John Coleman
Rebuttal to John Coleman’s The Great Glbal Warming Scam
By John P. Reisman – Original Post: May 11, 2008
Updates notated with dates – Logic headings added in July 2021
The founder of the Weather Channel has researched whether or not global warming is human caused. He has determined it is not.
Well, there’s an old joke that goes like this: “You know why the call them weathermen? … They don’t know whether it’ll rain or not.”
This assessment applies Socratic logic and scientific methodological application of evidence based statements with appropriately high confidence levels based on scientific assessments that have survived peer response.
John Coleman: Reported founder of ‘The Weather Channel’ and weather-caster at KUSI 51 in San Diego, CA
Learn more about the science and myths of this global warming event:
Preface: To all concerned,
It is not my intention to impugn the integrity of Mr. John Coleman. For his own reasons he has taken a stand on a highly controversial issue, that seems to be based on his beliefs rather than the relevant science on the subject of climate.
However, it is my intention to impugn the integrity of his argument. It is grossly misleading and confusing many people. There is a big difference between weather and climate. Weather is short term, and studied largely by meteorologists. Climate is long term and studied largely by climatologists.
This I believe is an important distinction to the debate, as it gives proper perspective to the general understanding one group may have vs. the other.
We should all be concerned with getting to the truth of all matters of importance. Each of us needs to be humble enough to admit when we make mistakes. And we should be responsible for the stands we take on issues of import to the common good.
In the following materials
I examine Mr. Coleman’s arguments and apply reason to the science as well as reference to the relevance of the data and the arguments. It is my hope that this helps not only Mr. Coleman understand the bigger picture of climate vs. meteorology, but that it helps all that are confused by the disinformation that is being bandied about as fact to undermine the relevant understanding.
The question is about the truth of the data and what it means pertaining to climate… And the truth is all that matters.
While I have done a fair amount of research on the arguments, I must admit I can be wrong as well, at times, in any assertions I have made. It is best that anyone reading this article examine the evidence and relevant understanding in order to get closer to the truth of the matter at hand. It certainly involves all of us, one way or another.
John P. Reisman
Note: All rebuttal comments (indented) and reference links are indented from left margin.
NASA: The difference between weather and climate.
Compare the following two web sites thoroughly and see which one better represents the science on the matter of global warming. On one of the following sites, scientists that work with the data regularly say the evidence shows global warming is human caused/influenced.
On the other site, only people that believe, this global warming event is a natural cycle, post their beliefs without consideration of the relevant, and up to date, knowledge on the matter of the climate on Earth. See if you can spot the difference.
Note: The most common means of misrepresenting the science is to use facts out of context. [Jul. 23, 2021]
But remember this, your thoughts about the science are not what determines the truth of the science. It is the evidence that tells us what is indicated when place in relevant context. [Jul. 23, 2021]
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 13)
IS GLOBAL WARMING MELTING THE ARCTIC ICE CAP?
By John Coleman
Written about December 8, 2007
The alarming headlines were everywhere during the late summer and early fall:
The Melting Arctic Melting Ice Displaces Walruses In The Russian Arctic Ice Melt Causing Death of Polar Bears And there were the pictures of polar bears stranded on sheets of floating ice, accounts of their deaths “as a result of Global Warming” and even a documentary about the plight of the polar bears.
The emotional appeal was enormous.
And the stories on the ice melt made it seem certain that the chart in Al Gore’s book and movie must be accurate.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 14)
Arctic sea-ice extent as depicted by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. (Source: An Inconvenient Truth, p. 143) The constant urgent message is that Global Warming is happening now, and as the Arctic ice cap melts the climate disaster is beginning to unfold before our eyes. We were told that the ice is melting fast; it has melted far beyond anyone’s predictions; at this rate the ice will all be melted by 2020. And we are told it is all a result of Global Warming; the result of our use of fossil fuels and their atmospheric by-product Carbon Dioxide.
[False Claims]
Nowhere in Al Gores movie does he state that the ice will all be melted by 2020. The ice is melting fast and is melting outside of the natural cycle.
How can I possibly convince you it is not true; that none of it is really true? I will try. First, of all, may I ask you if you know what is the status of the Arctic ice cap at this moment? Is it continuing to melt away? Is it all most all gone? No, no.
[False Claim]
Coleman clearly does not know the difference between ice extent and ice mass loss. At the time of Coleman’s publication of the ‘global warming scam’ claims, the ice mass had already dropped about 80%. Ice extent is only surface ice.
CLICK HERE TO SEE ICE MASS LOSS
After the long Arctic “Day” of 4,464 hours of constant sunshine at the North Pole, the long winter night is now settling in. Soon the Sun will totally disappear at the North Pole for 4,296 hours of darkness. So now the Arctic is freezing up . Ice is forming fast again.
[Facts Out of Context]
According to Walt Meier, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Denver, Colorado, regarding the graph below from the Canadian Ice Service web site:
“There are several things wrong with his perspective:
The graph he is using is for the Canadian Arctic only.
Most of the Canadian Arctic is always covered by ice in winter (e.g., Hudson Bay). Thus it’s hard to have much of an anomaly, high or low, during winter. The only place ice extent can vary is in Davis Strait and the Saint Lawrence region and even there, the variability is limited.
Even in terms of the entire Arctic, he doesn’t understand what is going on – or he is being deliberately misleading. In winter, the Arctic grows ice – it’s cold, it’s dark, things freeze. So it’s no surprise that the ice recovers and it tends to recover to near the same amount. The summer trends the more important trends because
-
-
that defines the more permanent, perennial ice, that is thicker and is an indicator of the overall health of the Arctic sea ice,
-
summer is where the albedo effect of the ice comes into play and the loss of ice significantly changes the amount of energy absorbed in the system.”
-
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 15)
The chart above from the Canadian government Ice Service depicts the extend of ice coverage in the Arctic waters north of Canada on a week-to-week basis from May to late November in 2007. The red line is all time average ice cover. As you can see the melt this season significantly exceeded the “normal”, but as you can al see, by late November the ice cover had returned to normal.
Typical of the media frenzy about Global Warming the news was full of stories about the melt all summer but as the ice began to return to normal the news coverage ended. The general public is left with the impression that the Arctic is continuing to melt and climate change Armageddon is upon us.
[False Claim]
Repeat: Coleman clearly does not know the difference between ice extent and ice mass loss. At the time of Coleman’s publication of the ‘global warming scam’ claims, the ice mass had already dropped about 80%. Ice extent is only surface ice.
CLICK HERE TO SEE ICE MASS LOSS
The red line is not the all time average ice cover. It certainly does not reflect the average ice cover for the past 100,000 years, which would then include the last ice age. He seems to be using drama for effect, but it is incorrect.
What Mr. Coleman is not telling you is that on the same page web page that contains this chart (The Canadian Ice Service), there is a report in pdf form that states, regarding the ice melt rate:
“The new record came a full month before the historic summer minimum typically occurs. There is still a month or more of melt likely this year. It is therefore almost certain that the previous 2005 record will be annihilated by the final 2007 annual minima closer to the end of this summer. In previous record sea ice minima years, ice area anomalies were confined to certain sectors (N. Atlantic, Beaufort/Bering Sea, etc.).
The character of 2007’s sea ice melt is unique in that it is dramatic and covers the entire Arctic sector. Atlantic, Pacific and even the central Arctic sectors are showing large negative sea ice area anomalies.”
[Context is Key]
There are several things wrong here. Not with the chart but with how Mr. Coleman is using the chart.
1. It is a chart of 2007 ice. So it does not show you the long term trend.
2. The chart does not represent the average arctic ice. This chart only represents the 2007 ice compared to past average ice in the straight between Canada and Greenland. Also, this chart does NOT represent the polar ice cap.
3. Other mistakes that Mr. Coleman makes include the following. He states that this graph “depicts the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic waters north of Canada”. That is not correct, this graph represents the ice north-east of Canada between Canada and Greenland.
4. This is not an ice extent chart. It is an ice coverage chart. That means only surface ice and does not include perennial ice and ice thickness as an ice extent chart does include. There is a difference between ice coverage and ice extent.
