[Coach_Owens87]

Here is a good read on Global Warming by John Coleman founder of the weather channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorn...42304.html

lol, how is that a good read? It adds nothing to the debate besides a retired weatherman's opinion. Let me repeat, he's a weatherman, has been since his freshman year in college in 1953, he doesn't have any expertise in climate change, so why should we listen to him?

I like how the The founder of the weather channel gets his panties in a wad and the right wing jumps all over his rant as scientific fact that global warming isnt real! I find it all hilarious.

Coleman offers nothing scientific to the debate about global warming, if he thinks it's a scam, show us proof. His proof is that he has read numerous books and talked to scientist, and he knows he is correct, lol, kind of a big statement to make. I guess I should already be a doctor, ive read books and talked to doctors, so I should know everything, and just skip med school!

The evidence goes against his claims, and attacking Al Gore and the weather channel will not make his points seems true. He was only at the weather channel for it's first year, so I don't think he has much say in the direction of the channel now, to me he just seems like a disgruntled employee. And im sure he wont be happy with NBC trying to buy the weather channel, which would mean more of a push on the green movement.

[FOX SPORTS]

lol, how is that a good read? It adds nothing to the debate besides a retired weatherman's opinion. Let me repeat, he's a weatherman, has been since his freshman year in college in 1953, he doesn't have any expertise in climate change, so why should we listen to him?
.

Meteorologist do indeed have qualification to discuss climate change, or should I say alleged climate change.
Climate change or climate cycle? That seems to be the question...While it is unclear whether Coleman is a meteorologist or not, he certainly could testify to the cycle theory.
He's been reporting weather for 55 years.

[Panther Thunder]

When the Earth starts cooling again, will people freak out and say we did too much protective things and thusly making the Earth go into another Ice Age?

[Old School]

lol, how is that a good read? It adds nothing to the debate besides a retired weatherman's opinion. Let me repeat, he's a weatherman, has been since his freshman year in college in 1953, he doesn't have any expertise in climate change, so why should we listen to him?

I like how the The founder of the weather channel gets his panties in a wad and the right wing jumps all over his rant as scientific fact that global warming isnt real! I find it all hilarious.

Coleman offers nothing scientific to the debate about global warming, if he thinks it's a scam, show us proof. His proof is that he has read numerous books and talked to scientist, and he knows he is correct, lol, kind of a big statement to make. I guess I should already be a doctor, ive read books and talked to doctors, so I should know everything, and just skip med school!

The evidence goes against his claims, and attacking Al Gore and the weather channel will not make his points seems true. He was only at the weather channel for it's first year, so I don't think he has much say in the direction of the channel now, to me he just seems like a disgruntled employee. And im sure he wont be happy with NBC trying to buy the weather channel, which would mean more of a push on the green movement.

Twice you have mentioned that rising CO2 levels will cause temperatures to rise, this theroy is being debated by some scientist who think that rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise. I wonder if either is right, after looking at timelines that indicate both CO2 levels and average global temperatures show periods where CO2 levels rose and temps. dropped, when CO2 levels and temps both would rise or fall, it also show periods when the temp. remained steady while CO2 levels would rise or fall. The timeline also indicated periods when CO2 levels were around 7,000 ppm then dropping down to nearly 400 ppm before rising to nearly 2,500 ppm which was over 6 times higher than todays levels.

If you read my post, you would see that I used the period from 1940 to 1978 because during that time temperatures dropped and the CO2 levels continued to rise. I could not justify using let's say 1930 to 1998 because the temperatures were not dropping prior to 1940 or after 1978.

So you think that John Coleman (a weatherman for 55 years) has no expertise in this alleged climate change, but wait you've been listening to Al Gore have you not, exactly what are Gore's qualifications to go around the world telling everyone that the polar ice caps will collapse and melt, sea levels will rise 20 feet, 100 million people will be refugees, islands will be submerged and the circulation of ocean waters will be disrupted like what happened during thePaleocene-Eocent Thermal Maximum, and that Glogal Warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce drought and wipe out the polar bears, and Al's not even a weatherman.

One thing that John said was "Worldwide there was a sinificant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flars. These sunspots and flars ended in 1998 and now the sun has gone quiet with fewer sunspots and the global temperatures have gone into decline" Could this be a plausible theory or is it just a coincidence?

This brings me to another question. Where has the warming been since 1998? Temperatures have declined slightly since 1998, even the IPCC has acknowleged it saying that it may 10 years before the warming returns. I've noticed more and more people using the term "climate change", back in the 1970's scientists were using the term Global Cooling and crying that we were heading into an ice age (we all know how that turned out don't we) then in the 1990's scientists started using the term Global Warming and crying that ocean would rise 20 feet and so on, now they are using the term "Climate Change" I guess this way they can't be wrong regardless if it warms up or cools down they still will be right.

On May 20th a list if the names of over thirty-one thousands scientist who refute global warming was released. Thirty-One thousand of which 9,000 are Ph. D's that dwarfs the supposed 2,500 in the UN panel. In the past year, 500 scientist have issued public statements challenging global warming and about 100 scientist have defected the UN IPCC.

[Old School]

I'm not sure what studies you are looking at that suggest that the amount of CO2 hasn't increased substantially over time but actual studies show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution. Also people put CO2 in greenhouses because it blocks the short wave radiation from leaving the greenhouse which naturally warms it and increases growth ie GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Just because you think that your too old to believe something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Also try using scholarly peered reviewed journals for your sources. Anybody can put something on the internet if it is peer-reviewed then it is acurate.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/...190.001123

LP I thought you may want to read this peer review article.



Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.



[URL="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8"]http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8[/URL]

[launchpad4]

Ok for those of you who don't have a brain or any marginal amount of intellegence I will explain to you the global warming issue.

First, the Earth's climate has cyclical changes in heating and cooling throughout its existence. The fact that the Earth naturally has periods of warmer or cooler temperatures isn't the question. These cycles did to take around a thousand or two years to fully develop.

Next, the atmosphere surrounding the Earth is made up of different gases and air particles. The sun emits short wavelength energy which bounces of the Earth. Some of these are caught by the gases while others escape.

Finally, the issue of global warming is the rapid excerleration of the heating cycle caused by an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which decreases the amount of short wave energy that escapes. This has been proven by studies that show that CO2 increased in the Earth's atmosphere every year since the industrial revolution. This increase peaks in the winter and decreases in the summer. Why is that you may ask. Well in the winter trees lose their lives and give out CO2 that they had stored in them.

Back to Global Warming. The burning of fossil fuel adds CO2 to the atmosphere which helps to increase the temperature in the Earth. So how can this be proven you may ask. Well actual scientists have researched core ice samples of Antartica and they can find the CO2 levels in the ice for the time periods. This can be done because ice stores the snow from the atmosphere as it is made to snow. Also because there are areas around the world that for the first time in a long time they experiencing melting ice which reduces the reflectivity of the Earth, WHICH warms the Earth. They can also prove this because of the rapid change in climate that we have experienced.