Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

So what if they are?I've never understood that question.So, we take steps to decrease and maybe eventually eliminate carbon emissions by investing in and promoting alternative sources of energy. Is this a bad thing? Yea, this costs money, but fossil fuels are a finite resource and we should be doing this anyway. Besides the fact that cleaner air, cleaner water supplies, and the ceasing of strip mining are, you know, a good thing.So, we encourage people to recycle with the goal of limiting or eliminating unnecessary waste. Is this a bad thing?So, we encourage people to use less electricity which reduces the strain on power grids, reduces carbon emissions and saves them money, too. Is this a bad thing?So, we encourage people to drive less (ride a bike or walk short distances...get some exercise!) or carpool (driving with friends...IOW socialize more!). Is this a bad thing?So, we spend some time and energy planning for potential catastrophe (in the form of coastal flooding, "super storms" agricultural collapse, famine, drought, etc). Is this a bad thing? We should have solid plans in place for natural disasters and/or the displacement of massive amounts of people anyway.It doesn't matter if global warming is a "scam." It doesn't matter if the causes are man-made or natural. There is no good reason, IMHO, why we shouldn't be doing any of these things (or others I neglected to mention) anyway.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Problem is, Gore, among other global warming touters, unfortunately have not practiced what they preach.

---

Except Gore does. Sean Hannity? You actually think anything he says is true?Question: Do you think Hannity did any investigative work into why Gore was on a private jet? Gore has never claimed that he only flies commercial. Instead, he flies commercial where he can.Be specific about why Gore was on that plane. Think carefully. I'm sure you know what the schedule was. F'rinstance, Hannity claims that Gore should have driven from Tennessee to California in order to reduce carbon emissions.A four-day trip? Was that feasible? Gore needed to go from Tennessee to Camarillo to San Francisco the same day. Is that possible in a car?Then why did Hannity bring it up except as a distraction and an attempt to smear Gore? Gore has never said that we should never drive or never fly. So why is Hannity making a big deal about Gore practicing what he preaches?Oh, but there were over a hundred commercial options that day!Really? And he was capable of taking them? Over a hundred commercial options means every flight...but not every flight is available. If you need to be in California by 10 am, the flight leaving Tennessee at 2 pm isn't really an option. Nor is the early flight that doesn't actually get you there by 10 am. And if you can't actually leave until 6 am today, the red-eye can't be used, either. Since Hannity doesn't know what Gore's schedule was, his claim that there were over a hundred commercial options is nothing more than a number he pulled out of his ass.And notice the end...with absolutely no evidence that Gore didn't do what he does and pay the carbon offset for the trip, Hannity implies that he didn't. Notice how quickly he glosses over it, too: Gore pays for the carbon he emits when he travels. So if he takes a private jet rather than commercial or a car or a bike, he pays to make sure he remains carbon neutral.But we won't talk about that and we'll hint that he's not really doing it.It's Fox, NJ...it isn't news. Surely you know that by now. If you see it on Fox, assume the opposite is true.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Then, for one possibility, we are unnecessarily hindering our technological advancements in the effort to mitigate an effect that is negligible. One point is that the people who are benefiting for the Global Warming "hoax" are using the scare as a tactic to make money off the green scene. None of those things are bad things.The point is that if nothing that we do matters WRT Global Warming, then those things are the "hoax" that others are getting rich off off. Plus,. if it is a hoax (and we are the only one "doing anything" about and thus the only ones "falling for it" then we will be putting ourselves in the back of the pack. One good reason is that China and India are going to make negligible the effects that the U.S. has on the global ecology, and then by limiting our technological advancements, we are going to put ourselves behind them. Among others things. That's just one interpretation.

Catholic Scientist responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it that the best scientific models are always taken with the caveat that "hey, they might all be wrong"

---

​

Isn't that the caveat that all scientific models should be taken with?

---

Do you truly not understand the point?Yes, all scientific models are accepted tentatively. But the point is that they are ACCEPTED. The reason why they are accepted is because the evidence forces us to do so. If there were any real question about it, it wouldn't be accepted but would still be under investigation.It may be that we're wrong, but we don't have any reason to think that we are. F'rinstance, Newtonian physics is wrong. At every level. At every speed.However, we accepted it at the time because by the best instrumentation available at the time, it was right. When you couldn't make anything move more than a few hundred miles an hour and your instruments aren't as sensitive as they are right now, the discrepancy between what Newtonian mechanics tells you the answer should be and what you actually measure can't be detected because it's so small.And yet, that error is there. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but at the time, we had absolutely no reason to think that it was. Everything pointed to it being true. It was only when we had evidence that there was something wrong, when our instrumentation got better, did we start to question what we thought was right.You seem to be saying that if we can find somebody somewhere with the magic letters P, H, and D trailing the name, then that means we should take his pronouncements just as seriously as all the evidence we have showing him to be wrong because...well...because "all science is only tentative."It is not sufficient to be contrary. You have to show your evidence. You have to have it analysed. In a survey of all climatology papers of the last decade, not a single one concluded that global warming wasn't real or that human factors weren't the primary driver.So yes, it's possible that it's all wrong. It's possible that we've overlooked something. But that's not good enough. You have to show what was overlooked and how it affects the conclusions drawn from all the other evidence.

quote:

---

If you can't take it seriously then piss off.