The simple meteorological facts are that the melt happens every year. In the spring and summer some of the ice melts and in the fall and winter it reforms again. This year, however, more ice melted than had ever melted since the pole has been under satellite observation. But that satellite surveillance only began around 1976.
[Facts Out of Context]
Melting does happen every year but the melt rates due to the increased climate forcing is exceeding natural cycle tendencies for current conditions on a massive scale as it pertains to ice extent loss.
While we didn’t have satellites to record it, we know from historical accounts that more of the ice of the Arctic melted on at least two previous occasions. One of those is medieval warm period when much of Greenland was ice-free and the Vikings settled there and established successful farms.
[False Claim]
Incorrect, “much of Greenland was” not “ice free”, just a slightly larger portion around the southern tip of Greenland and some edge melting moving upwards north.
But, as that warm era ended, the ice spread again to the coast of Greenland and the farms were abandoned. There is also evidence of a dramatic warm period on the northern perimeter of Canada, where as the ice retreated during a recent summer, an array of hundreds of large tree stumps was revealed.
Investigation indicated that a forest of giant redwoods once stood there. Neither of these Arctic warm spells and the ice melt of those ancient times can be attributed to mankind and our fossil fuels. They stand as solid evidence that natural climate change has continued on planet Earth throughout its history.
[False Assertion]
[Facts Out of Context]
Since we are in a negative forcing phase of the natural cycle and a positive forcing of human GHG output current positive outweighs the negative. The recent Canada melt can be attributed to human caused climate change; not the MWP or older warming events that occurred in the natural cycle with no human influence.
Since we are in a negative forcing phase of natural cycle and a positive forcing of human GHG output current positive outweighs the negative.
A report published online by World Climate Report for the science and public policity institute says there exist historic observations, as well as currently active research efforts, that strongly indicate that there was a large sea-ice extent decline from about the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s. Writing in 1953, arctic researcher Hans Ahlmann noted that “The extent of drift ice in Arctic waters has also diminished considerably in the last decades.
According to information received in the U.S.S.R. in 1945, the area of drift ice in the Russian sector of the Arctic was reduced by no less than 1,000,000 square kilometers between 1924 and 1944.”
[Specious claims by a special interest lobby group.]
The World Climate Report (website) is funded by the Western Fuels Association (website) which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and have funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels.
World Climate Report Staff:
Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels
Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr.
Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis
Again no citation on his data unfortunately. However, that was a period of warming just prior to the industrial surge of atmospheric sulfates, so if the ice did diminish at that time, it would likely be attributed to human caused global warming.
It is clear that Al Gore’s Arctic Ice chart, like the infamous hockey stick temperature chart, is flagrantly inaccurate.
[False Claim/Assertion]
It is only clear that Mr. Coleman seems to be ignoring the relevant science and ‘believing’ narrowly scoped views that do not include the relevant science on the issue.
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 16)
Here is the bottom line: This past summer’s Arctic ice melt was neither unique nor unprecedented.
[False Claim/Assertion]
[Argumentum ad Vericunduim Lapidem]
Mr. Coleman is incorrect. According to the NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center:
1 October 2007
Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1).
At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).
[Below–Again Coleman Confuses Short & Long Term]
And as the for the reason for this year’s Arctic ice melt, NASA and university scientists have detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that varies on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
While the causes of the influx of warm water will require further study, the latest observations from a research project underway in the Arctic suggest that the Arctic Ocean is moving toward a warmer state, a change that could have global implications. But any link with mankind’s activities remains unproven.
[False Assertion]
The relevant natural cycles are all in cooling mode. He is possibly confusing the 11.1 year solar cycle with long term natural cycles (Milankovitch Cycles). Generally his argument seems to be confusing multiple issues with little clarification of what he means or the specific cycles he may or may not be referring to. This is the difference between weathermen and climatologists. Weathermen think short term and climatologists think long term.
NASA:
The difference between weather and climate.
Mr. Coleman may be a good weatherman, but his knowledge of scientific process and climatology seems lacking in most all his assertions. According to the natural cycles of earth climate we are supposed to be cooling. We are not.
The only variable that is quantifiable that can explain the warming is additional greenhouse gases due to industrial processes. The output of the greenhouse gases are well measured; and those gases are known to have a positive forcing component. Therefore, we have high confidence that these additional greenhouse gases in the system are increasing the global temperature.
[The Arctic Warming Signature]
The warming of the Arctic ocean is contrary to the natural cycle and the only reasonable explanation is additional greenhouse added to the climate system due to industrial output.
This brings up Ockham’s Razor. Which states that entities should not be multiplied more than necessary; And Einsteins antithesis, “things should be made as simple as possible but not any simpler.”
By the way, Global Warming doomsdayers have tried to pretend the medieval warm period never happened. And when faced with the proof that it did occur, they dismiss it as “just a regional anomaly.”
[Misleading Assertion]
The MWP is better explained by the Arctic Amplification effect whereas northern hemisphere warming is amplified due to faster thermal response to climate forcing due to greater land mass and less ocean mass; compared to the southern hemisphere which is largely water (which has a slower thermal inertial response to climate forcings).
My retort to them is that this season’s Arctic melt could also be dismissed as a regional anomaly. After all, at the same time the Arctic was melting, the Antarctic Ice Cap at the South Pole was setting a record for the greatest extent of polar ice in observed history and at the same time South America and much of the Southern Hemisphere was experiencing the coldest and longest winter in at least 50 years.
[False Assertions]
[Facts Out of Context]
NASA climate models predicted that with global warming you would get more snow/ice buildup in the Antarctic region while the Arctic would be losing ice. This unfortunately confirms the validity of the Global Climate Models which means we are warming and it is human caused.
Dept. of Energy: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: As climate changes, more rain and snow could increase U.S. crop damage
NASA/GISS Link: “The computer model simulations of ocean and atmosphere processes used in this study imply a similar phenomenon has the potential to occur in the future due to freshwater additions from increased rain and snow caused by global climate change.”
Reports of regional cold spells do not represent global mean temperature. Also short term variability does not override long term trends.
On a global basis, 2007 is falling far short of the doomsayer’s prediction that it will be the warmest year ever. It is now on track as of the December 1st to rank no higher that sixth.
[Reductio ad Absurdum]
[Facts Out of Context]
[False Claim]
2007 tied for second warmest year on record. Coleman would have you believe that normal year to year variation is more important than long term climate trends. That is a ridiculous argument.
Satellite composite image of Antarctica, showing the largest know ice cap ever at Earth’s South Pole And now about the Polar Bears, those stories and the “documentary” film about the death of a polar bear are not factual. Storms and an encounter with Walruses actually caused those deaths.
[Facts Out of Context]
IT was modeled and expected that Antarctica wold initially gain in snow and ice mass due to global warming. The warming of the oceans adds water vapor to the atmosphere. In cold regions that water vapor precipitates as snow. The Southern hemisphere warms slower than the Northern hemisphere because it is mostly water. The Northern hemisphere has more land. Thus global warming explains the increase in snow/ice mass in Antartica.
And here are the actual facts: Timesonline columnist James Delingpole reports that in 1950 there were about 5,000 polar bears and that now there are 25,000. It is reported that of the eleven tribes of polar bears tracked in North America, nine are increasing in number, and the other two are stable.
[Facts Out of Context]
The numbers need to be verified but an educated guess would possibly reveal that the increase in numbers was due to conservation efforts and management and the stories of decrease are likely centered around the ice loss which is likely already decreasing the increased number of polar bears.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 17)
There are thousands of healthy polar bears prowling the Arctic at this moment.
[Non Sequitur Facts Out of Context]
The fact that “There are thousands of healthy polar bears prowling the Arctic at this moment” does not diminish the threat to the polar bear population due to global warming now, or in the future.
The Arctic Ice melt media blitz in the late summer of 2007 was a classic example of how the media and environmentalists are virtually promoting Global Warming with religious zealotry. When the predicted Global Warming enhanced hurricane season failed to materialize, they turned their attention to the North Pole.
[Argumentum ad Passiones (Appeal to Emotions Argument)]
[Facts Out of Context]
Although he is apparently guilty of that which he accuses others of. Mr. Coleman makes a semi-valid point here. People do apply “religious zealotry” in arguments at times. Coleman is clearly applying “religious zealotry” in his arguments.
