PDA

View Full Version : New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism!



Greg Burnham
07-29-2011, 04:55 AM
By James M. Taylor

FORBES

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/g.Ksmtl1bC0tIzZVJjSiww--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yMTg7cT04NTt3PTMwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/forbes.com/300x218.jpg

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Gary Severson
07-29-2011, 12:28 PM
by David Cassel (http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/author/david-cassel/)
http://tech.blorge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/new-nasa-data-still-proves-global-warming-is-real.jpgYes, there’s a glitch in NASA’s data about U.S. air temperatures. But the corrected data still shows a warming trend that’s unmistakeable.
Many arguments against global warming require a carefully-slanted presentation of the statistics. Here’s what global warming skeptics are saying — and the evidence from NASA’s most recent statistics.
The new figures show global warming is a myth
These new figures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt) don’t show anything about global warming. They’re exclusively for the United States.
The new figures show a huge discrepancy
Actually, the discrepancy isn’t that huge. A climate web site reviewed NASA’s figures and reported (http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/) “an upward discontinuity” which would inflate the reported temperatures — by just one degree Centigrade in the winter, and only 0.8 degrees annually.
1998 was not America’s hottest year on record
This is true — but it’s the second hottest year ever recorded in the U.S., and the hottest in the last 73 years.
America’s hottest and third-hottest years were before World War II
This is also true. But the second- and fourth-hottest year were in the last nine years (1998 and 2006.) That argument is just a way of re-stating the statistics to downplay the significance of the recent hot years.
For example, at the Daily Tech blog (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm), Michael Asher emphasized that the #1 and #3 slots are taken by 1934 and 1921 — but then blithely decided not to mention the #4 slot at all (though 2006 was the fourth-hottest year ever recorded in the United States.)
Sentences can always be constructed in several ways, to either include or exclude the recent hot years. For example, these statements are also true.




Two of the four hottest years have occurred within the last ten years
Four of the eight hottest years have occurred since the 90s.



5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.
No one ever disputed there were several very hot years before World War II. In fact, NASA’s old statistics had always shown that four of the ten warmest years were pre-World War II. The new stats now just show five hot pre-war years instead four — which is hardly a compelling revision.
The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20
I first read this on a blog called Grandma is an Idiot (http://grandmaisanidiot.blogspot.com/). Another way to phrase that would be “these five years are among the 25 hottest ever recorded” — but Grandma Is an Idiot chose to arbitrarily draw their line for a cutoff at “the top 20.”
3 (not 9) of the hottest years took place since 1995
NASA’s old statistics already showed this to be true, so this statement doesn’t reflect any change from our past understanding. Newsbusters makes this argument (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public) – but it requires a little misdirection. By referring to years “since 1995,” you can conveniently leave out 1990, which was one of the eight hottest years ever recorded in the United States.
But there’s always going to be a freakishly hot year — which is why NASA also calculated the mean temperature over a five-year period of time. If you graph those, you see a pretty clear pattern. Even with the new data, 7 of the hottest 10 five-year periods have still occurred in the last ten years. And we don’t have five-year means centered around 2005 and 2006 yet — though 2006 has already proven itself to be one of the 10 hottest years (again, using the updated statistics.)
http://tech.blorge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/global-warming-is-still-real-new-nasa-data-proves-it.jpg (http://tech.blorge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/global-warming-is-still-real-new-nasa-data-proves-it.jpg)
Click the image to enlargeThis graph speaks for itself. It shows that even using five-year samples, the deviation from the mean was still a negative number for the twenty years after 1962 (with neglible blips in 1975 and 1979.) But in 1988 the temperature’s deviation rises past .5 — which it had previously only done during 1931 and 1932. It remains far above the negative deviations of the previous twenty years — and then in 1999, sets a new record deviation. This is exceeded only by the 2000 deviation, which was the highest five-year temperature deviation ever recorded. The #3 and #4 slots are taken by the years 2004 and 2001.

We’ll have to wait another two years before there’s five-year means centered around 2005 and 2006, but 2006 has already proven itself to be one of the 10 hottest years ever. (And yes, that’s using the updated statistics.) But the graph of NASA’s newest data already shows one important and unmistakeable conclusion.

Seven of the hottest 10 five-year periods have still occurred in the last ten years. 0diggsdigg

Keith Millea
07-29-2011, 03:39 PM
Greg:

The Heartland Institute is not a neutral body.It sure looks to me like they are paid hacks.

