Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 124 (434637)
11-16-2007 5:12 PM


Meteorologist, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, reportedly stated that Global Warming is the biggest scam in history-- strong words from someone as reputable as he is.
This, no doubt, means a veritable excommunication of sorts. Despite this, it is certainly commendable to dissent in the face of overwhelming opposition. Then again, Coleman has enough clout within the community to bolster support amongst the small, but growing community of dissenters.
If indeed Coleman is correct in his assessment, that the warming trend is a perfectly natural one that is not due to human intervention, what will this mean for the side of house that continues to support the assertion of anthropogenic global warming?
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/national/11114421.html
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add link

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 3 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 5:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-17-2007 6:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 124 (434639)
11-16-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 5:12 PM


If indeed Coleman is correct in his assessment, that the warming trend is a perfectly natural one that is not due to human intervention, what will this mean for the side of house that continues to support the assertion of anthropogenic global warming?
That they were wrong.
What are you getting at?
Also, assuming that it is perfectly natural, aren't we still in danger and should do something about it?
Doing nothing and continuing in our current state is still going to worsen the natural phenomonon, no?
What do you think it means if it is natural and not man-caused?
Do you think we should just sit back and let it happen? Or are you not worried that it could be devistating?
Personally, I'm not convinced that global warming is man-caused. But it seems that unless we change some things, that we are only helping it get even hotter.
That, or we have no effect on it whatsoever but I find that hard to believe.

ABE:
Coleman's argument is that Global Warming is not going to be devistating.
That's different from it being just a natural process (because those can be devistating too).
Are your question meant to be asked 'what if' it isn't devistating?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 6:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 124 (434640)
11-16-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 5:12 PM


It doesn't matter if it is natural or man made.
Reading the link provided seems to indicate that either his statements were taken out of context or he simply don't know shit.
If indeed Coleman is correct in his assessment, that the warming trend is a perfectly natural one that is not due to human intervention, what will this mean for the side of house that continues to support the assertion of anthropogenic global warming?
Guess what?
It does not matter one bit whether the warming trend is man made or perfectly natural.
No one cares.
We have been over this many times Nem.
The fact is that the only parts we can influence are those parts that are man made. We cannot control those factors that are natural.
If the warming trend is completely natural, the only way to address it is by reducing the man made contribution.
If the warming trend is partly natural, partly man made, the only way to address it is by reducing the man made contribution.
If the warming trend is completely man made, the only way to address it is by reducing the man made contribution.
We can only address those factors we can control.
Regardless of what causes the trend, we can see the results happening.
The issue is simply will we actually try to address what is happening and minimize the economic, logistic, cultural and personal effects, or will we, like the current Administration and every Republican Administration since Ford, just stick our fingers in our ears and say "It's not SUVs!"
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:36 PM jar has replied
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 7:14 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 124 (434641)
11-16-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 5:12 PM


Meteorologist, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, reportedly stated that Global Warming is the biggest scam in history
LOL! Except, you know, for the fact that it's getting warmer, globally.
Other than that, he's right, no global warming at all.
It's not so surprising that he offers no evidence besides "I'm important; you should trust me. Besides I totally talked to some guys and read some papers."
strong words from someone as reputable as he is.
Reputable in what way? Do you think there's a test you have to take before you can start a TV channel, or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:41 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 9:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 124 (434642)
11-16-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
11-16-2007 5:32 PM


Re: It doesn't matter if it is natural or man made.
It does not matter one bit whether the warming trend is man made or perfectly natural.
Right.
But what if this statement is true:
quote:
"The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
from the link in the OP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 5:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 124 (434643)
11-16-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
11-16-2007 5:35 PM


LOL! Except, you know, for the fact that it's getting warmer, globally.
Other than that, he's right, no global warming at all.
I think that NJ made a mistake by equating "not catastrophic" with "natural process".
Coleman's argument was that it won't be catastrophic and our planet is not in peril.
Assuming he is correct, what does that do to the Global Warming movement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 5:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 6:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 124 (434644)
11-16-2007 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2007 5:36 PM