He stated previously that this is about science and not belief. However he has repeatedly stated he ‘believes’ that …; and now he refers to “how the media and environmentalists are virtually promoting Global Warming with religious zealotry”. In some cases he may be right, but that has nothing to do with the science of global warming.
This is a problem on both sides but mainly due to the complexity of the problem. It is very difficult for non scientists to understand the actual science of climate let along anthropogenic caused global warming.
2007 was a La Nina year yet the hurricane occurrence was still above normal.
NASA/GISS 2007 Summary
NCDC/NOAA Atlantic Hurricane Season: The recent average (1997-2006) seasonal hurricane activity in the North Atlantic basin is 14.4 named storms, 7.8 hurricanes and 3.6 major hurricanes. These values represent an increase over the average of the preceding 25 years (1972-1996) of 9.6 named storms, 5.4 hurricanes and 1.8 major hurricanes.
Here are some links utilized in researching this brief:
And as always I rely on the website where you will find a constant supply of papers by scientists who debunk global warming at: icecap.us/index.php
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
Coleman’s “religious zealotry” is why he relies on websites and articles that produce non-scientific unsound assertions and cartoon like graphics that mislead readers about the science of current global warming.
All the while, the cornerstone of the Global Warming doomsdayer’s case for a global climate disaster, computer model that predicts runaway Global Warming as result of “Carbon Dioxide Forcing” is crumbling. I will explain that in my next brief.
[Actually, he won’t “explain” it.]
While Mr. Coleman wants you to go to non scientific, special interest and news web sites, I would suggest you go to web sites dedicated to the science from government and climatologists that do science for a living, rather than report on what they think. Also, it would be more advantageous to study reports from climatologists if you are studying climate.
- NASA World Book: Global Warming
- NASA Earth Observatory: Global Warming
- Goddard Institute for Space Studies
- Goddard Space Flight Center
- GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
- NASA GSFC: Learn more about Global Warming
- NASA Earth Observatory: Q & A
- Real Climate: Where the arguments live.
If you need a weather report, just turn on the the news. If you want to learn about climate, then look for climatology, not meteorology.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 18)
CARBON DIOXIDE “FORCING” NOT REAL!
The Man-Made Global Warming Crisis CANCELLED!
By John Coleman
Written about December 16, 2007
There is no Global Warming taking place at this time. The solar warming of the last few decades has ended and now the Earth is cooling. But the Global Warming doomsayers continue to grab headlines with their International Meetings, Nobel Peace Prize and predictions of disastrous consequences from “CO2forcing.”
[False Claims, Argumentum ad Vericundium Lapidem]
Note that Global temperatures have continued to rise since Coleman made his “Earth is cooling” claim:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Source: NASA/GISS
Mr. Coleman seems to be confusing multiple issues, but since he has not cited his argument, it is impossible to know what he is confusing.
Mr Coleman is likely referring to the 11.1 year solar cycle and it has been cooling recently. It is going back into warming mode at this time.
Since the reasonably well understood solar cycle is 11.1 years it is unclear was he means by the solar warming of the last few decades? He may be referring to a report from NASA that indicated a variance of 4/100ths of a degree fahrenheit.
He claims, “There is no Global Warming taking place at this time.” This is likely an argument based on the the data points of global mean temperature since 1998. When you ignore the long term trend, there are multiple areas where you can claim the earth is cooling. Unfortunately that is not how you read a long term trend.
NASA/GISS 2007 Summary
The overall trend remains upwardly biased in the trend analysis and the solar cycle is now going back into a warming phase. That combined with the El Nino/La Nina oscillation soon returning to El Nino will cause the trend to bias upward on the short term time scale as well.
It all started with this:
The late Dr. Charles David Keeling, when a professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, was the first to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on a continuous basis. From ice core data it was determined that before the industrial era atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 280 parts per million (ppm).
Carbon dioxide has risen continuously since then, and the average value when Dr. Keeling started his measurements in 1958 was near 315 ppm. By the year 2000 it has risen to about 367 ppmv (that is 367 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air).
Spring 2008 = 385ppm. 2021 peak reading = 419ppm
Though much of this increase may simply be carbon dioxide degassing from warming oceans (much as you find with your cola as it warms), it is likely that some of this increase is a direct consequence of the use of fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas.
These fuels virtually powered the industrial revolution and are still the backbone of our modern civilization, providing the power to generate the electricity to cool our homes and offices, provide lights, television, radio and computers, power our cars and provide the heat to keep us from freezing in the winter.
[Non Sequitur, Inaccurate & Misleading]
It is hard to believe Mr. Coleman is comparing our current Co2 levels to Cola. Co2, coming out of an ice age, is released from the ocean sink and part of the natural cycle when coming out of an ice age.
What he seems to be forgetting is that we already came out of the ice age 18,000 years ago and now, in accord with the natural cycle we are supposed to be going back into an ice age. That means Co2 is not supposed to be going back into the ocean carbon sink, not releasing from it.
The cola analogy might have some validity if he placed the argument in a context and cited sources with context and relevance; but its relevance to current global warming would still fail because the only way to make the cola argument work is to put in in context of coming out of an ice age not going into one. Even then it’s still a weak argument.
Facts:
-
-
The forcing caused by greenhouse gases is measurable.
-
The amount of greenhouse gases is measurable.
-
The amount of industrial greenhouse gases is measurable.
-
The expected temperature increase of the forcing is measurable.
-
And the amount of warming matches the models and observations.
-
Either he is making this up or spending too much time reading the wrong information and possibly ignoring the relevant science in favor of his ‘belief’, or he just doesn’t know where to look?.
MORE FACTS
There is no doubt that the CO2 is from fossil sources, as isotope ratios show that the carbon has been less exposed to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs).
When protons from GCRs collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:
14N + p → 14C + n
This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.
scienceinschool.org – Rasmus Benestad
While scientists and engineers work to perfect the next generation of power sources, we still absolutely depend on fossil fuel to power our daily lives.
The Global Warming doomsayers say this increase in the CO2 in our atmosphere is producing a greenhouse effect that will result in runaway Global Warming, melting ice caps and glaciers, flooding the shorelines, destroying our crops and making our planet unlivable. They want us to give up on our modern standard living before new power sources can successfully replace fossil fuels to avoid Armageddon.
[Appeal to Emotions Argumentum ad Populum]
Here Coleman is appealing to his audience with the happy ending story. Simultaneously he appeals to fear with the take away argument.
The Northern ice cap is already melting along with glaciers around the world. has already begun. Anyone that reads the news knows these things are happening. While you can’t scientifically attach a single event to a climate trend, you can predict with reasonable certainty that such events will take place as the climate shifts into further warming. And don’t forget, Earth was supposed to be cooling now. Human CO2 emissions have interrupted the natural cycle.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 19)
When other scientists question how only 38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere can lead to such immediate, irreversible, disastrous consequences, they answer its because of “CO2 forcing”. It is exactly that, “CO2 forcing”, that these scientists have put into their climate models in the computers to produce the dire results.
[Argumetum ad Ignorantium]
Mr. Coleman clearly does not understand the relevance of those 38 molecules per 100k. If you remove those 38 molecules per 100k, Earth would be a frozen ball in space
I have read a dozen complicated research papers on “CO2 forcing”. They attempt to explain how the CO2 causes a chain of interactions with the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, water vapor, to more than double the greenhouse effect that occurs naturally. Without this multiplier, CO2 has no major impact on climate. Despite their efforts, their conclusions are less than convincing.
NASA: Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point
OSS Foundation Climate Forcing
And, now experts have come forward to totally dismiss “CO2 forcing”. At the United Nations Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change (UN IPCC) Conference in Bali in mid December, Lord Christopher Monckton, an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds, a former adviser to UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and presenter of the 90-minute climate movie Apocalypse?
NO, had a blunt message for conference participants. “Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants. “The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC” Monckton added.
[False Argument]
[Reductio ad Absurdum]
Monckton is not an expert in physics or climate science. Nor does he have any decent understanding of the complexity of human caused global warming. So whatever he said in Bali has little to no relevance to the science.
