Posted on Oct 22, 2014
'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel
14.1K
120
53
10
10
0
Climate change: Fact or fiction?
A recent article discusses the opinion of a Weather Channel founder. What are your thoughts?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
A recent article discusses the opinion of a Weather Channel founder. What are your thoughts?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
Meteorology
Science
Climate Change
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 23
10
10
0
I do believe in Cyclical climate change, not the "Man Made" climate change.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=21726
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=21726
Is Climate Change Cyclical? NASA Study Suggests Yes
The severity of the current Climate Change “crisis” has been blamed almost exclusively on man-made carbon-dioxide emissions and that the change is...
(10)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) I agree with the change part but change is more immediate and less long term speculatively speaking of course. If people knew how abstract climate and meteorology is then bold claims slip away as fog is broken by an inversion that snaps.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Jeff Torgerson
Oh my gawd. This is getting out of control. There was an Ice Age, then a glacial maximum followed by warming (and alot of other stuff over recent AND distant eons) Try orbital fluctuations (over millenia [and eons]) and solar activity (over more measurable decadal periods). Or look at vulcanism over all of time and add into the mix oceanic circulatory fluctuations. Now think of global changes vs. regional or local changes...over hundreds of years. And we're adding to the mix by ... how much? Some, yes. More than we can bear, above and beyond nature? Not so sure. But yes. climate changes. So does weather. Please stop interchanging the two. jt
(5)
(0)
8
8
0
I'm sure my vocal cords will never get tired of saying the IDEA of "global warming" is man-made. The amount of money that would be generated is estimated in the Trillions of dollars, globally. All some lazy scientists, who are funded through government grants, had to do was convince a few politicians, Algore, and the gullible "people bad" liberals that CYCLICAL climate change was man-caused.
It's about the money and will always be about the money. What I find ironic is that those that would benefit the most are the bane of liberal existence, "big business." Of course the government would get a hefty new tax. Big government is not immune from greed.
It's about the money and will always be about the money. What I find ironic is that those that would benefit the most are the bane of liberal existence, "big business." Of course the government would get a hefty new tax. Big government is not immune from greed.
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
A few thoughts/comments on climate change.
1. Specific objective data on the climate has only been recorded since about 1890 (120+ years). This is essentially a data point when compared to the age of the planet. Assessments can be made via other means (rocks, tree rings, glaciers, etc) but this is secondary source information essentially and not primary source.
2. Data from the last 10 years show these years have been hotter compared to the past 120 years. Proving hotter years over the past 120+ years is fairly easy. Proving causation, however, is a different story (ie humans are to blame for climate change). Right now the data is science while the causation analysis is more political, in my opinion, than it is science.
3. Humans should care for and sustain our environment. The question is how to balance the economy, business, and jobs with care for the environment. The approach of governments dictating, especially when all the governments in the world disagree, is neither effective nor sustainable. The key is for business to take care of the environment because it costs business less money in the long run to do so. This approach will be both more effective and sustainable.
4. Individuals need to be more discerning about the "facts" and "data" that we are being fed. Too many people are ignorant or apathetic (don't know, don't care) and merely parrot the information that supports their predisposed position. The facts should drive the theory and not the theory driving the selected facts.
1. Specific objective data on the climate has only been recorded since about 1890 (120+ years). This is essentially a data point when compared to the age of the planet. Assessments can be made via other means (rocks, tree rings, glaciers, etc) but this is secondary source information essentially and not primary source.
2. Data from the last 10 years show these years have been hotter compared to the past 120 years. Proving hotter years over the past 120+ years is fairly easy. Proving causation, however, is a different story (ie humans are to blame for climate change). Right now the data is science while the causation analysis is more political, in my opinion, than it is science.
3. Humans should care for and sustain our environment. The question is how to balance the economy, business, and jobs with care for the environment. The approach of governments dictating, especially when all the governments in the world disagree, is neither effective nor sustainable. The key is for business to take care of the environment because it costs business less money in the long run to do so. This approach will be both more effective and sustainable.
4. Individuals need to be more discerning about the "facts" and "data" that we are being fed. Too many people are ignorant or apathetic (don't know, don't care) and merely parrot the information that supports their predisposed position. The facts should drive the theory and not the theory driving the selected facts.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
An actual Climate Scientist who came out against Global Warming could make boat loads of money telling people what the energy companies want them to hear. Strangly enough, most seem to have far to much integrity to do such a thing.
When the subject is something as critical as Climate Change, and billions of lives are at risk... we should go with the opinions of those who study climate change for a living instead of those who make living from burning carbon, or are funded by those who make a living burning carbon.
When the subject is something as critical as Climate Change, and billions of lives are at risk... we should go with the opinions of those who study climate change for a living instead of those who make living from burning carbon, or are funded by those who make a living burning carbon.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) . Unlike you, we have been in the science field of weather which has a direct correlation to climate but you wouldn't know that because you are a know-it-all about everything...... lol
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Yes, we've been around and around on this... your a meteorologist and you know weather... which has some correlation to climate science. What you are not is an actual climate scientist, and that is the field that matters when were talking climate science. Since over 90% of actual climate scientists have come to a consensus on Climate Change, I'm quite comfortable accepting that athropogenic climate change is probable and that we should be doing everything we can to mitigate the damage we are causing.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
You are quoting crap you know NOTHING about. SSG (Join to see) . Meteorologists know quite a bit more than so-called climate experts, who have nothing more than seriously flawed computer models. They use forecast grids, they are largely made up, by using Interpolation and extrapolation, to determine what is there. Meaning, they are guessing. They have no practical training in weather or climate.
Take the NGM (models, Grid models) and the blended models, mosaics
and trajectory bulletins (now defunct). Each of these are estimations
upon estimations, and the Climatological Models are even more specious.
Even a weather balloon drifts and can acquire features of a source region, Relative Vorticity, Short Wave Trofs, Rossby Waves, Convection, Orographic Features (Mountains),
Salinity and countless other features. Weathermen know these phenomena and I most sure that Climatologists, have no or little exposure to these processes. They matter dude. Any many of these features are hard to predict.
Mr Caldwell, you are in NO position to minimalize Meteorologists or anything regarding Climate or weather. You just run off talking points, w/o knowing a thing about these processes; PO2 Ed C. Mark is always spouting the party line....
Take the NGM (models, Grid models) and the blended models, mosaics
and trajectory bulletins (now defunct). Each of these are estimations
upon estimations, and the Climatological Models are even more specious.
Even a weather balloon drifts and can acquire features of a source region, Relative Vorticity, Short Wave Trofs, Rossby Waves, Convection, Orographic Features (Mountains),
Salinity and countless other features. Weathermen know these phenomena and I most sure that Climatologists, have no or little exposure to these processes. They matter dude. Any many of these features are hard to predict.
Mr Caldwell, you are in NO position to minimalize Meteorologists or anything regarding Climate or weather. You just run off talking points, w/o knowing a thing about these processes; PO2 Ed C. Mark is always spouting the party line....
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google