Re: It doesn't matter if it is natural or man made.
As posted in Message 3.
The issue is simply will we actually try to address what is happening and minimize the economic, logistic, cultural and personal effects, or will we, like the current Administration and every Republican Administration since Ford, just stick our fingers in our ears and say "It's not SUVs!"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:52 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 124 (434647)
11-16-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
11-16-2007 5:44 PM


Re: It doesn't matter if it is natural or man made.
What's the point in putting all the limitations on ourselves (especially if we're the only ones doing it) when it is a fruitless cause? If Global Warming doesn't matter and its not going to hurt anything then why "minimize the economic, logistic, cultural and personal effects"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 5:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 5:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 124 (434648)
11-16-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2007 5:52 PM


Re: It doesn't matter if it is natural or man made.
If Global Warming doesn't matter and its not going to hurt anything then why "minimize the economic, logistic, cultural and personal effects"?
No one said it is not going to hurt anything, even the silly blog entry quoted in the Op only said:
quote:
"The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
Sorry but there are a whole bunch of things that might effect me without putting the planet in peril.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 124 (434650)
11-16-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2007 5:25 PM


Soylent Green revisited
What are you getting at?
That the hysteria may just be that.... hysteria.
Also, assuming that it is perfectly natural, aren't we still in danger and should do something about it?
The weather is always a potential danger, whether you add humans in to the mix or not. The question is, what can you do if it is a natural cycle?
What do you think it means if it is natural and not man-caused?
That nature will do as she pleases. So have a contingency plan for worst case scenarios, place your faith in Christ Jesus and Him crucified, and deal with it. I don't see many other options.
But Jar once said, something to the effect of, even if it is a natural cycle, will it hurt to reduce emissions? He makes a very valid point. No, I don't think it would make it worse. Problem is, we have more pressing issues to deal with-- most notably, how to convert energy without fossil fuels to get us to point A to point Z, and everything in between, in the meantime?
Do you think we should just sit back and let it happen?
If it is not anthropogenically caused, what can you do?
Personally, I'm not convinced that global warming is man-caused. But it seems that unless we change some things, that we are only helping it get even hotter.
Provided the dinosaurs had the intelligence to understand it, could they have done something to ameliorate the cataclysmic ice age?
Coleman's argument is that Global Warming is not going to be devistating.
Reduce emissions... I'm sure it can't hurt. Recycle, even though it costs just as much energy to recycle than it does for them to start fresh. Don't pollute the waters or the earth. Be good stewards of the earth. And above all, respect nature and her power.
Beyond that, what should we be doing? The way I see it is that we have a lot of hard talkers with not a lot of follow through. How about the loudest put their money where their mouth is and get rid of their car, get rid of plastics, don't use electricity, etc, etc...
Because they aren't really saying anything so profound that would make themselves walk the talk.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 6:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 11-16-2007 7:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 11:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 124 (434656)
11-16-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
11-16-2007 5:41 PM


Coleman's argument was that it won't be catastrophic and our planet is not in peril.
I don't think anybody has ever argued that global warming puts the planet in peril; simply that human civilization is, now, more dependent on climatic conditions than at any time in the past (as counter-intuitive as this may seem) and that the radical re-jiggering of those conditions is most certainly not going to be good times.
Government groups like the USDA have done studies on the effect of warming on things like human agriculture, and the results are not pretty - as much as a 50% drop in yields under some scenarios. We don't produce enough surplus to simply absorb that kind of long-term drop in food production.
And that doesn't even begin to take into account the massive displaced coastal populations as their cities are inundated over the next century.
A guy who says "oh, it's all a hoax" simply can't be taken seriously. What is a hoax? The fact that human CO2 emissions are the equivalent of multiple Mt. Pinatubo eruptions every year? The fact that CO2 in our atmosphere is a greenhouse gas? The fact that magic gas faeries, in all likelihood, are probably not going to take care of the problem for us? The fact that drastic changes to climate have not, in the past, been good for species that depend on climate conditions remaining the same, like human beings?
What, exactly, is he saying is a hoax? He's not very specific and he doesn't present any evidence. Before we all go around wondering if "maybe he's right", as though the vast weight of scientific evidence against him doesn't exist, maybe we could get a better handle on what he's supposedly right about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-16-2007 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2007 12:04 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 124 (434659)
11-16-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Soylent Green revisited
How about the loudest put their money where their mouth is and get rid of their car, get rid of plastics, don't use electricity, etc, etc...
Because those things are maybe 10% of the emissions. The problem is not you using incandescent instead of florescent light bulbs; the problem is industrial and manufacturing emissions.
The people at the bottom - us - don't need to be guilted into radically changing our lifestyles, because our lifestyles aren't really the source of the problem. It's the big corporations who need to be incentivized - or forced - into altering their installations to generate less emissions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 11-16-2007 7:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 124 (434663)
11-16-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
11-16-2007 5:32 PM


Re: It doesn't matter if it is natural or man made.
Guess what?
What?
It does not matter one bit whether the warming trend is man made or perfectly natural.
No one cares.
It seems a lot of people do care, yourself included.
The fact is that the only parts we can influence are those parts that are man made. We cannot control those factors that are natural.
What then do you suggest we do? And of your suggestions, do you follow your own advice? Or is it a case of do as I say, not as I do?
If the warming trend is completely natural, the only way to address it is by reducing the man made contribution.
Okay.... How? What does that actually even mean? Does it mean, stop driving? Does it mean, stop using plastics? Does it mean, start recycling? Does it mean knitting your own grocery bags so as to not use paper or plastic bags? Does it mean, shut down factories? Does it mean, boycott fossil fuels? What does it mean in your opinion, to be Green?
The issue is simply will we actually try to address what is happening and minimize the economic, logistic, cultural and personal effects, or will we, like the current Administration and every Republican Administration since Ford, just stick our fingers in our ears and say "It's not SUVs!"
A good place to start would be the lier jet that Gore scuttles across the world upwards of a hundreds times a year to take him to Global Warming conventions, which expends the amount of energy that 1,000 SUV's would!
I'm beginning to think that you can't really win with the Greenies. In one instance the complaint of all Americans is that the price of gas is too high. But they won't allow drilling in Alaska, in an incredibly barren area, for fear that it might endanger the Arctic Lousewort.
I mean, Alaska is this nations largest state, which is almost half the size of the entire continental United States. That's a lot of land. I'm sure the Arctic Muskrat can figure out a way to get around the oil field.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 5:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 7:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 17 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-16-2007 8:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 11:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 39 by nator, posted 11-17-2007 7:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 14 of 124 (434664)
11-16-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
11-16-2007 6:56 PM


Actual Figures
NJ writes:
How about the loudest put their money where their mouth is and get rid of their car, get rid of plastics, don't use electricity, etc, etc...
Crashfrog writes:
Because those things are maybe 10% of the emissions. The problem is not you using incandescent instead of florescent light bulbs; the problem is industrial and manufacturing emissions.
From: Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
A picture is worth a thousand words
As one can see from the pie chart in the lower left corner, transportation and electricity generation make up nearly 50% of CO2 emissions and from the large pie chart, 35% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 6:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 15 of 124 (434667)
11-16-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hyroglyphx
11-16-2007 6:11 PM


Deny now, pay later
NJ writes:
The way I see it is that we have a lot of hard talkers with not a lot of follow through.
Where do you see that, NJ, and how did you measure it?
How about the loudest put their money where their mouth is and get rid of their car, get rid of plastics, don't use electricity, etc, etc...
How about we track the loudest global warming deniers and charge them with the expense of correcting the problem when it becomes too severe to deny?
Energy companies, industrialists, conservatives who would rather shoot the messengers than actually consider the evidence with an open mind: Let's just keep track of who's talking that particular talk.
Later, we can make them pay to correct the consequences of their actions. As a simple matter of responsibility, they should accept the burden of their error once it becomes apparent.
You'll do that, won't you, NJ? I'm sure your kids would expect it of you--simple matter of honor, really, once your opposition to corrective measures now has helped to muck up their future.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 6:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by clpMINI, posted 11-20-2007 5:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024