7 February 2007 WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand
To illustrate how inconsequential this argument is, if I said human caused global warming will make life on Earth great for humans in just ten years, should you ignore me, or should you believe me. Such arguments are simply absurd.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 20)
At that conference Australian scientist Dr. David Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims. Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies.
“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the proof the IPCC models are wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.”
[Argumentum ad Vericundium Lapidem]
[Argumentum ad Absurdum]
TO BE CLEAR: Evans claims evidence “carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming”. DAVID EVANS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. It is much more accurate to say there is no evidence showing CO2 sons not influence temperature.
“Peer response is more important than peer review.” The reality is one can push a paper into a low level peer reviewed journal, many of which are pay to publish journals. But there are levels of publishing. And the academic rigor of peer review is often more relaxed in low level publishing. That is the level that Colman seems to be referring to here.
Coleman provides Of course no evidence just assertions here; and then there is of course:
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
And lastly 5 years does not a trend make. Cherry picking segments within the natural variability proves noting other than the fact that limited views are often the products of limited minds. 98 was an unusually hot year due to the el Nino and 2007 was el Nina (cooling) so one would expect that. 2007 and into 2008 was also the bottom of the latest solar cycle which removed .3 W/m2 form the climate forcing. One would therefore expect to see a cooling trend during that period in the short term variability
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants. “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate,” Gray, who
[Argumentum ad Vericundium Lapidem]
David Gray’s arguments consisted of I say it isn’t so and my evidence is I say it isn’t so. Gray has not produced any evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claims and in fact the evidence showed he was wrong in his claims. In other words, he made a lot of comments on the IPCC reports, but they never amounted to much at all, other than him being able to claim he made a lot of comments.
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
GIlobal Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 21)
…shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. “All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,”
[Argumentum ad Absurdum Ridiculum Infinitum]
Think about this argument. He is claiming ALL the science is flawed. That means all the science and physics that have survived peer review and peer response is wrong going all the way back to 1824. This one person says all the science is wrong…. And remember this is only a claim.
NO EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED TO MAKE THE CLAIM; IT IS ONLY HIS WORD AGAINST THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS AND ABOUT TWO CENTURIES OF PHYSICS, DATA COLLECTION MODELING AND VERIFICATION. ALL? WITH NO EVIDENCE???
THAT’ IS A PRETTY LARGE PILE OF… WELL, IT’S A CLIAM WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
[Contest is Key]
This is a terrible context, the majority of scientific process fails to be perfectly sound as it is a process of modeling, testing, observing, over and over again. Confidence is built over time through verification and falsification. Adding what you learn to what came before you and building upon the knowledge and understanding through scientific method.
Claiming that science isn’t perfect and then saying no one should believe it is kind of like saying ‘the dinner tonight isn’t perfect, no one should eat it’.
And climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia reported that they have concluded a study that shows that observed patterns of temperature changes over the last thirty years are not in accord with what the greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natu factors. The say that climate change is natural and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission o greenhouse gases, such as CO2.
[Argumentum ad Vericundium Infinitum]
Once again claims without even links to any sort of proof of claim. No link to a high level science source of a paper that made it through peer review and peer response. NOTHING.
The natural factors (Milankovitch Cycles) all indicates we should be cooling, not warming.
Their results are in total conflict with the conclusions of the UN IPCC, however, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
What results?
This report is the work of Professor David H. Douglass (University of Rochester), Professor John R. Christy (University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and S. Fred Singer (University of Virginia).
Again, no citations, no links to source. Just vague assertions. So how can we look up this report? Coleman doesn’t even give us a name of a report? Why? I’d have to assume, based on my own knowledge of the science the either these papers were published in low level pay to publish journals, or they don’t exist.
Also, have their arguments been accepted by peer review and contrasted with the relevant science; and do those arguments successfully show that global warming is not human caused? Not possible at this point in the relevant understanding.
[WARNING: Below is yet another Red Herring]
Below–Coleman uses an old question that is already substatively answered. This false logic argument is also known as moving the goal posts. In this case Coleman pushes the goal posts backwards in time.
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
[Misleading]
Being a lead author on a paper is not as meaningful as being the lead author of a paper that survives peer response. Douglass’s arguments were weak. In fact, the next climate paper, in 2007, he did was rejected due to lack of substance.
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric…
The mistakes in the satellite data have been corrected and are now showing more significant agreement with the models and radiosonde data collection.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 22)
…trend values are 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
[Faulty Argument]
At the time of Coleman’s argument regarding the assertions of John Christy the satellite data Christy was referring to had already been shown to be faulty due to satellite degradation issues, which caused the satellite to produce false readings.
7 December 2006 Further comment on the Supreme Court briefs
11 August 2005 The tropical lapse rate quandary
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling. They are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.”
Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
[The real problem here is that S. Fred Singer lied to congress and the world.]
If we were actually following the natural cycle we should be in a cooling trend, not a warming trend.
Fred Singer unfortunately was a liar. He falsified Roger Revelle’s representation of the climate sensitivity. Revelle said a doubling of CO2 would produce a 1 to 3 Celsius response in warming. But Singer crossed that out and published and article with the falsified information. Singer was paid by the oil lobby to mislead the public and the government on the science and that is what he did.
30 January 2008 What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?
23 January 2008 The debate is just beginning — on the Cretaceous!
13 November 2007 BBC contrarian top 10
Here is a link to this excellent paper:
icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
[Paper demonstrated to be based on faulty data.]
The paper Colman linked to was unsubstantial and did not survive further evidence and review. In other words ‘Peer Response’ rendered it’s conclusions to be unworthy.
There is no reasonable evidence to support Mr. Coleman’s assertions regarding the claims of Fred Singer, regarding the science, the relevant understanding, or the consensus view.
There is no direct correlation or coincidence over observed time to indicate that it is “most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere”
Some studies indicates possible connections but when weighed against the larger scope of the data and relevant science on the matter, the correlation does not hold up:
[Context is Key]
10 March 2008 A Galactic glitch
4 October 2007 Cosmic rays don’t die so easily
9 March 2007 ‘Cosmoclimatology’ – tired old arguments in new clothes
19 May 2005 A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver
6 December 2004 Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
Now that we have seen proof that the infamous hockey stick chart was dead wrong, the warming trend of the 90’s has faded into a cooling trend, we know that CO2 forcing is a non-starter and the Arctic ice cap has returned to normal there is no evidence, no scientific case, no grounds for the continuing hype and frenzy in the media about Global Warming.
In 20 years, or sooner, there will be lots of red faces and a chorus of “I told you so” Much of my supporting research information can be obtained via: www.ICECAP.us
[Reductio ad Absurdum Ridiculum]
In no way, shape or form have we seen any “proof” the hockey stick is dead wrong. On the contrary the Hockey stick is much better described as dead right.
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
For perspective: A review of the experts on the icecap.us website revealed that while some of them are represented as climatologists their educational backgrounds are in other areas. The numbers based on a cursory review generally seem to be
– 2 in Climatology
– 14 in Meteorology
– 9 in physics
– 1 Administrator
– 1 Political science
– 1 in Geology
– 4 in Geography
– 1 in Earth Science
– 1 in Atmospheric Science
– 1 in Marine Biology
– 1 in Paleontology
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts
The members list seems to be largely populated by meteorologists.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 23)
2007: Global Warming Swept Planet Earth… Or Did It?
By John Coleman
Written about January 4, 2008
This is the 7th of series of briefs on Global Warming. Links to the previous briefs are at the end of this one. On January 4th 2007 the following story appeared on the British Broadcasting Company’s television and radio networks and was posted on the BBC website:
Be prepared for higher temperatures in 2007
By Jeremy Lovell
London – This year is set to be the hottest on record worldwide due to global warming and the El Nino weather phenomenon, Britain’s Meteorological Office said on Thursday.
“This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world,” said Met Office scientist Katie Hopkins.
[Coleman regularly uses ‘Facts Out of Context’]
That is likley the case here as well.
Note: this is from the BBC. Mr. Coleman wrote about it on Jan. 4, 2008. But he did not provide the date of the article in the BBC. If it was early 2007, it may have been before the shift to la nina.