I hate using Wiki,but.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Greg Burnham
07-29-2011, 03:46 PM
Gary Severson said: "This is true — but it’s the second hottest year ever recorded in the U.S., and the hottest in the last 73 years." [partial quote]


Without addressing everything in your post, Gary, due to lack of time, still doesn't it seem odd to you that the hottest temps occurred in 1929 if temperature increase is actually being driven by man made factors that are far more prevalent today than they were in 1929, primarily a human caused increase in levels of atmospheric C02 as alarmists claim?

Logic does not lose context.

If an increase in C02 is causing temperatures to rise, and if C02 is being dangerously increased by human activity, namely automobiles and the like, then why was this effect more prevalent in 1929 (when there existed far fewer automobiles and C02 producing industries) than it was in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, for example? And, why is the temperature cooling again over the last decade if an increase in human contributions to atmospheric C02 is the root of the problem when we know that those things that are claimed to increase it (cars, etc) are in far greater usage?

What caused this increase in temperature in 1929? Could it have been solar activity instead of C02? If so, is that not the likely cause today? If not, why not? Can you explain why C02 has historically risen AFTER temperature has increased and not before? Can you explain why the hockey stick effect, which has been proved to be erroneous, has not been disavowed by those who originally promoted that myth within the scientific community and within the alarmist community, such as, Al Gore?

As you know, I believe strongly that CHAOS THEORY prohibits the ability of man to predict the behavior of random, non-linear, complex systems--such as the weather--beyond a very short temporal interval. Even when--what seem to be relatively minor--errors in initial conditions used to calculate future behavior of such non-linear systems occur due to human infallibility, the resultant mathematical outcome can be astronomically miscalculated. This has been demonstrated literally thousands, if not millions, of times over.

So, even though I can not say with certainty that humans are incapable of negatively impacting the climate of our planet, I can say with certainty that humans are incapable of PREDICTING such a thing. Those who claim they can predict the behavior of a random, non-linear, complex system are either misinformed, delusional, self important, or simply mistaken.

Greg Burnham
07-29-2011, 03:51 PM
Greg:

The Heartland Institute is not a neutral body.It sure looks to me like they are paid hacks.

I hate using Wiki,but.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Keith,

I prefer to attack theories and arguments rather than people and institutions. As an example, even though the CIA has committed many acts inconsistent with their charter, that does not mean that everything they have said or done is wrong. Each item must be weighed for its own merit. So too, even IF the Heartland Institute was questionable about some things, still your claiming that they are therefore wrong about this issue is not a valid argument.

I would like to see an argument that addresses the issues not the messenger.

Gary Severson
07-29-2011, 04:42 PM
From DESMOG BLOG



http://www.desmogblog.com/themes/desmog/images/disinformation_database_header.gif (http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database) http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/roy-spencer.jpg
Roy Spencer

Research and Background

Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Spencer has published 25 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of satellite climate measurements.
Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"

Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/)" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."
In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative (http://www.christiansandclimate.org/). The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.
The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen and Ross McKitrick (http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1313).
Satellite Research Refuted

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ex=1281499200&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy (http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptic-christy-extols-benefits-of-coming-weather-extremes), admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute), a US think tank that has received $676,500 (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41) from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco (http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=74) over the years and continues to make the claim (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594) that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute

Spencer is listed as an "Expert" (http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=122) with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and ICECAP

Spencer is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP).
ICECAP is a global warming skeptic organization that believes we should be preparing ourselves for the next ice age.
ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e) (SPPI), Joseph D'Aleo (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D%27Aleo). SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35) from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and Tech Central Station

Listed as an author (http://www.techcentralstation.com/) for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently (http://www.desmogblog.com/sponsors-pull-plug-on-tech-central-station) was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group. (http://www.desmogblog.com/former-tobacco-spin-doctor-plays-cruel-climate-change-hoax)
Spencer, Blunder, Swindle and Confusion


Spencer also operates his own blog (http://www.drroyspencer.com/) on global warming in which he describes himself as a "climatologist, author, [and] former NASA scientist." On his blog, Spencer states (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/) that "the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years."
Spencer also published a book in April, 2010, titled The Great Global Warming Blunder (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%E2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/): How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climatologists which is prominently advertised on his blog. Apart from concluding that global warming is likely caused by a natural cycle, Blunder poses the question, that "maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."
Spencer published Climate Confusion (http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106): How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor in 2008. Confusion is described (http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/02/20/watch-out-for-global-warming-muths/) as "forsaking blindingly technical statistics" about global warming to describe the issue in "simple terms." In other words, the book tries to sidestep any valid research on climate change.
Roy Spencer also appeared on the notorious film The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the "Great Science Funding Conspiracy." Spencer claims (http://www.desmogblog.com/a-global-warming-swindle-play-by-play) that "climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding."
Swindle received critical response from the scientific community, including a letter (http://climateofdenial.net/?q=node/1) addressed to ABC signed by thirty-seven British Scientists that claimed "the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed."
ABC Australia’s Tony Jones also brings the film's scientific accuracy into question (http://www.desmogblog.com/abc-australias-tony-jones-and-durkin-transcript) in an interview with the film’s director, Martin Durkin.
Spencer and Open Letters Denying Climate Change

