Italy’s Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Russia’s Academy of Sciences, the United State’s National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, the Royal Society of Canada, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Science Council of Japan, the Academy of Science of South Africa, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, the Royal Society, United Kingdom, Malaysia’s Academy of Sciences, New Zealands, Academy Council of the Royal Society, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Sciences, the Woods Hole Research Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, the American Association of State Climatologists, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the World Meteorological Organization, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society, the Pew Center on Climate Change, and 928 peer reviewed scientific journal papers.
​

 

Aye but just like the overspecialized organisms of the past that died out when change occured too quickly, humans will suffer greatly for the exact same reasons. Overspecialization and the reliance on delicate infrastructure. We cannot confuse the past with the present because we have changed our societies far too much for that analogy to work.

 

F8L I thought you were done here!?

I posted this elsewhere . . .

Ahem . . . So the end is near, I'm a bit curious how much has the temp risen in the last ten years?

What's this?!? None you say! In fact it could have decreased a bit! :twitch:

!LOL!​

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

ound:ound:ound:ound:ound:​

Sorry but anyone that believes in this hooey is either ill informed :doh: a Dumbass :nod: or :crazy:
and anyone that tells you it is a settled matter or uncontrovertible is a :lie:.


Wildkow

p.s. that being said the reason I purchased my Prius on 1/2/06 was to decrease pollution in the
Central Valley of California, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save some bucks on fuel costs.

AND NOT TO RETURN THAT SAVINGS IN THE FORM OF TAXES FOR SOME ASININE
THEORY THAT WILL FUND CRANK SCIENTIST, ALLOW DEMONCRATS ANOTHER FUD ISSUE
OR MAKE AL GORE AND CRONIES RICH!​

p.p.s. I happen to like it warm :thumb: and I happen to like all the new plant growth due to the warmer weather and higher CO2 content in the air. :usa2:

 

Because, after all, animated cartoon icons are more convincing than peer-reviewed science...

er...

no.

 

To thems that don't believe in global warming: Take the time, and expend the intelectual energy and read " The weathermakers" By Tim Flannery!

Icarus

 

I, for one think that those on both sides of the argument should try to shed preconceived notions and biases and be as objective as possible. Disregard the emotional feelings and try not to mudsling. Read as much as you can from both sides of the issue, even if you've already made up your mind. Continue reading and keep an open mind, for isn't this is what science is all about? Read the analyses that Coleman presents. Check out the 9,000 Phd scientists who have signed a statement stating they do not support the Global Warming Theory. Be intellectually honest and "play the part of a judge," who examines as much evidence on both sides of the issue and only then forms a conclusion. We are discovering new things in our world every day in all disciplines that challenge our previously acquired knowledge and ways of thinking, so let's keep exploring!

 

From the looks of Al Gore lately, it appears he's attempting to eat all the carbs.
Which can only lead to a fart of epic proportion, sending global temps through the roof and peeling paint. :sorry:

 

Since you seem to want to educate, please provide us to a link or citation of "9000 PHD Scientists who do not support global warming"? PHD in what science from what Universities etc.

Icarus

 

This is almost funny, if it didn't affect all of ours future.
I've been following this debate for over twenty years (I remember George Bush Sr's inaugural speech or acceptance speech, saying "if you're worried about the green house effect, we'll take care of that with the White House effect" (paraphrased, this is from memory)). I'll admit I've been pretty convinced all along global warming is a real threat. But I try to keep an open mind and I continuously read new information, hoping to find something to show that this is not a threat, or at the least, what level of threat it is.

But Coleman presents no evidence, other than a half-educated rant rehashing unproven claims. Al Gore is a johnny-come-lately on the global warming scene and has had virtually no effect on the scientific knowledge base regarding that subject. Instead he's been able to present it in a way that the average layperson can understand. From what I heard of An Inconvenient Truth, I would gain no new knowledge from it, so I haven't seen it yet. Coleman doesn't mention anything about 9000 scientists, are you referring to the 31000 signers from the late 90's opposed to the ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol?

If you want, I could go thru Coleman's editorial in detail, but I don't get the impression any minds would be changed by that.

 

And there stems the problem, the naysayers have been fighting any kind of scientific study, finding, evaluation, discussion, anything, instead they find "weathermen", Phd's in literature, sports, English, or whatever, and pass them off as scientific minds because they have Phd's.