---

Then I guess we'll miss you, because you certainly aren't taking it seriously.Your equating all the evidence that shows it is real and is primarily driven by humans with people who merely claim it isn't and can't provide any evidence to justify their claims, all because "it's possible" that all the evidence we have is wrong.

quote:

---

Isn't his the kind of shit you accuse Holmes of doing?

---

You mean avoid the question?Let's try it again: Where is all the human-produced CO₂ going to go?Personally, I do not find it coincidental that this claim was made now. Not too long ago new evidence showed that things are actually worse than previously thought: We're outpacing our carbon sinks.That is, there are processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. So long as we don't put more carbon into the air than can be removed from it, we'll be at a stable point. But it seems that the carbon sinks are being overrun and can't pull as much carbon out as previously thought.So what better way to cause distraction than to have "the founder of the Weather Channel" (*glint!*) claim it's all a hoax?But I'm cynical.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

How would "going green" hinder our technological advancement? I would think that seeking out and perfecting alternative sources of energy might actually open up new possibilities for advancement, but even if not, I fail to see how it would hinder us. As opposed to people making money off of the polluting, wasteful, war-inducing "non-green" scene? I don't see the problem here. I'm glad you agree Again, I don't see the problem with people making money from green policies which, as you concede, are good things. Again, I don't see how developing alternative sources of energy, recycling, being less wasteful, etc will put us "in the back of the pack." Please explain. So we shouldn't do anything because China and India aren't in a position (yet) to take the lead in being more green? I doubt they are going to surpass us in economic/political dominance on the world stage because we wanted wind power. I think it will have much more to do with their massive (and cheap!) workforce and, in the case of China, fierce capitalism (low worker protections/wages and lax environmental and safety regulations) combined with totalitarianism (protest the conditions and see what happens). Do you think we should be like China and completely eliminate workplace, safety and environmental regulations so we can compete? I hardly think you will enjoy the reduced standard of living in America if we do.And again, I don't see how we would fall behind in technological advancements by developing new technologies.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Then, for one possibility, we are unnecessarily hindering our technological advancements in the effort to mitigate an effect that is negligible.

---

Huh? In order to become less dependent on oil, we need to advance our technology. There is enough sunlight falling on the earth in a single minute to power the entire global energy demand for over a year. But solar power isn't very efficient at the moment. If I recall correctly, maximum efficiency is under 20%. If we could have some "technological advancements" to increase that efficiency and lower the cost, then we could reduce our use of oil, reduce our carbon emissions, and reduce the man-made effects of global warming.How would work on a technological advancement "hinder our technological advancements"? Did we cross over into conservative-land where everything is backwards?

quote:

---

One point is that the people who are benefiting for the Global Warming "hoax" are using the scare as a tactic to make money off the green scene.

---

How? Be specific.Besides, isn't it good business sense to develop a market? Especially one that reduces our dependence upon foreign oil? Which will result in lower prices due to the reduced fuel cost to transport goods across the country (you did notice that oil is pushing $100 a barrel, yes? When it was less than $30 less than a decade ago, yes?)

quote:

---

The point is that if nothing that we do matters WRT Global Warming, then those things are the "hoax" that others are getting rich off off.

---

And shifting our economy from a foreign-oil-base to a local-energy-base is bad? People aren't allowed to make money at the expense of the oil companies? Exxon-Mobil just posted the largest business profits in all of history. They're already getting rich off of it.Why are they the only ones allowed to get rich? Why can't the replacement technology for oil allow people to get rich?

quote:

---

Plus,. if it is a hoax (and we are the only one "doing anything" about and thus the only ones "falling for it" then we will be putting ourselves in the back of the pack.

---

Huh? Do you seriously not see the potential of developing energy technology that is not dependent upon foreign oil? How on earth are we putting ourselves "in the back of the pack" if we're the ones on the forefront of developing the technology?How much do you think India and China are willing to pay to not have to buy oil?It sounds like you're saying that if we work on energy independence, we won't discover...what...the cure for cancer?It's not a zero-sum game. We can do both.

quote:

---

One good reason is that China and India are going to make negligible the effects that the U.S. has on the global ecology

---

But imagine how better it would be if we developed technology such that they didn't have to buy oil. We solve the problem of their pollution and get an economic boost in the process as they buy the technology from us.Where is the downside?

quote:

---

limiting our technological advancements

---

Huh? How does working on technological advancements "limit" it? Have we wandered into conservative-land where everything is opposite?

quote:

---

That's just one interpretation.

---

And you were just recently passing out admonishments to take this discussion seriously.An interpretation that advancing technology is actually "hindering" the advancement of technology isn't taking it seriously.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Thank you Rrhain. I do know this. The argument is for a few years of oil versus the livelihood of a 4000+ year old culture.On the link that NJ provided is also a claim that we should not worry about the decline of polar bears because polar bears are the only bear that regularly preys on mankind!! Following the link it says that polar bears are a menace (sounds like a Colbert Report) in Canada. But the facts are that in the last CENTURY there have been 5 polar bear fatalities. Five in 100 years.