We are still in la nina and were also in it in 2007, which produced a cooling force in the climate.
[Reports & Context]
– Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) [NOAA]
– Climate 2007 – Historical Perspective Report [NOAA]
– La Niña Arrives, Southern Drought Concerns Intensify [NOAA]
The world’s 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1994 in a temperature record dating back a century and a half, according to the United Nation’s weather agency.
Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.
They say this will cause melting at the polar ice caps, sea levels to rise and weather patterns to change bringing floods, famines and violent storms, putting millions of lives at risk.
Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said in October that urgent action on global warming was vital and that delay would multiply the cost by up to 20 times.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 24)
By December 13th the projections had been toned down considerably, but as this Associated Press report details the Global Warming media hype was rolling on:
WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s shaping up to be one of the warmest years on record.
The annual temperature for 2007 across the contiguous United States is expected to be near 54.3 degrees Fahrenheit — making the year the eighth warmest since records were first begun in 1895, according to preliminary date from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
Worldwide, temperatures were also in record territory. The global surface temperature for 2007 is on pace to be the fifth warmest since those records were first started in 1880, the report said.
[Argumentum ad Vericundium]
Again we see Coleman is referencing facts out of context to demonstrate his knowledge and understanding. But again he sues short term knowledge to set up another denial of global warming argument. And against, this is sophistry that misleads his audience.
The weather was particularly rough in the Southeast and West, which experienced serious drought conditions. More than three-quarters of the Southeast was in drought from midsummer into December, the report said.
The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration will update its data in early January to reflect the last few weeks of December.
In January the media will undoubtedly be filled with reports about how the signs of Global Warming were everywhere in 2007 as rising temperatures gripped the planet threatening our very way of life. However, the truth is, the Global Warming claims will be nothing more than that; claims.
Real, validated, peer-reviewed papers on global temperatures and any truly significant data that PROVES anything about Global Warming will be very difficult to produce. Consider this report from the Science Daily website:
[Strawman & Red Herring]
[Hypocritical Argument]
This is a red herring argument. By saying it is difficult to produce neglects the fact that the work has been produced. The straw-man here is ‘oh, (short-term predictability) it’s difficult in a big climate signals due to natural stochastic shift’, so it’s all BS and no one should pay attention to what ‘they’ are saying.
But Coleman continually uses short term ‘difficult to prove attribution’ data and claims it is absolute proof he is right. Thus, Coleman is a hypocrite as well.
A study about method of error correction that does not alter results in a statistically significant manner should/can not be used effectively to refute the confidence in the data as known and understood.
[Point of fact…]
…the signs of global warming are significant, measurable and observable. Mr. Coleman has it backwards. The forcing levels are known, and the contributing gases are known quantities. Mr. Coleman, and those that do not compare/examine ‘all’ the evidence in context are making unsubstantiated claims while saying that their claims are PROVEN based on insufficient evidence. THAT’S NUTS!!!
7 December 2007 Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress
Science Daily (Mar. 18, 2007) — Discussions on global warming often refer to global temperature. Yet the oncept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.
[Reductio ad Absurdum]
Andresen’s paper (Researchers Question Validity Of A ‘Global Temperature’) claimed it is impossible to have a global temperature: “the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility”. Point of fact, Andresen is completely, absolutely, entirely wrong. The opposite of his argument is true however. There is ALWAYS A GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. The only important question is how accurately are we measuring that temperature.
This claim is truly absurd. It would be the same as measuring the height of people in a country and stating that based on these measurements you can not get an average height for those measured even though the measurements are all done. And calculating and average or a mean is pretty darn easy mathematically speaking.
To achieve an average surface air temperature, or a global mean temperature, first establish a baseline for the measurements; and then weigh new data against the base line. A very involved process of data collection, but a simple process to understand.
[And lest we forget:]
25 March 2007 Does a Global Temperature Exist?
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature forsomething as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Andresen says. The complete report can be read at: www.sciencedaily.com
[Reductio ad Absurdum, again.]
This is, of course, a very strange statement coming from a scientist. Scientific method is all about measuring, observing, calculating, formulating hypothesis, developing theory, testing models and analysis to verify as reasonably as possible.
An averaged number is merely a representation to use as a benchmark to measure against, or represent. Such numbers are used all the time in science in all disciplines. Mr Andresen’s comment is either out of context or out of line with the reality of scientific methodology.
To achieve an average surface air temperature, or a global mean temperature, first establish a baseline for the measurements; and then weigh new data against the base line. A very involved process of data collection, but a simple process to understand.
SPECIAL NOTE:
This is a GREAT EXAMPLE of why I say peer response is more important that peer review. Because it is true that scientific garbage can get past peer review. I imagine that the publisher of this garbage was pressured by Andresen, McIntyre and others saying ‘oh you won’t publish anything that goes against your political socialist global warming theory. So, you have to publish our garbage or we will accuse of you political bias.
That’s how that works. And yup, that’s how garbage can get into peer reviewed publication. It’s wrong though, and the publishers did not support scientific rigor here. BECAUE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, on any given day, on any given second that there is ‘NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE’. There is ALWAYS a global temperature.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 25)
Bjarne Andresen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute
Also in December a new peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the upward trend in global temperature between 1980 and 2002. The analysis in the Journal of Geophysical Research concluded that the temperature manipulations for the years of so-called “steep rises” after 1980 are inadequate, and the [UN IPCC] graph is an exaggeration.
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
[Facts Out of Context]
What study? Where is the citation? What is the context. What is the relevance to the methodology?
While we don’t know what study Coleman is talking about. We can assume that he is most likely talking about a study that used cherry picked data start and stop points that changed the context of the argument.
Scientifically there are different ways to view this. As I tend to say, ‘context is key’. Both studies can be said to be correct with regard to the start and stop points in question. However, the more important point is which one is more contextually relevant to long term trends regarding our current global warming event.
As noted said previously garbage and bad context can get through peer review, But that is not what validates in in the long run. Peer response is more important than peer review.
Again, we don’t know what study Colman is talking about because he did not provide that in his claim, which by the way is inappropriate on his part. But, we can say, that if said study was a cherry pick to distract his audience form the bigger picture of the long term trend, then it is intellectually and scientifically dishonest.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research stated after review that:
Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyreand McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate.
They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’salleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded.
They first presented their detailed analysis at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.
McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).
29 May 2007 The weirdest millennium
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
Climatologist Dr. Ross McKitrick, one of the authors and an Associate Professor at the University of Guelph, believes that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made “false claims about the quality of its data.” McKitrick reports in this new, peer-reviewed…
[Reductio ad absurdum]
[Here, Coleman is making a false claim about a guy that is also making a false claim using facts out of context from a statistically insignificant report claiming the temperatures reading was wrong. (by a whopping two to three one hundredths of a degree)]
Mr. Coleman states Dr. Ross McKitrick is a climatologist.
Dr. Ross McKitrick is not a climatologist. He is an economist. He teaches at the University of Guelepf and is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute (wiki) which is a special interest group: The Fraser Institute measures and studies the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on individuals and society. Our peer-reviewed research is distributed around the world and has contributed to increased understanding of how economic policy affects people.
3 February 2007 Fraser Institute fires off a damp squib
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 26)
…study that data contamination problems “account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980.” Here is a link to this report:
www.agu.org/2007…/2007JD008465.shtml
Dr. Ross McKitrick
Data contamination problems have already been compensated for in the NASA models. This argument goes nowhere important.
Errors and anomalies are meted out through models that eliminate bad data.
6 December 2004 The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island
2 July 2007 No man is an (Urban Heat) Island
And, that’s not all In August of 2007 Stephen McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org revealed that he had discovered a data error in NASA temperature calculations. After accounting for the error , NASA recalculated and made 1934, not the previously hyped 1998, as the hottest in history (since records began). Revised data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the were in the 1930’s while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade.
[Facts Out of Context]
Incorrect. he is probably referring to US data not GMT. But of course he did note state or cite.
Stephen McIntyre
Again, he is inferring that regional temperatures represent global temperatures, which they don’t.
