WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[Path_Finder]

I can’t believe that no one has told you that John Coleman is NOT a meteorologist. He has done no actual research on climate change. Just not a credible source. OTOH, 97% of real, published, climate researchers DO believe in climate change.

Coleman was a member of the American Meteorological Society.[1] He left this organization after he disagreed with the stance on Global Warming/Climate Change.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_%28news_weathercaster%29

thefreedictionary.com/meteorologist

Noun 1. meteorologist - a specialist who studies processes in the earth’s atmosphere that cause weather conditions
meteorologist - a specialist who studies processes in the earth’s atmosphere that cause weather conditions
specialiser, specialist, specializer - an expert who is devoted to one occupation or branch of learning
weather forecaster, weatherman - predicts the weather

 

[Tomdstone]

*THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s leading meteorologists has claimed. *]

Please back up your claim that Mr. Coleman is one of the world’s leading meteorologists. AFAIK, he has no academic credentials in meteorology and his academic degree is in journalism. AFAIK, he has no published peer reviewed research papers in the area of climate change, climatology, or meteorology.

 

[Path_Finder]

I trust the weather channel founder with over 60 years of experience in the field versus Academia. Certainly.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Path_Finder:
Word games. He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology. He’s not even a scientist. Has done no active research, is not published in any peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the subject (climate change). Not a credible source. I’m still siding with the 97% of the real researchers.

 

[lynnvinc]

Word games. He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology. He’s not even a scientist. Has done no active research, is not published in any peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the subject (climate change). Not a credible source. I’m still siding with the 97% of the real researchers.

Bless you.

 

[Path_Finder]

Word games. He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology. He’s not even a scientist. Has done no active research, is not published in any peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the subject (climate change). Not a credible source. I’m still siding with the 97% of the real researchers.

I’m not playing word games to whomever you are referring! One can not know.

He founded the weather channel, he’s not funded by institutions, the government. He has just as much cred if not more than many of those paid researchers whose salary may depend on their findings.

What are the credentials to say who is a Scientists? I’m sure some impressive figures were not degreed scientists who gave to mankind.

He’s a Meteorologist, who cares if he doesn’t have a degree in it if this is so.

You categorically stated he was not a Meteorologist, it’s shown he is, that was a false statement.

He doesn’t have to live up to the standards of “Oh, I got a degree in it, so that makes me better than everyone else.”

He may well be a real Renaissance Man. I’ll take that as being sufficient.

 

[JimG]

I have, on those threads, expressed a number of times that it represents nothing so much as a high school debate. “My quote is better than your quote.”

It would be laughable if political global warming ideology wasn’t so harmful to ordinary humans while simultaneously being so enriching to the already rich.

Indeed, this is the big problem. Because of an unproven ideology, poor people must suffer, and they get no vote in the matter.

 

[RGCheek]

Well, that is not quite how it works, either.

If you say that B is true and I give proof that your facts or logic are wrong, what I have shown is that B is not necessarily true. I haven’t, necessarily, shown B to be false.

If I want to insist that B is false, then the burden IS on me to prove B is false, not merely to show that you do not have sufficient warrant for claiming B to be true.

But if I present no evidence that is valid, such as there is a consensus among all fifth grade penguins that B is true, then how do you prove B wrong, or might be wrong?

And that is what is going on here; the arguments for Climate Change get shot down one at a time and the response is typically either in the category of ‘the Oceans ate my homework’ or ‘all scientists agree this is true’. None of which is valid logic or science.

Once the responses to the arguments are made, there is no ‘proving’ anything, only disproving based on what arguments are presented.

Of course we could just make up straw men and shoot them down all day.

There is an obligation to prove the negative if you want to show the negative to be true.

Which is only possible if the is a sound argument for the positive. You cant prove a negative; you can only disprove a positive assertion. That assumes that there is something to disprove in the first place.

If you merely want to show the affirmative is not necessarily true then it is sufficient to debunk the case for the affirmative - but that isn’t what you seem to be claiming.

OK, let us assert that invisible unicorns prance through the forests of Yellowstone Park.

All the fifth graders at Jackson Grade School agree that this is true.

Prove that wrong.

 

[RGCheek]

Word games. He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology. He’s not even a scientist. Has done no active research, is not published in any peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the subject (climate change). Not a credible source.

No less credible than most AGW advocates who are NOT scientists of that specialization.

I’m still siding with the 97% of the real researchers.

Prove that?

 

[NeedsMercy]

I’m not playing word games to whomever you are referring! One can not know.

He founded the weather channel, he’s not funded by institutions, the government. He has just as much cred if not more than many of those paid researchers whose salary may depend on their findings.

What are the credentials to say who is a Scientists? I’m sure some impressive figures were not degreed scientists who gave to mankind.

He’s a Meteorologist, who cares if he doesn’t have a degree in it if this is so.

You categorically stated he was not a Meteorologist, it’s shown he is, that was a false statement.

He doesn’t have to live up to the standards of “Oh, I got a degree in it, so that makes me better than everyone else.”

He may well be a real Renaissance Man. I’ll take that as being sufficient.

Well, good, he’s a renaissance man. If that’s your criteria, the next time you need a doctor, maybe you can call him.

 

[NeedsMercy]

No less credible than most AGW advocates who are NOT scientists of that specialization.

Prove that?

You want me to prove that I’m siding with the 97%?

 

[Ender]

I’m still siding with the 97% of the real researchers.

There is no side supported by 97% of real researchers, no matter how that term is defined. I don’t think you realize how totally misleading this assertion really is.

Ender

 

[RGCheek]

The world is warming. That is a fact.

No it is not a fact at all and for the last 18 years even most AGW advocates agree whatever warming there is of the atmosphere has taken a pause.

The debate is why the warming has stopped, not if it has stopped.

 

[NeedsMercy]

There is no side supported by 97% of real researchers, no matter how that term is defined. I don’t think you realize how totally misleading this assertion really is.

Ender

Sorry, but you are not correct. And it’s not an assertion, but a fact.

“Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.” The “experts” referred to here are those scientists actively publishing articles on climate change in scholarly journals. Skeptical Science conducted a survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers and found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

 

[NeedsMercy]

No it is not a fact at all and for the last 18 years even most AGW advocates agree whatever warming there is of the atmosphere has taken a pause.

The debate is why the warming has stopped, not if it has stopped.

I assume that you are speaking about surface temperatures.

It is incorrect to say that temperatures have not increased since 1998, the year usually cited in such arguments. Global warming is still happening when one considers temperature variations in the oceans, and not just between the land masses and the atmosphere. The important thing in reviewing such data is long term trends, not just looking at data from one given 18 yr period.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

 

[Tomdstone]

He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology. He’s not even a scientist. Has done no active research, is not published in any peer-reviewed scholarly journals on the subject (climate change).

Mr. John Coleman has a degree in journalism.
Here is an official list of American Meteorology Certified Broadcast Meteorologists
ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofcbm.cfm
Mr. John Coleman is not on this list.
He is also not on the list of those who have received the American Meteorology television seal.
ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listoftv.cfm
Conclusion: Mr. John Coleman is a weather announcer with a degree in journalism but he has not been certified as a meteorologist by the American Meteorology Society.

 

[Path_Finder]

Mr. John Coleman has a degree in journalism.
Here is an official list of American Meteorology Certified Broadcast Meteorologists
ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofcbm.cfm
Mr. John Coleman is not on this list.
He is also not on the list of those who have received the American Meteorology television seal.
ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listoftv.cfm
Conclusion: Mr. John Coleman is a weather announcer with a degree in journalism but he has not been certified as a meteorologist by the American Meteorology Society.

John Coleman is 80 years old, thus, I certainly don’t know if there were “Meteorology” degrees back when he went to school. So he’s not on the TV seal, he certainly has pioneered the industry, being cofounder of the Weather Channel.

He was the Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year, American Meteorological Society, 1983.

Solid credential there.

It appears discriminatory to attack him for not having a degree in Meteorology when we don’t know if that was widely often back when he went to schoo.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

No it is not a fact at all and for the last 18 years even most AGW advocates agree whatever warming there is of the atmosphere has taken a pause.

The debate is why the warming has stopped, not if it has stopped.

the pause is only recorded in the surface temperatures. Over 90% of the warming goes into the oceans and less than 3% actually warms the atmosphere. The missing heat is likely related to heat going into the oceans from increased trade winds in the western pacific during a negative PDO cycle.

Weather is what happens today or this week. Climate science looks at long term changes spanning years and decades. This is why a meteorologist isn’t necessarily an expert in climate science which is a distinct scientific field.

 

[RGCheek]

the pause is only recorded in the surface temperatures. Over 90% of the warming goes into the oceans and less than 3% actually warms the atmosphere. The missing heat is likely related to heat going into the oceans from increased trade winds in the western pacific during a negative PDO cycle.

Weather is what happens today or this week. Climate science looks at long term changes spanning years and decades. This is why a meteorologist isn’t necessarily an expert in climate science which is a distinct scientific field.

OK, where is the PROOF, not theory, that the oceans are warming?

 

[Path_Finder]

Sorry, but you are not correct. And it’s not an assertion, but a fact.

“Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.” The “experts” referred to here are those scientists actively publishing articles on climate change in scholarly journals. Skeptical Science conducted a survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers and found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

It’s interesting that other 97% figures have been debunked. Now we are to take Skeptical Science’s survey.

“The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois,” he wrote in a 2010 article. “The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97 percent figure that pundits now tout.”

This rejoinder to the 97 percent figure concerning the so-called “scientific consensus” is not typically reported as it would complicate the political agenda attached to global warming alarmism. But there is a new 97 percent number concerning the latest U.N. report that goes unmentioned. John Droz, a physicist and mathematician, who heads up the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), has just released an independent study that shows 97 percent of the computer models attached to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) overestimate the amount of carbon dioxide induced warming. Droz’s study probes into the draft version of the U.N.’s Fifth Assessment, which was released in September.

“How come we don’t see the media publicizing this 97 percent consensus?” he asks. “In light of these realities, for the IPCC to claim that they now have an even higher confidence in their conclusions, is simply political posturing to justify their existence. The bottom line is that there is an extraordinarily large amount of understanding of this issue that we simply do not have. To spend tens of trillions of dollars to ‘fix’ something we don’t understand is insanity.”

• See more at: newsbusters.org/blogs/kevin-mooney/2013/11/18/97-percent-figure-global-warming-media-wont-tell-you-about#sthash.xUYQDtLe.dpuf

Well, look who else has used the 97% figure, President Obama!

The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions

wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/

Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.