Weather Channel Founder Sets the Facts Straight

[Cubs]

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=7337235&nav=menu99_2_7

Wait, I thought everyone believed in Global Warming? ... or is that just what they want us to think??

[Conan71]

Interesting.  I guess he doesn't hold any sway over the editorial content on the WC anymore.  I usually watch Marshall Sease, Nicole Mitchel, and Heather Tesch in the mornings.  I've heard global warming mentioned on there as if it's certain.

I have to say my thinking lies along the lines of his.  I do agree that conservation is good.  I think finding and exploiting alt fuels is a good idea as well as long as those fuels are practical and don't create ancilary toxic hazards.  However, the high cost of global warming hyteria will end up unintentionally pinching a lot of small businesses and consumers and has created yet another drain on government resources.

[altruismsuffers]

But don't you all listen to Al Gore?  A global carbon tax will save us!!!  It will unite the world in the fight against global warming!  Forget sovereignty, think global tax.  Think about a what Bush one said on 9/11/91, "a New World Order is coming into view".  I can't wait to be a global slave to the fake global warming scam!

[NellieBly]

His  own "baby" thinks he's a Kook.


The Weather Channel is unlikely to hire its founder today. Heidi Cullen, the channel's climate change expert, wrote last year that the American Meteorological Society should not give its "seal of approval" to any meteorologist who "can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change."

Although Coleman still refers to The Weather Channel as his "baby," he recognizes that he's no longer welcome there: "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."

[iplaw]

What would you expect their "climate change expert" to say?  Agreeing with him would pretty much 86 her job at TWC wouldn't it?

[NellieBly]

I believe TWC has been pretty clear on their position in term of the affects of global warming. They are scientists. Coleman, who came up with the idea for TWC, has not been involved in the network for years and years. She has a job, he doesn't.

Not everyone gets fired for disagreeing with their boss unless he happens to be King George the Idiot.

[mr.jaynes]

Well, in the event someone starts to scream about Media Bias in weather reporting....

http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=4739&srch=fox%20weather

[iplaw]

I love how every scientist who comes out against global warming hype gets called a "kook" by people like you,  as if you'd even know a test-tube from a popsicle.  The respected NASA scientist, the founder of The Weather Channel, countless dozens of other prominent scientists around the world.

Although this is a consistent type of reaction from people who are exhibiting what is known as "group think" behavior or mob mentality.

Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

[cannon_fodder]

Oregon fired their head meteorologist  a few months back for suggesting the State should take a more skeptical approach before passing extreme measures.  

Though shalt not doubt Global Warming.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Oregon fired their head meteorologist  a few months back for suggesting the State should take a more skeptical approach before passing extreme measures.  

Though shalt not doubt Global Warming.

This is a great example of why I feel that this issue is 99% emotional and 1% pragmatic reasoning, all being driven by politics.  Real scientists don't blackball other scientists for exhibiting the quintessential character trait of their profession...SKEPTICISM.

[NellieBly]

They do it all the time.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

They do it all the time.

No competent scientist does it.  Remember what happened when the Church decided they had the corner on the "real science" in the middle ages and started persecuting the curious?

Nothing like stiffling skepticism and intellectual curiosity to further scientific pursuits.

Have fun with your witch hunt.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes

Well, in the event someone starts to scream about Media Bias in weather reporting....

http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=4739&srch=fox%20weather

That was hilarious lol.


One thing that we do know is that we are putting greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide into the air. We know what CO2 does. We know that we are putting hundreds of millions of tons of it into the air each and every day. We know how much air there is. And we know how many parts per million of CO2 and other gases, have been and are in the air. etc.

If the earth is already warming naturally, or even if it is not. We are putting "warming" gases into the air. That means we are having a warming effect. How much and to what extent is where there is room for debate.

I personally do not believe the doomsday scenarios. Many other scientists do not either. They know it will get warmer and we are going to have problems, but even if you listen to what Al Gore says, he never says for instance that the greenland ice sheet WILL completely melt, he carefully steers it to saying. "IF it were to completely melt it would result in this,,,"  Watch and listen carefully sometime. YES it will melt a lot, but not completely. Thats the rub. The north pole will also melt and may melt completely, but that wont be as bad as if greenland ice sheet and antarctica were to completely melt. I think they sometimes throw out the "doom" scenario to get peoples attention.

Things are getting warmer, IF, IF, it were to ALL melt then this.... would happen. Will get people to do more than "Things are getting warmer and we may lose such and such amount of land, etc.  I think they want to show the doomsday scenario to get people motivated into action. Because even the more "realistic" scenarios for what will happen are going to hurt a looot of people and cause a lot of problems.

One wrench in all of this is the amount of low level ozone pollutants and things like, "airplane trails" high up in the atmosphere.

Several scientists in different parts of the world using different methods were discovering something that seemed quite odd at first.

Less sunlight is reaching the earth, about 20% less over the last 50 years. Thats a lot. That should have a cooling effect. It didnt make sense if the earth is warming. If there is less light things should be cooling.

They discovered that it was the result of things like low level ozone, "haze" and even something that you would not expect like airplane contrails. So on the one hand places like China that are putting out all kinds of pollutants, they are actually putting out some that cool the earth. But those are bad for your health, so depending on how efficient and clean they get will depend on how those pollutants balance out the ones that heat the earth. Unfortunately the cooling pollutants leave the atmosphere quicker than the warming ones which can stay for decades after they are released.

The other thing was that they suspected airplane contrails were dimming the amount of light and cooling the earth. Amazing to think they can have that effect but if you look at sattelite images you can see the effect they have on cloud formation. Amazingly they had a rare opportunity to do a test of that hypothesis on a large scale during 9-11 when all air traffic over a large chunk of the earths surface was stopped. To their suprise they found that during those few days the over all ambient temprature rose a remarkable 2%.

So what this suggests is that the warming we have been seeing is being offset by certain pollutants, but as we decrease those pollutants the "greenhouse gasses" will have an even larger effect than we have seen so far.  The scales can be tipped even more rapidly than we might suppose.

However, even during some of the warmest periods, places like the Greenland ice sheet did not "totally" melt. Will things warm up? Yes. Will there be a lot of problems, especially in the developing world? Yes. Could that spill over and cause manmade disasters, starvation, and wars? Yes, but thats our choice regardless because it depends on how we react to those situations whether or not they will be caused by our causing global warming or not. Doomsday flood scenario? Not likely.

[rwarn17588]

Global warming ... bah. I was a so-called environmentalist long before Al Gore became Mr. Climate Change.

I'm doing what I'm doing (solar panels, CFLs, hybrids, reel lawnmowers) because I don't want to pollute as much.

Face it ... Tulsa is an area where air pollution gets pretty bad. If I can figure out a way to be part of a solution instead of part of the problem, why shouldn't I do it?

Y'all are getting caught up in the politics of it all, instead of looking at the big picture and asking yourselves: What can I do to be a better steward of the earth?

I grew up on a farm, and that was instilled in me: Leave the land in as good a condition or better for future generations.

Therefore, I'm a bit flummoxed when people take a position that is pro-pollution at worst or lazy at best.

[Conan71]

I wonder how much of the slight incremental increase is Btu generation.  Think about it, powerplants, cars, aircraft, industrial processes, building and home heat, etc.

We are generating more and more Btus every year.