Which error, this is not abnormal and errors are always corrected. But how much variance is altered after the correction. That is not pointed out here or cited. What is his reference?
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 27)
All of this research has made it clear that something as seemingly simple as determining the average surface temperature of Earth during a year is, in fact, almost insurmountably complicated. In fact, simply determining accurately the temperature of the air at any point is a task that requires some significant scientific attention to detail.
[Facts Out of Context]
Right, probably why there are trillions of bits of data collected and analyzed by thousands of scientists.
If Mr. Coleman really believes this, and being that he is a weatherman at KUSI 51 in San Diego, how can he report the daily temperatures in his daily weather reports. By his own logic he is explaining that he is wrong every single day “at any point”. Or would he concede that what he really does is report the average estimated temperature based on the observed data filtered through the proxy models that weathermen use on a daily basis?
It is complicated. But it is also simple. The reasonable way to state this is that based on models and observations, climatologists are able to state with reasonable confidence that the GMT is a measured, observed quantity based on the collection means available. It does a good job of getting close and does have an error variance. But so do Mr. Coleman’s daily weather reports, yet they are likely reasonably accurate.
NASA:
The difference between weather and climate.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts has found that the National Climate Data Center’s global observing network, the heart and soul of surface weather measurement, is, in his words “a disaster”. He reports urbanization has left many sites in unsuitable locations such as on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills!
He says that as a result the data and approach taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. Watts contends that if the global data were properly adjusted for urbanization and station siting, and land use change issues were addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises and falls with much less of any background trend. Here is a typical pictures of a weather observation station that is poorly sited.
[Argumentum ad Absurdum Lapidem]
First, the word disaster is not a scientific unit of measure. Secondly, just because a notorious climate confusionist who makes money from climate denialism is saying something, does not make it true.
Errors and anomalies are meted out through models that eliminate bad data. This is well known by those that do the analysis but not well known by others that have not checked.
6 December 2004 The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island
2 July 2007 No man is an (Urban Heat) Island
Marysville, California weather station Watts is leading a national campaign to document the siting of every weather station in the United States. You can see the results and join his survey team if you would like at www.surfacestations.org
Again, anomalous readings are filtered out in the data assessment (see above).
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 28)
Anthony Watts
The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. At that time some researchers where already touting the Global Warming crisis. After all this time and the hype and scary claims of how uncontrollable warming is destroying our way of life, I have to ask as we move into 2008, where is this runaway Global Warming?
Even if we believe the NASA chart above, the warm-up since 1980 has been about half a degree. Yes, we may have experienced some warm years in late 20th century (the peak of the last solar cycle) but since then the years seem to have been trending cooler, despite the various claims of the Global Warming doomsayers.
[Facts Out of Context]
Mr. Coleman clearly does not understand the time scales involved here. The cooling trend is a short term calculation and influenced by both natural and human caused forcings.
Mr. Coleman clearly does not understand the methodology, or the trends, or the forcing, or the natural cycles, and even though he is a meteorologist, he seems not to understand the short term variability of weather based on the ENSO and solar cycles as known.
It is not uncommon for weather men to only think short term though. That is the realm of weather. Climate however is long term. Mr. Coleman is maybe trying to apply meteorological concepts to climatology, which would not produce relevant understanding.
NASA:
The difference between weather and climate.
As best I can tell, man-made Global Warming is nowhere to be found.
Mr. Coleman has apparently not examined the relevant science, which of course has limited and biased his view.
Many people suffer from bias. When someone researches only the data sources one trusts, one is subject to the error potential of such a limited view.
Climate is massively complex and the best way to study it is to examine the raw data and subsequent analysis vetted by the aggregated understanding achieved through the relevant peer review process.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 30)
THERE IS NO CONSENUS ON GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman (j [email protected])
Written about January 22, 2008
This is the 8th in a series of briefs about Global Warming. Links to the previous briefs are at the end of this one. If you tell a lie often enough, everyone will believe it. That’s an old saving. But I fear that it’s essentially true. And, it is the heart of the problem I face opposing the Global Warming frenzy.
Thousands of news reports on radio and television and in newspapers and posted on the internet have included the phrase “there is a consensus among the 2,500 scientists that make up the UN’s IPCC on Global Warming that Global Warming is unequivocal.” Al Gore says the debate is over. And pollsters tell us that about 80% of Americans accept that man-made Global Warming is a significant problem.
Well, that’s my challenge. How do I combat all that media hype and generally accepted view? This brief is my attempt to do just that. I know that man-made global warming is not happening. I know that the research behind the Global Warming scare is flawed. I know that warming has ceased and cooling may have begun in 1999 (That’s almost ten years). And, I know
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
1998 was an unusually warm year due to the compounded effect of global warming, natural variability, the uptrend of the solar cycle and an El Nino year, which increased the warming.
By ignoring the relevant long term trend analysis, you can see a cooling trend. But you have to ignore all the data prior to 1999.
If scientists did all their analysis like Mr. Coleman has, we would not know anything of substance.
THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.
[False Argument]
That is simply not true. By definition, among the 2500 IPCC scientists there is absolutely consensus. That does not mean everyone agrees on every single point, but there is no doubt that there is a consensus on human caused climate influence.
Read the definition below. I think Mr. Coleman may not know what the word consensus means? He would have you believe that you need 100% of the IPCC scientists to agree on every single point.
Among peer reviewed scientists studying climatology, with peer reviewed papers on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, around the world, there is absolutely consensus.
Consensus
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference in Bali in December 2007
Yes, I know that the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) met in Bali in December. The assembled panel issued the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report entitled ‘The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers’ that concludes that global average temperature will rise between 1.1°C to 6.4°C by 2100, and that it is ‘very likely’ (90% certainty) that human activities and emissions are causing global warming. News reports told us that there was a consensus among 2,500 scientists there.
That is generally true.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 31)
John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia and Tom Harris, the Ottawa, Canada based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, researched the inside story of the IPCC and wrote about it in the Canada Free Press.
They tell us the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually divided into three working groups. Only one of those groups, Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future projections. Within that group they determined how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change–in other words the key parts of WG I.
According to them, in total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
[Red Herring Straw-Man Argument]
One of the biggest questions I have here is what does “appear impartial” mean? I’ve worked with scientists on Working Group 1 and my experience was that scientists were more about carefully checking validity of the science and any statements regarding the science. That was their bias. From a scientific truth perspective, that is a good bias to have.
Scientists are trained in the scientific method. Their vested interests are generally ‘getting closer to the truth of a matter’. Picking a single poll, data set of perspective out of context and without relevance does not prove a point, but merely raises it.
Cherry picking…
…data of any kind is narrow minded by nature. If Mr. Coleman is trying to say that out of 62 reviewers 55 had a vested interest he should have placed context into the argument. What was their vested interest? Without context, it could mean the opposite of what he is implying… it could mean that 55 wanted to get to the truth and 6 did not care?
That is a very long way from the “consensus of 2,500 scientists” that is constantly reported. Another insider tells us that while several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions.
[Argumentum ad Infinitum]
Again with the ambiguous arguments with missing context. Coleman cherry picks his arguments to sell a false narrative. But that is only revealed when you know the facts.
As of 2010, different analyses of scientific support for the Anthropogenic warming theory show numbers form as low as 66% to 97%. But not all of those were considered high level analyses. Of those considered higher level of peer review and peer response the numbers since 2010 indicate 93% to 100%.
If you only look since 2015 the numbers are a smaller sample but indicate 97% to 100%.
The trend is that more and more scientists that work in the filed of climate are increasingly convinced humans are influencing current warming.
But I have to say this too. Scientists that disagree, in my experience are often looking through to narrow a scope to see the bigger picture. That is a limiting factor in such analysis.
[But what if…]
If we asked a different question, such as do you agree CO2 is a global warming gas, you wold get a 100% agreement. If you further asked if Earth is not absorbing all the excess CO2, which all the data show conclusively, then would that have a warming influence on the temperature of the Earth climate system. The answer would again be 100% yes. Because the only way you can say no to those questions is to ignore and deny the evidence itself. But doing that would disqualify anyone from any level of expert status. Thus rending their answer unqualified.
