If I were a visitor to earth, I'd be fascinated by the climate debate, and few actors in this drama are more interesting than John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel and lifelong meteorologist (Meteorologist of the Year 1983). Since his retirement, he has led a vigorous effort to divulge the actual data associated with the climate debate. He makes an interesting point in that most people who share his opinions on the subject (thousands of distinguished professionals have signed his petition) are emeritus academics, or people not otherwise entwined with the "climatological industrial complex" as he calls it. He also explains how those entering the field of climatology, aside from being bombarded by the "consensus" opinions, are also often on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for their education. Going against the grain is not an option for anyone wanting to have a successful career and pay off their loans, so the easiest solution is to "convince yourself" that everything you are told is true, and requires no validation. From my viewpoint, it's interesting to compare his findings to his opposition, which seems to be mostly composed of "assertions based on other assertions" instead of a truly earnest scientific investigation into the matter. I hold two science degrees, and I''m constantly amazed at how few people cry foul of the way consensus is claimed to have some sort of scientific validity; and how dismissal and ridicule are some sort of method for falsifying counter-claims. A lot has happened since Coleman pointed out that the emperor appeared to be wearing no clothes: The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
If you didn't say his name, he wouldn't have appeared. Any of you have a good answere to address Mr. Coleman. I have some ideas, but they haven't worked in discussions.
...apparently the attention caused Weather Channel to issue its own position statement on Climate Change. The Weather Channel position statement sounded reasonable but I am not sure I heard the whole statement.
Highly technologically advanced visitors to Earth stand a pretty good chance of knowing for sure whether increasing CO2 this rapidly by burning fossil fuels will move the planet to a climate space where we cannot support ourselves (agriculture, water and energy supply). They might have been through something similar on their own planet some time earlier. From that, I doubt that their focus would be on any individuals, rather on science and policy responses. One individual is highlighted here. Coleman may well have led efforts to divulge data. If so, I'd mark that as successful because the data you can now get on the internet (for free) is abundant. There is also mention of Coleman's findings, and I'd like to know what those are. Real findings. Hypothesis -> experiment -> data -> analysis -> conclusions would be the ideal structure for findings, it being scientific. Not by way of web archive sites though, please, because such are blocked in many countries including where I am. One rebuttal is available here Rebuttal to "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam" — The Centrist Party Though I am not highly impressed by the responses. Most revealing for me are Coleman's assertions. Are they the sort of things you meant by mentioning findings?
Published yesterday in Nature magazine, an article showing that CO2 increased rapidly, three times, between 17,000 and 11,000 years ago. No anthropogenic combustion then! The Earth without human perturbation can do some pretty amazing things. Some believe that unorthodox views are being excluded from publication, and I'd hate for them to not stay current.
I'm not going to get into any name-calling contest (which always seems to happen with these debates) but I want to point out that there are plenty of people who have legitimate concerns with the claims being made about global warming. A lot of the data is "metadata" which is data based on someone else's data. The actual tangible evidence seems to be very hard to locate, and the people claiming it are very cagey about how they derived it. I was taught that science is about asking questions gathering data and testing claims. It seems as though politics has interfered with this issue to the such a degree in the process that it can no longer be called "science" at all.
I know this tactic. Putting all the burden of proof on anyone who asks questions is not the way to defend a claim. I posted a link to someone who who has done over a decade of hard work, challenging the claims of global warming and citing the evidence for each and every counter-claim very carefully. If you want to compare methodologies, his are vastly more sound than those of his opponents. The one who does the best job of examining and verifying the evidence has the most credibility. I'm just pointing that out.
If I had invoked Coleman's name or any other in this way, you should expect me to supply some evidence. If the web archive provides evidence, then I'd appreciate a link that I can actually view. The link I provided shows only excerpts, and presumably does not show him at his best.
I realize that I'm being asked to support my "claim" but it's not a claim. It's very easy to find all the work done by John Coleman about global warming. Mine is a suggestion for further reading. Google is your friend.
Known to many is that Google is not available in all countries. Around here, I do better with Bing or a couple of other workarounds. If you feel that you have done the best you can to motivate me to undertake this research, then I should certainly not ask for more. You know your own limitations.
I think this is the quote. Date I did not see for sure. I was having problems with the article, because 1903 Nobel prize winner Arrhenius was quite vocal about climate change before 1900. Yes by 1960 we finally had a few years of good CO2 data from Mauna Loa, showing the now famous up trend, with the seasonal cyclical variations.
"Senile old man" Despicable behavior by one Nobel Prize winner towards another, which should be sufficient reason to revoke the prize.
...Arrhenius probably had his faults like we all do, but I am pretty sure most folks consider Arrhenius to be the grandfather of global warming, so when Coleman said it was Revelle, he lost me. Arrhenius thought the warming might be a good thing, thinking we had one too many mini-ice-ages for his tastes