2007 Open Letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
Spencer is listed as a signatory (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004) to a 2007 open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that denied man-made climate change.
The letter was featured in the National Post in an article titled "Don't fight, adapt (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002)" and states that "it is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity throughout the ages."
2006 Open Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Roy Spencer was one of the 60 "accredited experts" to sign a 2006 open letter (http://www.desmogblog.com/denying-climate-change-urging-inaction) to Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying man-made climate change while urging the government avoid implementing climate policy.
The letter states that "climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
2004 Open Letter to John McCain

Spencer also signed a 2004 open letter (http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/873) to John McCain refuting the findings by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
The letter concludes that any past warming that occured in the arctic cannot be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. It was signed by prominent climate change skeptics including Richard Lindzen (http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen), Tim Ball (http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-denier-research-old), David Legates (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates), Pat Michaels (http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels), Gary D. Sharp (http://www.desmogblog.com/gary-d-sharp), Willie Soon (http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon) and Sallie Baliunas (http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas).

Greg Burnham
07-29-2011, 07:25 PM
Gary,

What amounts to an ad hominem attack against Spencer is not a valid argument with which to debunk his argument for skepticism. It is fallacious.

Why did the HIGHEST annual temperature recorded occur in the year 1929 as opposed to it being much, much later--say 2005--if the cause of increased warming is mainly driven by man made activities that increase C02 concentration in the atmosphere, such as, automobile emissions?

In my view, that question needs to be adequately answered prior to making claims that we are causing "climate change" through the use of technology that was not in wide use until much, much later.

That you (and any of the MMGW alarmist scientists) have failed to answer that question does not mean you're wrong. It means that you are committing a fallacy called, Special Pleading, in which you ignore evidence that runs contrary to your conclusion without demonstrating any reasonable explanation for the relative difference between the value of the accepted evidence and the value of the rejected evidence.

On its face, that evidence (1929 temperature data) is counter-intuitive to your conclusion. Ignoring it does not lessen its significance.

Gary Severson
07-29-2011, 08:04 PM
Greg, isn't 1929 a US record? Saying my post is ad hominem attack isn't correct considering the below info. et al info. contained in it.


According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ex=1281499200&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy (http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptic-christy-extols-benefits-of-coming-weather-extremes), admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Greg Burnham
07-29-2011, 08:30 PM
Gary,

I didn't mean that YOU were attacking Spencer, but the information contained in the "DISINFORMATION DATABASE" article that you posted appears to be intended by its author to be ad hominem. It does not address many of the issues, it just deals with Spencer.

That Spencer and Christy admitted an error is NOT indicative of them being fundamentally wrong. It does tend to indicate that they are being honest. When they discover an error, they admit it.

As for the temperature in the 1920's--that is YOUR evidence. You said that it hadn't been this hot in 73 years-- (1929 or 1925, it matters not--just that it was in the 1920's). You offered 1998 as the second hottest year on record! You offered it as a proof of something. Yet, when the hottest (not the second hottest) year is introduced as evidence you make a clarification? It was good enough for you to use as evidence in your argument, but it's not good enough for me to use in mine?

Gary Severson
07-29-2011, 08:46 PM
Whenever it was in the 20s it was a US aver. high and not a planetary one. The 90s & 00s highs were planetary high aver. Of course they admiite mistakes after they were pointed out. Their views are skewed because they're bought & paid for by Exxon.

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ex=1281499200&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy (http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptic-christy-extols-benefits-of-coming-weather-extremes), admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Greg Burnham
07-29-2011, 08:58 PM
Of course they admiite mistakes after they were pointed out.

I don't get your point. If Spencer and Christy were unaware that they had made a mistake, why would they admit something that had not yet been established? However, once it was pointed out to them they did admit it.

Al Gore still has not admitted mistakes even after they were pointed out.


"Their views are skewed because they're bought & paid for by Exxon."

C'mon, Gary. You can't know that. The same logic would tend to support the idea that the climate change alarmist scientific community as a whole has skewed views because of the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars they receive in research funding each year. I assure you those amounts far exceed the amounts being paid to Spencer and Christy by Exxon.

Gary Severson
07-29-2011, 11:41 PM
Spencer has sold his soul just like he did when he worked to defend tobacco for those evil companies. Why would he spin things honestly now for the oil companies. Universities are a lot more respectable than oil companies as a source of funding for research.

Greg Burnham
07-30-2011, 12:38 AM
Again, it should not be the persons nor the organizations that we are discussing here. That is a different topic. The topic of this thread has to do with substance: the merits of the arguments being offered and the validity of the evidence offered in support of those arguments. It has nothing to do with who is offering the evidence if the relevance of the evidence can be--or has been--independently verified.

Whenever this topic is raised the main arguments offered by MMGW apologists seem to revolve around pointing out flaws in the personalities, background, affiliations, etc., of the skeptics themselves--not the arguments that the skeptics have offered. The pattern is familiar: arguments are left unaddressed; ad hominem is leveled against the skeptic; the MMGW mantra is re-stated.

Gary Severson
07-30-2011, 01:44 PM
Greg, that argument is like Michelle Bachman saying she & her husband's counseling business receiving federal money has nothing to do with her running for the Presidency as she talks about cutting government spending. There is all kinds of information about the flaws of Spencer's research in the posts I have made. This is the same old response deniers make whenever MMGW is discussed,i.e. you can't talk about the messenger's credentials when the whole time they talk about the dishonesty of MMGW researchers.

Greg Burnham
07-30-2011, 03:32 PM
Our local weatherman in San Diego (KUSI), John Coleman, is the founder of the Weather Channel and is highly respected in our local community as well as nationally. I personally know his integrity.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM

Gary Severson
07-30-2011, 06:37 PM
see this site for critiques of John Coleman's statements about MMGW. Is Coleman a John Bircher? BTW his degree was in journalism. When did he get a meteorology degree? Just because he was 1st CEO of the weather channel doesn't mean he has scientific expertise. Besides what do you have to know about weather in a place like San Diego that doesn't have any weather?

http://uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

Greg Burnham
07-30-2011, 07:19 PM
see this site for critiques of John Coleman's statements about MMGW. Is Coleman a John Bircher? BTW his degree was in journalism. When did he get a meteorology degree? Just because he was 1st CEO of the weather channel doesn't mean he has scientific expertise. Besides what do you have to know about weather in a place like San Diego that doesn't have any weather?

http://uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

This is perhaps your most ignorant post to date. I don't know if he is or isn't a Bircher, but I highly doubt that he is. Why did you ask? His affiliation (or not) is irrelevant. You are "Poisoning the Well" -- how pathetic.

As for San Diego, he considers this his "retirement job" due to our absolutely fabulous weather. But your statement about his qualifications is way off.

Coleman spent the vast majority of his career in the mid west and on the east coast, including:

WCIA in Champaign, Illinois
WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois
KETV in Omaha
WISN-TV in Milwaukee
WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago
Good Morning America (7 years)
Weather Channel (2 years)
WCBS-TV in New York
WMAQ-TV in Chicago
KUSI-TV in San Diego

Once again, you avoid the issues and attack the man.

Gary Severson
07-30-2011, 07:59 PM
Her we go again using ref. to my stupidity. The John Birch Society did the video. If one has any credibility you don't associate with JBS. Yes he was at many TV stations but has no scientific training other than on the job doing comic relief which is what TV weather was used for until more modern TV weather technology came on line. Here's another site that destroys Coleman's credibility with facts.
http://open.salon.com/blog/dbmercer/2008/09/17/a_response_to_john_colemam

Greg Burnham
07-30-2011, 08:27 PM
No one called you stupid, Gary. But, your statement/question was:


Gary Severson said: "Besides what do you have to know about weather in a place like San Diego that doesn't have any weather?"

Such a statement appears to be based on ignorance since his career was spent mostly in the non-San Diego locations that I listed.

Gary Severson
07-30-2011, 09:26 PM
Actually Greg the ref. to San Diego weather was an attempt at a little humor since I am aware how great the weather is there. In fact I have a boyhood friend who is the CEO or CFO of the San Diego Symphony. I just feel sorry for you guys that you can't ice fish like we can here in MN. I know you can snow ski an hr. or 2 away which is why I was reminded by a friend in SD that there was no reason to ever leave. Remember though water skiing was invented in Mn.