So no matter how you define your study, the studies show the majority of climate scientists and experts agree current global warming is human caused.
It is also important to know what the word consensus means:
Consensus
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 32)
Dr. John W . Zillman
Dr. John W. Zillman is a generally supportive member of the IPPC. He noted: “[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors.” He then ads, “Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to… reflect dissenting views…”The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.” And, consider all of these items that refute the idea of a consensus about Global Warming:
[This is interesting]
One thing to consider is taht while the scientists are trying to get the science right, the IPCC is a UN group. The final statement needs to be approved by member contries. Each member contry may have a political agenda that might bias what they themselves want in any statements.
What I’ve noticed is that this usually does not distort teh science into false statements. But it may/does distort the IPCC statements into the most conservative statements as opposed to the liberal statements.
The result is the AR report series is more conservative than the science actually indicates. IN toher words teh IPCC tends to under report the effects and impacts of global warming rather than blow it out of proportion.
Interestingly, this is teh opposite of Colemans claims.
A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation.
[Facts out of Context]
A 1992 gallop pole is not relevant. Much has been learned since then.
Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.
More than 10 years ago, also irrelevant.
A petition compiled by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences has attracted the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists. All agree the science of climate change, and man’s role in it, is uncertain. The Petition reads in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
[False Argument]
19,000 signatures, but how many were climatologists or worked in the field of climate research? In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”
The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.[5] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that it was “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review.”
Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of “half-truths”.[10] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who “are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them.”[10]
[NAS Review]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewedjournal.”[11]
It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainThe European Science and Environment Forum ties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”[12]
This list
An independent organization, The European Science and Environmental Forum, has published two monographs, in which a few dozens of scientists present studies contradicting the conclusions of the IPCC.
[The European Science and Environmental Forum]
The group is now defunct. However, it was run by those that have been making unsupported claims regarding climate science. Basically all the usual suspects.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 33)
Richard Lindzen
MIT professor Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., one of 11 scientists who prepared the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report on global warming, has stated repeatedly that there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in that report, and that the full report made clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
[Red Herring Distraction Argument]
2001 is old news. The National Academies has already weighed in and stated they are in general agreement with human causation of current global warming. By definition, general agreement is consensus.
17 April 2007 Lindzen in Newsweek
The working groups preparing for the IPCC meeting in December 2007 were told to not consider any new research papers after those that had been accepted by the IPCC in 2005. Therefore, a entire body of later peer-reviewed scientific work that countered the claims before the IPCC could not be considered. This prompted a long list of scientists to write a letter of protest to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali. Here is the list of the 100 plus who signed the letter:
[Red Herring Distraction]
[False Assertion]
I myself was trying to get new information into AR5 and experienced the same problem. There are cut off times. Once that time has been passed whatever you want in will have to wait for the next report cycle.
Coleman is clearly attempting to make it sound as if this is part of a nefarious plot. That is false.
That said, it is also true that material that is demonstrably false can be ignored. That is also part of the scientific process.
Also, one of the difficulties in assessment is understanding the context and relevance of a peer reviewed paper. Some have valid arguments when contained within the limited scope of the assertion. However, when a ‘limited scope’ peer reviewed paper is weighed in relation to the larger scope of the relevant science on the matter the paper and its claims of relevance can sometimes or often fail to alter the consensus understanding. And even that can be determined by the quality of peer review/response.
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 37)
Additionally there is now a list of well over 400 scientists who spoke out as skeptics of Global Warming in 2007.
[Argumentum ad Populum]
This argument is bandied about and while indicative not determinative. It is possible for a large group of scientists to be wrong no matter what side of an argument they fall. Science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and it is the evidence that does the dictating. Thus, if the evidence from multiple independent scientific disciplines and sources all come to the same basic conclusion. Then that is what the dictator says.
Global warming has been examined by thousands upon thousands of scientists from different scientific disciplines and the vast bulk of that science all shows us the same picture. Global warming is happening and it is human caused in our current warming event.
That list and report is available on line at:
epw.senate.gov/Minority.SenateReport
And if you link to ICECAP below you will find a growing list of experts (about 125 at last count) including several members of the IPCC who have posted papers, articles, blogs and comments countering the man-made global warming predictions.
Now what do you think about Mr. Gore’s stand that “the debate is over” or that steady drumbeat of press reports about the “consensus of scientists”? There is no scientific consensus. There is a good reason. There is no Global Warming.
[Argumentum ad Infinitum Lapidem]
The best resource for the scientific data debunking Global Warming is www.ICECAP.us
[False]
That is merely his opinion of course and likely because he is listed as one of their experts.
Coleman also recomends
Compare those to:
+ https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts
+ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 38)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CONTINUES THE GLOBAL WARMING HYPE
By John Coleman
Written March 20, 2008
The Associated Press (AP) tells us on its website that it is the backbone of the world’s information system serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats. It states its mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.
It is a not-for-profit cooperative owned and controlled by its member news outlets, among them 1,700 newspapers, all of the television networks including the cable news networks and 5,000 television and radio stations. It is a global news giant founded in 1846.
But when it comes to global warming, the AP is anything but objective, accurate and balanced. Its items accept global warming as fact and distribute a steady stream of global warming alarmist stories without ever reporting on the skeptic’s scientific papers, reports or opinions. The National Center for Public Policy Research recently posted the following:
[Red Herring Distraction]
[Argumentum ad Passiones]
[False Equivalence]
This issue here is that many of “the skeptic’s scientific papers, reports or opinions” are not good science and do not rise to the level of confidence to be reported as truth.
I’ve personally had papers sent to me that were so ludicrously wrong that it truly did not warrant the time spent reading it. Yet those that push these unsupported and notional ideas expect everyone to pay attention to the nonsense they are pushing. And they whine when they don’t get top billing in the debate.
The Associated Press has recently run two global warming stories by AP Special Correspondent Charles P. Hanley that misrepresent objective facts about climate, apparently for the purpose of leading readers to believe that human activities are causing the planet to warm significantly.
The post continued with examples of unbalanced AP news reports. The entire web post can be read at
[Coleman repeatedly asserts Argumetum ad Lapdem]
Bassically, all these ‘claims’ that AP is biasing the argument are Coelmans beliefs. As we have already established with Colemans own words, in context of the evidence, Coleman is the one asserting beliefs and bias. AP News is known for being one of the most unbiased news sources on Earth since the 1800’s.
www.nationalcenter.org/TSR020905.html
Another example of the biased AP coverage just appeared in newspapers and on website on March 19th. Here is how it appeared on the website of San Diego Union Tribune:
Power plants emitted 3% more carbon dioxide in ’07, group says
By H. Josef Hebert
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON – The amount of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, released by the nation’s power plants grew by nearly 3 percent last year, the largest annual increase in nearly a decade, an environmental group said yesterday.
A few paragraphs later the news story states:
Carbon dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas that is linked to global warming. It is a product of burning fossil fuels.
We all know that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a trace compound in the atmosphere.
[Red Herring Distraction]
[False Argument]
[False Equivalence]
Coleman misleads his audience by saying CO2 is less important than H2O. The opposite is true. H2O is increased in the atmosphere when you add more CO2. That is because CO2 is the chief regulator, relatively speaking. H2O is a variable gas. CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime. Thus CO2 is a more important gas in this respect, as it pertains to global warming.
Those of us who have independently studied the issue also know there is no statistical connection between CO2 and warming.
Joe D’Aleo has just posted a new study that demonstrates the disconnection between CO2 and global temperatures on his ICECAP website. Here is excerpted material from his post:
Gavin Schmidt: Response on Real Climate:
That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, nor the implications of the Vostok record, nor the concept of positive feedback. We’ve discussed each of these issues before, and I would refer you there. – gavin]
Here is a plot of global temperatures for the last decade, February 1998 to February 2008 and the Scripps monthly CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The blue temperature line is from the Satellite (UAH MSU lower troposphere) and the rose colored line is the ocean variance adjusted surface temperature (Hadley CRU T3v) (rose) The CO2 is in green.