---

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder

A meteorologist is not a climatologist.As an appeal to authority, that was rubbish.And this great non-authority's argument in full?"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct."Hooray, that's how to overturn a scientific consensus.Now, please quote a creationist zookeeper on the subject of evolution, preferably the real expert who cleans out the elephant house, and I bet we can abolish half of biology by teatime.

quote:

---

Does it mean, stop driving?

---

I have greatly reduced the amount of driving I do. I walk two miles to work and two miles home from work.

quote:

---

Does it mean, stop using plastics?

---

I try to buy new plastic as little as possible, and I try to make sure it is recycleable if I do.

quote:

---

Does it mean, start recycling?

---

I have been living in areas that recycle for a long time, and it doesn't just matter for climate change. It matters for land fills and simply reducing the amount of non-biodegradeable waste that has to be dealt with somehow. I've lived close to a city dump and it is not very nice, believe me.

quote:

---

Does it mean knitting your own grocery bags so as to not use paper or plastic bags?

---

Haha, I have just bought some linen yarn to do just that, actually. Of course, you can also buy cloth or canvas bags. It saves money and reduces the amount of waste we have to put somewhere.

quote:

---

Does it mean, shut down factories?

---

It means to require companies to improve factories if they can, or build new ones if they can't. I would support giving businesses incentives to improve the cleanness of their operations, simply to make them pollute less. I don't like living in pollution.

quote:

---

Does it mean, boycott fossil fuels?

---

Fossil fuels (haha, you called them fossil fuels, even though you don't believe in Evolution. Whoopsie!) are a finite resource that will run out, regardless of the impact that burning them has on the atmosphere. Also, our dependence upon them is what leads us to have to be best buddies with disgusting oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Then, for one possibility, we are unnecessarily hindering our technological advancements in the effort to mitigate an effect that is negligible.

---

I thought that some of the biggest polluters, at least for energy, were the old, inefficient coal-burning power plants, though.I mean, what technological advancements do you believe would be hindered by using efficient power? what industries would be affected?

Why not? The scope of the thread seems to be the supportability of the Weather Channel guy's claims. Not exactly. The caveat is "scientific claims should be taken with confidence commensurate with the evidence that supports them", not "all of science could be wrong just as easily as it could be right."Misunderstanding the nature of scientific tentativity is a tactic you see deniers using quite a bit, as well as shyster defense lawyers on Law and Order. That's the denier argument - there's every reason not to significantly change our lifestyles if there isn't any global warming, because it would "destroy the world economy."It's just a double standard, is all I'm saying. The evidence-based warnings of climate scientists are dismissed as Chicken Little-ism, or hand-waved away because of misleading fake tentativity, but the cataclysmic warnings of the economists, based on no evidence at all, are taken without question as the inevitable outcome of any attempt to reduce emissions. And how does that work? Our crops just magically don't need as much water? Arable land will suddenly appear just as fast as it disappears in other areas?I just don't yet understand the argument. It's like saying "the Statue of Liberty is a hoax." Wait, what? I mean I can go and see it. I can walk up inside it. I can touch it. Where's the hoax? So what if is it just going to flutter out? I'm trying to understand the argument. Surely Weather Guy isn't advancing an argument based on magic? Being sarcastic to highlight the deficiencies of an opponent's vague argument? No, that's not what I accuse Holmes of doing.Look, if neither Weather Guy, nor NJ, nor you are going to actually flesh out an argument, can you blame me for trying to do it for you? It's abundantly clear what I'm asking for, here. I simply want to understand the argument. What, exactly, is being asserted is a hoax?Be specific.

This seems to be the key issue for me, but obviously not so for most global-warming alarmists and detractors. Everything we have learned from evidence of global climate changes in the past indicate that nature steers our biospheric temperatures with rubber bands. One extreme leads to the opposite extreme, just like the seasons, as if there is climatic karma. We may be worried this century about glacial melting and rising oceans, and next century it could be sinking oceans and glaciers burying Nebraska. In other words, instead of worrying about global warming, maybe we should be worried about the coming ice age. And maybe next century we'll be pumping as many greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere as we can to prevent the Okefenokee Swamp from freezing solid.The honest-to-goodness truth is that nobody knows what to expect from nature beyond our traditional two-week planning horizon.”HM

Rubber bands can break if overstressed. The capacity of the climate system to self-regulate is almost certainly restricted to a range of values in the middle; when those values are exceeded, stability becomes negative.

So is anything about our long-term climate change really predictable? Do we know enough about it to say with any certainty that the year 2100 we be warmer or colder than the historical average?”HM

Ah, the role out the ice age defence. Never mind that the guy who propossed the theory was one of the first people who proposed Global Warming because, gasp, as our science improved it showed the effect of atmospheric aerosols was less than thought and the effect of CO2 more. Damn him, and his good science.