jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (9 posts)

science:: climate change

  1. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    Founder of the Weather Channel, a former Weatherman speaks on Global Warming.


    what happened to our science section on hubpages forums?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The found of the Weather Channel - he's got a journalism degree.  He's not a climatologist.  He's not even a meteorologist:

      "Mr. Coleman is not currently on the American Meteorological Society's list of Certified Broadcast Meteorologists."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Colem … rcaster%29

      1. SparklingJewel profile image76
        SparklingJewelposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        the basic logic of what he is saying sounds plausible...

        he may not be "currently" on the list because he is retired...? and not re-certified...?

  2. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 8 years ago

    I will take a look at the video. 

    I am not a climatologist either, of course. 

    But I have researched the science of climate change pretty deeply for the past few years, and found the skeptics' arguments lacking.

    Most of the actual science that is being done shows warming and a link to CO2.  The skeptics tend to be armchair climatologists, lawyers, economists, physicists, anything but actual working climatologists. 

    I'll give it a shot, but I'm not too hopeful.  I bet he says something about the sun and about water vapor and natural climate processes...

  3. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    did you do the research from all sides' perspectives?
    they have quoted many actual life time scientists, there are thousands that disagree with Al Gore

    That's the main problem I continue to see from all sides...refutation of anyone else's information that they haven't even given serious attention too; be it politics, science, theology, or you name it...

    we humans are a stubborn lot smile and have a natural inclination to be divisive and disconcerting...we have to be correct...it's a pride issue  smile

    I do my best not to fall for that anymore...smile

  4. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    Climate change may be a real threat, and so is trying to breathe car and coal fume!

    If we do not clean up the environment are we going to wind up not even being able to breath the air,

  5. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 8 years ago

    I think the issue of climate change as defined by Gore and promoted by him is not the problem...its the pollution of air,  water, low quality and GM foods and the overabundance of our energy waves that are the problems creating illness in people.

    Gore and his ilk just want world government and the money to line their pockets and control the people to get what they want...fear mongering is not healthy...

    I haven't read one conservative rendition (I only read the none wacky ones, more moderate in my opinion) that refutes we need to clean up our lives and planet...what they do want is less not more government control of their earnings, etc...

  6. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 8 years ago

    I watched the video.  About what I expected. 

    Coleman refers to himself as a TV meteorologist.  As far as I can tell his only degree is in journalism.  The American Society of Meteorologists doesn't have him listed here:

    http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/ … tofcbm.cfm

    you can see that they maintain dead, retired, and nonrenewed certifications on this list as well. 

    He says that CO2 has always been in the atmosphere.  This is true. It's why the earth is not in a permanent ice age. 

    He shows a graph of some previous temperature changes to illustrate that climate changes naturally.  One thing he leaves out?  CO2, for 15 million years, has been cycled between 150 and 250 parts per million (ppm).  There is now 380 ppm in the atmosphere from fossil fuels. 

    Check out my hub on global warming and natural cycles:

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming- … ral-Cycles

    He shows a graph of more recent temperatures.  Not sure where he got that but it looks quite different from what paleoclimatologists have agreed upon as past temperature changes. 

    He says that computer models are all the evidence we have for global warming.  False.

    He shows a misleading graph of temperatures in the past decade to show that temperatures have cooled.  If you start in 1998, it looks like temperatures have cooled - but if you go back to the 1900s you can see that temperatures are higher now than they have been in the past 150 years.

    He says that there is more arctic ice now than there was last year?  True. But we are still at a lower point than we have seen in the past 30 years. 

    He shows a graph of temperature with sunspot activity (how did I know he was going to do that?).  Surprise surprise - the temperatures he uses are misleading.  I'm not sure but it looks like US surface temperatures, not global temperatures.  If you take global temperatures and compare them to sunspot activity you'll see a radical departure in the last 3 decades.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image76
      SparklingJewelposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      yes, you definitely have a keen interest in the whole climate change thing...more power to ya on that one smile I have not such keen interest in learning to be a scientist, all of which still have a human mind that determines what he thinks, as well as determines how he interprets his science.

      Like I said before...my main concern is that elists try to create world government to control people and their money...that is my main concern. Al Gore has proven he has the desire to have those things come to fruition.

      It could be a good thing for you to offer your perspectives to the scientists that are so stuck in their own mindsets and politics(being bought off) that they can't see for sure what their science (of theories, which is what science is supposed to be grounded in) says that they are looking at. smile