[False Argument]
[Cherry Picking]
Coleman consistently makes the same mistake over and over. Short term measurements are more subject to natural stochastic variations due to ocean heat content overturn. AND, choosing 1998, at the peak of an el Nino event is cherry-picking and thus false argumentation.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 39)
My assessment of the chart is that while CO2 has continued to rise, temperatures in the last decade have shown no trend and are totally uncorrelated statistically with the CO2 content. In other words over the last decade, there is no connection between temperatures and CO2.
[False Argument]
[Cherry Picking]
Incorrect: Colman’s above statement is wrong in so many ways.
1. The 10 year period is a cherry pick. It starts from a high point in the natural stochastic variation.
2. It is fairly clear the graph maker chose 1998 because that was a year temperatures were higher due to an El Nino Event, which overturns deep ocean heat back into the atmosphere.
3. The overlay of the CO2 aspect of the graph is laid in arbitrarily. This makes it look as if CO2 is rising steadily and temperature is not related to CO2 rise.
The disagreement with the models related mainly to the MSU 2LT record. Models do quite well at matching the history of MSU-4 (whose variability is a function mainly of ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol effects), and models also match the lack of significant trend in MSU-2 (which is affected by stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming which cancel out to some degree) (i.e Hansen et al 2002).
So the problem has been principally with MSU 2LT, which despite a strong surface temperature trend did not seem to have been warming very much – while models and basic physics predict that it should be warming at a slightly larger rate than the surface.
[Furthermore…]
In the first Science Express paper, Mears et al produce a new assessment of the MSU 2LT record and show that one of the corrections applied to the UAH MSU 2LT record had been applied incorrectly, significantly underplaying the trend in the data. This mistake has been acknowledged by the UAH team who have already updated their data (version 5.2) so that it includes the fix. This correction (related to the drift in crossing times at the equator) mainly affects the tropics, and was most important for one particular satellite (NOAA-11).
The satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models.” (11 August 2005 Et Tu LT?)
Real Climate:
In previous posts we have stressed that discrepancies between models and observations force scientists to re-examine the foundations of both the modeling and the interpretation of the data. So it has been for the apparent discrepancies between the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) lower tropospheric temperature records (MSU 2LT), radiosonde records and the climate models that try to simulate the climate of the last few decades. Three papers this week in Science Express, Mears et al, Santer et al (on which I’m a co-author) and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved – in favour of the models.
Real Climate continued:
It is worth encapsulating exactly what the problems have been and why they have taken so long to resolve. The MSU records are derived from a series of satellites that have been in orbit since late 1978. Each satellite has had different calibration problems (due to orbital decay, sensor issues etc.) and stringing them together has been fraught with difficulty.
Different groups have made different decisions about how to do this and this has lead to quite some differences in MSU products particularly between the UAH group (Spencer and Christy) and the RSS group (Wentz, Mears and colleagues) . The differences have been mostly seen in the trends, rather than the monthly or inter-annual variability, and so have been more difficult to validate. Incidentally, it is a clear sign of ‘cherry-picking’ when people only report their favorite one of the groups’ trends instead of the range.
Mr. D’Aleo’s comments on his data:
My response is we are being told by Al Gore and James Hansen (NASA global warming alarmist scientist) that the problem is worse than the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the scientists feared. That we are rapidly nearing the tipping point and that unless we take painful action immediately, temperatures will run away from us.
If that was the case we should see some correlation even in the short term. It doesn’t take an advanced science degree to see there has been virtually no trend in the temperature data in the last decade or this century even as CO2 has increased 5.5%. Even the IPCC head Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has noticed the ‘disconnect’ and acknowledged he would have to look and see if natural forces were somehow countering greenhouse warming.
[Cherry Picking]
[False Argumentation]
FIRST, Mr. D’Aleo is cherry picking from the data set a single decade (IPCC defines climate trends with a minimum of 30 years of data, this again illustrates the problem of having meteorologists, those that don’t work in the flied of climatology, interpreting short term data and ignoring long term trends) The overall increase of atmospheric Co2 form 280ppm to 385ppm equals 37.5% increase.
Mr. D’Aleo points out that while Co2 increased 5.5% in the last 10 years, the temperature did not rise. In a long term data trend it is always possible to cherry pick the best fruit (short term data) that supports your point of view.
[What if…]
If all scientists were to limit their views only to 10 years of data, we would not know anything worthwhile about the climate other than it acts like weather and you can’t predict it long term. That is a bad way to do science. Better to look at all the data and analyze that for trends and potentials.
Narrowing the scope of ones view to what is more likely a natural perturbation of the system responding within the natural variability within the range of the climate forcing does not reasonably override the understanding of the long term trends based on known forcings and potential.
Based on past natural cycles and known forcing amounts that the global mean temperatures should be hitting new records within 3-5 years and possibly sooner. The sunspot cycle will likely soon be increasing in activity and ENSO oscillation will eventually go back to El Nino. This, on top of the human induced climate forcing should produce record global temperatures in the very near future.
[NOTE: It was only two years later Earth hit a new temperature record.]
SECOND, as pointed out above, the problems with the satellite data have been adjusted and now “show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties“
THIRD the comment about Dr. Rajendra Pachauri seems likely taken out of context.
To read Joe D’Aleo’s study and a continuous stream of global warming research papers and accounts from scientist around the world go to this link: icecap.us/index.php
icecap.us is not a science web site. It might best be described as a conjecture site.
Here is the bottom line. The scientific basis for the entire global warming alarmism is an hypothesis that the increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities is producing a greatly increased greenhouse effect through a process called “radiative forcing” in-which the CO2 greatly magnifies the greenhouse warming of the water vapor. Over and over again, efforts to prove this effect have failed and studies that prove the hypothesis wrong continue to mount.
[Red Herring Distraction]
[False Argument]
Coleman is absolutely wrong here where he says efforts to prove this effect have failed. These efforts have NOT failed. They have demonstrated strong and increasing confidence in the primary question. That human fossil fuel emissions are influencing climate.
Coleman calls human emissions causing warming a hypothesis. But it’s not a hypothesis. Here is a guide to understand the establishment of scientific theory:
1. Tentative hypothesis: the notional idea for examination.
2. Hypothesis: The development of the question.
3. Theory: Once the question is deemed valid.
hmmm…
Well, see all of the above comments, notations, charts, links added to Mr. Coleman’s assertions. Then ask yourself, do you want to believe a meteorologist that apparently knows very little about climatology and all those that ‘believe’ with him based on limited knowledge understanding and their apparent choice to ignore the relevant science? Or, do you want to believe the aggregated, relevant science, knowledge and understanding derived from the more complete science as understood by our government and its best scientists?
I agree with Mr. Coleman. This is not really about belief, it’s about science. But it is apparent that people are believing one argument or another based on incorrect, flawed or narrowly scoped data.
The only relevant question is. Are you looking at the real data and the relevant perspectives on that data. That should be your first question!
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 40)
But despite this, the Associated Press, the primary news source on Earth, continues to circulate to every newspaper, television and radio station a steady stream of biased global warming hype journalism.
[False Assertion Red Herring]
Coleman uses the term biased here ambiguously but infers the bias is inappropriate. But Science is biased towards evidence. Coleman is biased towards conjecture and his beliefs as he has repeatedly pointed out throughout his rather long misinformation/disinformation pseudo-treatise.
The challenge for those of us who know that man made global warming is a myth is find a way to convince the Associated Press that it should live up to its claim of unbiased, accurate and balanced news coverage.
[Agumetum ad Lapidem]
[Agumetum ad Vericundium]
[Agumetum ad Populum]
[Agumetum ad Passiones]
Coleman makes his final argument here: He is stating global warming is a myth because he and others ‘know’ so. This is defacto arrogance. That means unwarrented confidence. He appeals to his audiences emotions (passiones), their numbers (populum), from his authority as a weatherman (Vericundium) as an absolute (Lapidem).
In other words he is not arguing scientifically, he is arguing his belief.
Click here to return to the KUSI weather page: www.kusi.com/weather
Unite America with The Centrist Party
- Enough is enough. We must unite to reclaim our government. Join the Centrist Party. Work together to heal our nation and return balance in governance and common sense for the nation and the people.
The Centrist News
Check out Centrist News & Perspectives for centrist media intelligence: