John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel, claims that Climate Change has "become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid." Is it just me or are more and more people abandoning Al Gore's dreamland?
No shit. Man-made global warming has been proven to be a hoax.
You do know that the source you linked us to is a TABLOID, right? How embarrassing.
This user is currently being ignored
Even whilst highly intoxicated, I can still differentiate between a credible source and children's literature.
I don't argue that climate change is happening. My argument is that there are far greater factors on our climate than man....one of them being our own sun.
I have other problems to deal with.
Thinking that meteorologist=climate scientist is like saying a small business owner is the same as an economist. Climate and weather aren't the same, though weather exists as part of a climate. Also, i hate people who say they aren't a scientist then
Disregard what scientists have to say
Or rather I hate when people do that
I don't "<3 al gore" but climate change is a serious issue. There is NOT significant disagreement among the scientific community. Over 98% agree that the majority of climate change is man made and it is reaching the point where it cause serious probs
I agree whole-heartedly. I rather despise Al Gore, but climate change remains a concern. The amount of it that's manmade remains up for the debate but the fact that it's occurring is not, and denying it is simply stupid.
I hope Al Gore is seeing this! No not about climate stuff, but Tennessee finally voted for him! :D
Were there ever as many as claimed, especially among the most well-qualified in the field? It certainly isn't difficult to find experts with unimpeachable credentials suggesting the political conclusions are not supported by the scientific data.
At a very minimum it demonstrates that there's serious disagreement amongst climate scientists.
Coleman isn't a climate scientist. He hasn't conducted studies or earned any scientific degree.
Neither has algore.
That's true, which is why Al Gore isn't the person to listen to about climate change. You should always check what scientists are writing in peer reviewed journals. The right thinks Al Gore is an authority on this to the left, but he isn't.
He's an advocate, and that's wonderful. But the important thing is that we are being led by scientists who are actively studying Climate Change.
So you're saying don't attack the advocates or evangelists of the sides in this issue? I disagree. Coleman has an immense knowledge base and his view is worthwhile when compared to that of a politician like gore. Coleman's entire career is relevant
Whereas gore was just a politician with an agenda. It's all fair game.
If gore advocates a position whilst living his life in stark in opposition to it then it a person can reasonably evaluate that for what it is.
No, I'm saying this is Coleman vs. the majority of scientific experts on climate. Coleman vs. people who have done peer reviewed research. Coleman might know more about weather than Al Gore. But he doesn't know more than researchers/scientists.
"Majority," perhaps, but there's many that disagree besides Coleman. Disagreement with the majority position, and all of its magnitudunal political implications, isn't small or nascent.
You can criticize Al Gore, but that does nothing to actually address the science. It's like how I could criticize Mitt Romney as a person and politician, but that does nothing to address the economic arguments of the right.
You're exactly right on that. Here's why it matters to me. It'll take a few posts to articulate.
I'm a professional software developer with 4 kids. I have church responsibilities, Boy Scout responsibilities, and my time is scarce.
Family responsibilities, homework and dishes to help with. My reading time is devoted to topics that keep me current in my work which is constantly evolving. This plus the fact that scientific journals are as dry and boring as anything
In the world can be, I won't ever research this myself or pour through competing scientific research in order to "find the truth" and figure out which scientist is right and which one is wrong. The idea that a "majority" of scientists may
may agree means nothing to me because this is a political issue as well as scientific and I see how poorly democracy is working out for us. Obama got elected twice so a majority in my opinion doesn't mean that the majority is right.
So I'm left listening to the evangelists as my sources of information. The "world is ending" man-made GW side has a total hypocrite for their evangelist. The other side has advocates that are much more honorable, consistent, and seemingly
reasonable. Your side appears to be using "science" to advance the democrat party political agenda whilst the other side seems much easier to believe and understand. Discount the advocates and evangelists all you want, but they matter to me.
So that's how I see it. I'm a voter and I shouldn't have to become s scientist in order to figure this out. I can use common sense and evaluate the arguments "as presented" by the evangelists and decide for myself.
That's about it.
I trust peer reviewed research and scientific consensus. I generally trust that experts in a field will know better than me. The right uses Al Gore as a Global Warming evangelical, but as a liberal I would say we just don't.
One last thing: both sides have highly credentialed scientists advocating for it and they're both very convincing. Each side can talk me into a circle with their "science." I'll never read the science or take classes on it. It's not my thing.
I think the right concentrates on him above other people talking about Global Warming because they know he's divisive. I usually get my info on Global Warming through newspaper articles and documentaries.
So i'm inclined to believe those who appear more genuine and also don't appear to be advancing a political agenda. Gore has made millions from his business that sells carbon credits. He's a liar and thief. Your side seems to be rift with politics.
It's fine for you not to care about it, but flying in the face of the experts because you think conservatives are nicer is sort of ridiculous. Just say that you don't know, but don't feel like it's happening. I'll say that I trust the current idea.
There be experts on every side of this issue. Consensus is just science by vote. I don't trust democratic science. It means nothing to me. It doesn't work well elsewhere as I've already pointed out.
Your side is supporting the political interests of coal and gas. Your side would allow fracking to happen in communities. It allows companies to continue without environment regulation. Your side is as political as my side.
You just don't see it as much because it's what you support.
Your side supports big government and big taxes and big regulation. You just don't see it.
Over 90% of climate scientists believe that Global Warming is happening, there are not equal sides in the scientific community. And a consensus of experts is different than an electorate. They're constantly checking each other's work.
I said that liberals were political and wanted regulations. I just wanted you to see how the right is every bit as political.
I agree that GW is happening I just don't think it's man-made.
Coleman doesn't have any qualifications to judge the issue. He doesn't have a degree in any scientific field, and he hasn't done any research. Why does his opinion matter more than scientists studying this and peer reviewed research.
I believe that Global Warming is happening because experts in the field have studied it and I find the research compelling. By linking it to Al Gore instead of researchers, the right makes it needlessly political.
Coleman was a WEATHERMAN with a degree in JOURNALISM. If you want to listen to him instead of climatologists and geologists, then it's your fault for being misguided.
Nice job with your answer choices. I had to choose that I love Al Gore, which I don't. But it's ridiculous to think that climate change has no scientific evidence. Try to understand it without thinking about Al Gore for once.
I agree that it has been over politicized. And that is a disservice to the science of climate change. It has also become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming. They aren't the same.
But ManBearPig is real!!! I'm super serial!!!
Perhaps more accurately, ppl are beginning to feel empowered to speak truth against the political/social/religious intimidation of the climate change construct. A legitimate sci case can be made against man-made-climate-change-catastrophe propaganda.
I tend to believe scientists over a TV exec. The only reason it is a political agenda is because of the extreme right wing and their inability to accept science.
He's a meteorologist
His degree is in journalism. Weather =/= climate; weather forecasting =/= climate science research.
Link's not working for me; could you post it in here too please? (I was getting a "cannot open" on the iPhone, something about "cannot process raw data," so maybe the page itself is wonky.)
Thanks for the link, Derek.
You're welcome Ms. Susan?
So the TV exec doesn't believe the SCIENTISTS?
Whatever. Sounds like a ratings move.
Well, to be fair, he's not just a TV exec. He was a meteorologist for decades.
To be even more fair, though, he's not a *scientist.* His degree was in journalism. He's been grousing about GW being a hoax since 2007, & not, apparently, by presenting
an understanding of scientific evidence. (All this according to snopes, seems supported.)
False dichotomy. You are correct, AND I love Al Gore. :P
He did invent the Internet!