I love the science of debate and debating science but it always flabbergasts me when people believe that science is a cut and dry thing.Take broadcasting legend John Coleman for example. He was one of the founders of The Weather Channel and worked for many years in Chicago TV. Now he's the loudest disbeliever of global climate change.
He's never been secretive when it comes to his stance against global warming but now he is calling the whole notion a "hoax...bad science...greatest scam in history." Read his article by clicking here.
He believes that global warming (or climate change) is all bad science. The problem with his stance is the fact that he cites so many reasons why global warming should NOT exist when all
he really needs to do is look at this chart.The real bone I have to pick with this far right point of view is: Why are we arguing about whether climate change exists when it is obvious that our atmosphere is and has always been in a state of constant flux? Any environmentalist, meteorologist, or climatologist knows that. What we should be arguing about is what to do to prevent any change that will have an impact on our planet. And it doesn't matter if you want to talk about global warming or global cooling. Because we are in the midst of such a dramatic change we owe it to ourselves to figure it out instead of calling it a hoax and implying that our high gas prices are a result of environmentalists, as Coleman insists. He also says that government subsidized ethanol production has caused food prices to rise. I would pay someone $50 to find me highly regarded research that supports this.
When it comes to climate change let's work together to figure it out instead of decisively knocking the truth.
Do I know the impact each of us has on our environment? No. Do I think we should be more mindful of our atmosphere and what we put in it? Absolutely. Doing nothing is about as absurd as John Coleman is.
7 comments:
Okay Eric, I'll bite.
You say, "all he needs to do is look at this chart." But don't we need a longer chart? A MUCH longer chart?
We know there have been ice ages, even relatively recent ones historically speaking. And following each ice age, didn't the earth experience "global warming?"
Why do we think that the period of time during which humans have been recording climate data is anything resembling typical for Planet Earth? What if the last, oh, say 10,000 years are really just an anomaly? What if the last 200 years or the last 2000 years are really an anomaly? Do we really have all that much of a handle on what the North American climate has been like over the past 1000 years, nevermind the last 10,000 years? I remember learning that the beautiful Kettle Moraine geological feature in my state was caused by a glacier that covered my state from 100,000 to 10,000 years ago.
(http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/parks/specific/kmscenicdrive/glacialterminology.html)
How do we know that we're not still warming up from that ice age?
I don't think this guy's rant proves that there isn't "global warming" but I don't think your counter-argument proves that there is either.
But I gotta say, his argument ("the last two cold winters proves...") drives me completely insane. It makes me crazy when people cite extremely local WEATHER phenomena as evidence for or against CLIMATE change. Bleh!
My friends in NM and CA report that the last 2 winters have been abnormally warm and abnormally dry. Good grief, talk about mistaking one's own personal experience for universal truth...
Okay. So all this is to say - I have no idea whether there is enough evidence for or against global warming to declare that it either is or is not caused by human activities.
Nonetheless, we have to make decisions based on incomplete information ALL the time. (Try working for State Government some time...)
So which would be the WORSE mistake to make: Cutting back on carbon emissions when we wouldn't have really needed to do that? Or NOT cutting back on carbon emissions when we really DID need to do that? If I had to pick my mistake, I'd pick Door #1. As inconvenient as it may seem, its not nearly as bad as what might happen if we made the other mistake.
Its kind of like staying off the roads when they MIGHT be impassible. Its inconvenient (and possibly unnecessary), but the potential consequences are not nearly as bad as making a (deadly?) mistake in the other direction.
So (in case you really wanted to know) my vote is for acting as though humans' carbon footprints DO need reduction -- whether or not that eventually turns out to be true. Because if it turns out to be a mistake, its not nearly as BAD a mistake as the other choice would be if IT turned out to be a mistake.
More than you ever wanted to know, right? Heh heh.
I would not take this guy to serious on what he says, this guy use to scare old ladies ( great grandmother with severe storms) have you read his profile on tv's website? um he's not all in the head figure of speech.... Now I do think and yes I do think we do have global warming going on, and it needs to be address, and when I do hear people say we don't have it going on, the proof is in the records!
Again I would not really be overly concern with this guy.
However you found the guy that I been looking for, I have wanted to tell him off for scaring my great grandmother in the 80's
Taking a sample size of this you can see the effects industrialization has made to our climate as a whole. There have been times that are warmer, and of course it was colder several thousand years ago.
My point is whether or not it is happening is moot. Instead we should work together to figure it out.
Thank you Eric for posting this. I am actully doing a 30 page research paper for one of my classes on the Weather Channel and its impact or influence on the study of global warming.
Thanks again for posting this, because I had yet to find this source anywhere!
"He also says that government subsidized ethanol production has caused food prices to rise. I would pay someone $50 to find me highly regarded research that supports this. "
Eric, there doesn't need to be any research. It is Econ 101. If you allocate a scarce commodity like corn, where farmers will be making more selling their corn to create ethanol than they otherwise might, the result is going to be higher food prices. I don't really see how you can argue against that.
Also, many meteorologists cite computer models forcasting warming temperatures thousands of years ahead of time as proof. To do so in my opnion is foolish. Meteorologists sometimes have trouble nailing a 7 day forecast! (Not a ding against you guys as I think WREX does a very good job!)
Also, to use the argument "even if you don't believe in global warming, we should still do something because it is better to be safe than sorry!" is somewhat flawed argument. Greenhouse gas reduction programs are very expensive. Many companies are also taxed forcing them to cut workers. If "going green" will save money and jobs as many suggest that they may, they why should the government have to regulate businesses to do so? If it really is cost efficient and companies will improve output, the companies will do it! Capitalism at it's finest!
I'm not saying that "climate change" doesn't exist. I just need to see more proof. Solid concrete proof. I read a very intersting article the other week (i'll try and find it) where some scientists found that there is a much greater link between the sun's natural cycles and solar radiation than there is to greenhouse gasses.
I feel like i'm rambling now.. just my 2 cents!
This is a very hot issue, you're a brave man for posting this entry he he. It doesn't matter how much data there is in support of global warming or against global warming. People we believe what they want to regardless of facts or the opinions of renowned scientific communities.
What it all boils down to is that regardless of global warming being a myth or not, what harm can come from a cleaner environment ? I see no drawbacks what so ever . Whether it's a problem or not who cares ? Let's just take care of our home that provides us with the necessities of life.
I do believe it is a hoax, there does not seem to be valid science to back up the theory of Global Warming, even though it is stated as fact. The earth has gone through many climate changes over the centuries.
I do believe that it is a plan to set in motion a way to tax people for fixing the "Problem".
Post a Comment