Comments on: Are meteorologists climate experts?

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:16:38 +0000

Maybe bet with Coleman?

By: Glenn Macy

Glenn Macy — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:52:45 +0000

Dear Mr. Benson,
Your article did a fine job of railing about Mr. John Coleman’s comments. Point out that his lack of qualifications to have lagitomet opinion because he is merely a lowly meteorologist made you shine with brilliance.
Your suggestion that because Global Warming not being his trained field of expertise, and that he could not possibly have the ability to reason properly any scientific facts on this subject really is quite astute. Outstanding observation!
Mr. Benson with all due respect, at least he has researched on his own; accumulate facts to form his opinion.
I suggest you might fine it enlightening to do the same instead of relying on the assumed expertise of others. Possibly by looking into Solar heating, Solar flares, cloud cover weather currents and trends over the last 100 years. You may find if fascinating and even broaden your perspective on the subject. Just a thought, assuming you do read and do your own research.

Sincerely

Glenn Macy

By: caerbannog

caerbannog — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:47:29 +0000

I suggest you might fine it enlightening to do the same instead of relying on the assumed expertise of others. Possibly by looking into Solar heating, Solar flares, cloud cover weather currents and trends over the last 100 years. You may find if fascinating and even broaden your perspective on the subject. Just a thought, assuming you do read and do your own research.

I’m sure that Dr. Romm’s reply would be along the lines of “been there, done that, wore out the t-shirt.”

By: Luther Franklin

Luther Franklin — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:41:51 +0000

It’s a dull mind, indeed, that doesn’t understand that Global Warming is Real and Catastrophic.

By: David

David — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:18:24 +0000

“Global Warming is Real and Catastrophic”

Real yes. Catastrophic, hardly. Have you ever thought what Earth would be like without global warming? Global warming is what makes life possible. It’s what keeps us all from freezing to death at night. Compare the amount of life on Earth, which has global warming, to the moon, which has none.

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:40:01 +0000

I wonder how many meteorologists were involved in the IPCC study?

Any numbers on that, Joe? How many people total; how many were climatologists; how many meteorologists; how many ‘other’ scientists; how many ‘other’ non-scientists?

By: Herb

Herb — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:18:12 +0000

“Real yes. Catastrophic, hardly. Have you ever thought what Earth would be like without global warming?”

That’s a bit like saying that a house fire is not catastrophic in the winter because heating the house keeps you from freezing.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:52:59 +0000

Glen Macy — All that from just a four word comment? I’m impressed…

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:29:25 +0000

FYI, Ron, there are a fair number of different degrees one can get on the way to becoming a climate scientist, and a PhD in meteorology is one of them. Confusingly, having such a degree does not necessarily mean one is a climate scientist. A related degree type (atmosphere science) leaves no question. In any case someone with just a bachelor’s or master’s in meteorology doesn’t pass the initial smell test.

By: Ken Jackson

Ken Jackson — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:33:49 +0000

Glen Macy - sure, Mr. Glen Macy. I am sure you did your own research. Yep, you had your own space shuttle to launch so you could observe how crystalline solids behave in zero gravity, observing how they begin to coalesce through electrical static charge that is created upon frictional collisions, mimicking cloud formations. I am sure you went into the caves of New Mexico by yourself to study the annular stalagmite formations that record solar activity over thousands of years, evident through carbon dating and radioactive data. And surely you built your own supercollider deep underground in Europe so that you may hopefully synthesize galactic background radiation in an hyrdrogen/oxygen-saturated air filled tube to observe what cloud formations may be like during periods of weak solar magnetic fields. And of course, you have your own UV data as it relates to cloud formation and ozone protection during weak solar periods.

What you really did is take the research of a very few scientific people who are just embarking on new studies that aren’t even acknowledged by the scientific community as current theory. The science in these areas are in their infancy. It is a collection of “maybes” and “what if’s.” They may turn out to be right, but don’t act like it is accepted that they are and that you carried the research out yourself.

We all use OTHER expertise to support our claims. You aren’t a scientist. And if “you” aren’t a scientist in the majority, you had better stand up to pier review or else you are just a fringe scientist until proven otherwise.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:47:53 +0000

Mr. Coleman’s participation in the global warming debate is obviously politically partisan and has nothing to do with his being a broadcast meteorologist. Just read about the “2008 International Conference on Climate Change” in which he was a speaker and the “Heartland Institute” which sponsored it. Is the Heartland Institute a climate organization or a consortium of scientists? No, in fact, “Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.” Okay, so they are against the idea of human-induced global warming because they are against raising taxes and increasing regulations. They believe no one should ever be restricted by the government. Fine, this is a valid political point of view, but it is not valid science. The only people “creating” science to fit their views are the attendees of this bogus scientific conference.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:26:37 +0000

I am just wondering if it was real Why was there no stars?