modracer
Weather Intern
MASCOUTAH, Illinois
Posts: 835
|
Post by modracer on Jul 1, 2014 6:59:53 GMT -6
Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax John Coleman, an award-winning meteorologist and weatherman with sixty years of experience and founder of the Weather Channel, produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax, At about the 11:30 mark, Coleman begins a detailed explanation about just how the global warming hoax was started and heated up, including how Al Gore got involved in the movement. (see video below). www.tpnn.com/2014/03/17/weather-channel-founder-explains-the-history-of-the-global-warming-hoax/It’s rising at about the rate of about six inches per hundred years, as part of this inter-glacial period. When North America was covered in a 400 foot thick ice core at the end of the last ice age, the oceans were low, and then as that ice melted, of course the oceans have risen. That rise has been gentle and is not important.” |
|
|
|
Post by csnavywx on Jul 22, 2014 20:36:46 GMT -6
Coleman has been spouting the same old debunked nonsense for ages. It's one of the old favorites: "It's the Sun!".
He may have been a fine weather forecaster and pattern recognition guy, but he's very, very wrong on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by RyanD on Oct 29, 2014 16:48:38 GMT -6
I completely agree with John Coleman. The man-made AGW is pure bunk. Here's a synopsis from his radio appearance last night. It's amazing anyone is gullible enough to believe what politicians or "scientists" with agendas say. It's all about the money. Csnavywx, I'd love for you to provide non-biased proof that what he is "spouting" has been debunked. I know you are very intelligent but I'm shocked you think he's wrong. I believe that most meteorologist think AGW is mostly a bunk science but that's just a feeling. I've seen no survey to confirm or deny this so by no means I'm I saying it's a fact. The hard part with proving or debunking anything is finding a reliable non-biased source. The UN committee and White House are not reliable sources IMO.
"Retired TV weatherman John Coleman, who studied and reported the weather for decades, and co-founded The Weather Channel, shared his assertion that man-made climate change is no longer scientifically credible. He recently presented this view at a UCLA forum on climate change, and in an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which got picked up by international media (see related article). The issue became politicized after Al Gore helped promote the idea of scientist Dr. Roger Revelle that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas causing climate change.
Climate change is natural and constantly occurring and is not affected by the actions of mankind, Coleman stated. We've had a half dozen dramatic climate shifts between ice ages and interglacial periods. Just 15,000 years ago there was a huge ice sheet covering parts of North America which was naturally caused, and then it was warmed up by natural causes and began melting, he noted, adding that the Earth is always varied in its climate. While carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels, it's still less than ½ of 1% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide, and this increase causes insignificant warming if any, he commented. The Earth is actually 20% greener than it was, and there's been no scientific validation that the increase in CO2 is bringing about a climate crisis, he added."
|
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jul 23, 2015 6:20:57 GMT -6
The thing that gets me about all this stuff is some folks are so convinced of the argument for AGW. What they never fully explain is why has climate varied over the last god knows how long if the Sun has really has no effect because it varies so slightly. There is one fact in this whole argument. We still do not fully understand what drives climate and we aren't even close to recognizing what part the Sun plays in it.
Of course the apologists are always running around looking for volcanic events and god knows what else to keep explaining the great variability in our climate.
Let's face it folks, we really don't know as much as we think we do. Climate is a relatively new science
|
|
|
|
Post by maddogchief on Aug 14, 2015 9:33:37 GMT -6
I will always say this in regards to global warming climate change.
What does it matter whether the earth is warming or cooling or both? The bottom line remains the same. The problem is the argument is being used to force beliefs on others. Personally, the "green" movement is attempting to muscle its way into everyone's lives through legislation/political attempts. When the fact of the matter is, if they would market it to an individual's pocketbook, it would take off. Finally, if they would stop spending their money on lobbying politicians, and start dumping it into research, they might have their "aha" moment of technology breakthrough. Propulsion and the methods of is the next big breakthrough, possibly beating out the smartphone...
1. There is a finite supply of fossil fuel. Why not attempt to reduce its use or find an alternative? Forward thinking in my opinion.
2. Why wouldn't someone want to reduce/recycle/reuse as much as possible? It saves money. We all like money.
My personal beliefs are that climate change is a misunderstanding. That doesn't change why I recycle, or try to use less, or reuse/repurpose items. That ladies and gents is the root of the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by csnavywx on Aug 19, 2015 20:23:54 GMT -6
I will always say this in regards to global warming climate change. What does it matter whether the earth is warming or cooling or both? The bottom line remains the same. The problem is the argument is being used to force beliefs on others. Personally, the "green" movement is attempting to muscle its way into everyone's lives through legislation/political attempts. When the fact of the matter is, if they would market it to an individual's pocketbook, it would take off. Finally, if they would stop spending their money on lobbying politicians, and start dumping it into research, they might have their "aha" moment of technology breakthrough. Propulsion and the methods of is the next big breakthrough, possibly beating out the smartphone... 1. There is a finite supply of fossil fuel. Why not attempt to reduce its use or find an alternative? Forward thinking in my opinion. 2. Why wouldn't someone want to reduce/recycle/reuse as much as possible? It saves money. We all like money. My personal beliefs are that climate change is a misunderstanding. That doesn't change why I recycle, or try to use less, or reuse/repurpose items. That ladies and gents is the root of the problem. On the surface that might seem to be a very reasonable question. However, the dose matters. If it's slow, occurring over millennia, it's not terribly difficult to deal with. Virtually all mass extinctions have one thing in common: too much, too fast. It's repeated over and over in the fossil record. For the record, nature doesn't care about our belief systems or our arguments over the subject. It also doesn't care whether the CO2 is from Volvos or volcanoes. |
|
|
|
Post by maddogchief on Aug 28, 2015 8:20:07 GMT -6
I will always say this in regards to global warming climate change. What does it matter whether the earth is warming or cooling or both? The bottom line remains the same. The problem is the argument is being used to force beliefs on others. Personally, the "green" movement is attempting to muscle its way into everyone's lives through legislation/political attempts. When the fact of the matter is, if they would market it to an individual's pocketbook, it would take off. Finally, if they would stop spending their money on lobbying politicians, and start dumping it into research, they might have their "aha" moment of technology breakthrough. Propulsion and the methods of is the next big breakthrough, possibly beating out the smartphone... 1. There is a finite supply of fossil fuel. Why not attempt to reduce its use or find an alternative? Forward thinking in my opinion. 2. Why wouldn't someone want to reduce/recycle/reuse as much as possible? It saves money. We all like money. My personal beliefs are that climate change is a misunderstanding. That doesn't change why I recycle, or try to use less, or reuse/repurpose items. That ladies and gents is the root of the problem. On the surface that might seem to be a very reasonable question. However, the dose matters. If it's slow, occurring over millennia, it's not terribly difficult to deal with. Virtually all mass extinctions have one thing in common: too much, too fast. It's repeated over and over in the fossil record. For the record, nature doesn't care about our belief systems or our arguments over the subject. It also doesn't care whether the CO2 is from Volvos or volcanoes. Very true statements. However, There are many other industrialized countries that aren't doing anything to reduce their carbon footprint. We could reduce our carbon footprint to 0, but it wouldn't do any good if China, Russia, India, Brazil, and other countries continue to rape their land, pollute their air, and over-populate their countries. |
|
