Originally Posted by Choggs396
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, directly and adamantly contends with Al Gore's assertions that so-called global warming is man-made. He has a degree in Meteorology, and has been studying and reporting weather and climate change for over 50 years. You can read some of Coleman's research on the matter here: (PDF file
). He uses real science and data that directly contends with, and debunks, many of Al Gore's claims.
With all due respect to Al Gore; he is not a meteorologist, climatologist, geologist, or anything close to such. He has a degree in Government. Now, I'm not saying that itself makes his argument invalid. But my point is; I'm much, much more inclined to place belief in the person with a formal education and training (and 50+ years of experience) in the field.... especially when the two gentleman's assertions directly conflict.
take on Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth":
At one point, he actually wanted to sue Al Gore for fraud
for imposing the "fact" that "global warming" is a direct result of human action. (Source
) There are some more links that site, as well.
Coleman speaks of "global warming" at the 2008 International Conference of Climate Change
and The Free Republic
So if anyone wants to believe Al Gore on the subject, fine, it's your right. But it's my understanding, judging by the information at hand, that doing so seems to be woefully misguided.
John Coleman is an idiot, but your seeming thesis that Al Gore is the only proponent of global warming is worse. Sadly though, that notion is understandable, seeing as how no one can seemingly construct a good argument for global warming here.
First lets tackle Coleman. Here he is in this 2008
article, talking about his idea of suing that you mentioned:
I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"
How the hell can you claim to be a scientist and WANT TO SETTLE A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. No self respecting scientist should ever want to settle a scientific debate in anything other than the scientific community. And I read his rhetoric filled "paper" and it very clearly shows that he has a small understanding of what is going on, most of his claims are laughable. If you really want, point out things of his paper you thing are correct and I'll shoot them down one by one.
Now heres a thing people have forgotten to do in arguments such as these: provide serious evidence. (warning: picture spam)
GISS temperature analysis
HadCRUT temperature data:
Clearly these show a significant warming trend during the later half of the century. What about effects from the sun?
Solar Irradiance from 1980 onward.
As you can see, the sun has been oscillating fairly uniformly, but temperature is on a steady increase. You can even spot the effects from the sun in the temp graphs, look for little dips in the temperature and compare them to the minimum points on the Solar Irradiance graph.
How about El Nino/ La Nina southern oscillation phenomenon:
As you can see, in 1998 we had a massive El Nino event, the so called "El Nino of the century," and now we seem to be in a strong La Nina period.
You know whats funny? Despite the Solar Irradiance being at a minimum, and despite a strong La Nina that year, 2007 was the second warmest year measured in the period of instrumental data
Here is a compilation of forcings on the climate
(what influences the temperature):
(just to clarify, Stratospheric Aerosols are what come from volcanoes, thats why its line is really spiky)
Now none of these sources are from Al Gore, They are all from PHD' professionals, or taken DIRECTLY from the collected world data.