www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Archbishop George Pell on Global Warming

Here is an interesting follow-up (I'm finally catching up with last Sunday's paper!). It's an editorial but contains data that can be fact checked:

Uncertain Climate [washingtontimes.com]

Excerpt: More than 31,000 scientists have signed a Global Warming Petition expressing doubts. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has written that warming is "the greatest scam in history." As far back as two years ago, The Post's own Juliet Eilperin reported that consensus on warming was shrinking, not growing. And for good reason. Earth temperatures actually have dropped since 1998. The National Snow and Ice Data Center in April showed more Arctic sea ice than in any April since 2003. Even many prominent warming supporters acknowledge that their own models now forecast cooling for the next 30 years.

We need to be good stewards of God's gifts because it is the right thing to do. No invented crisis necessary.

Some thoughts on this issue which I've looked into in the past but felt that I wasn't getting the basic facts. That issue is twofold (at least) -- how raw must the data be and how informed the interpreter/analyzer of that data before it can be considered objective; to what extent is each side in the debate giving the whole story.

Very often the debate or discussion, on both sides, quickly turns primarily to advocacy. I sense this especially in the Al Gore side and type of approach, perhaps because they have the media attention. I remain, I hope, an open minded skeptic.

A scientific study must be evaluated initially on the basis of its published, ideally critically peer-reviewed, primary source of communication. For the MIT study mentioned in a previous post, for instance, one should read/study their paper in the Journal of Climate. Even without reading that paper, however, one can require that the model that is predicting an extrapolation into the near future would be shown to be capable of predicting the present situation being given comparable input data from the past. This is very basic methodology: verification of the workings of the model. Even at that it is still a necessary but not sufficient finding in accepting the prediction, the extrapolation. This goes directly to a point of concern in a previous post:

The hype factor is regrettable and is to a large extent it seems the natural, instinctive response of the beast known as the media, where the dilettante routinely acts as the most informed expert who then informs us how to think. With the dogmatic certitude of having an immortal soul, we now have a "carbon footprint" and we know that's bad; and there are ridiculous, horrible people who are "global-warming deniers"; the term "global-warming" itself has been appropriated to mean more than stated.

Returning to the initial quote. I ran across the name John Coleman in my latest inquiry into this topic. He appears to be a respected weatherman, and has this interesting background commentary posted on his station's website, link [kusi.com]. In this part of an interview ( link [youtube.com] ) he mentions at the end the coming ice age prediction of 1970's that appeared in Time magazine. I did a veracity check to see if that was some undocumented hype or hyperbole, and found it to be fact: link [time.com] ; link [nationalcenter.org]; link [nationalcenter.org] ; link [climate4you.com] . Have we exchanged the cold hype of the 70's for the warm hype of the 90's?

We should avoid pollution and waste, in general, so that we may be "good stewards of God's gifts." Reasonable use is not waste; reasonable use or natural effects need not be seen as pollution. Correlations can appear so obvious and yet are so misleading, giving no indication of cause and effect. Thus one must scrutinize the data and the analysis; on the lighter side, consider this correlation that has been floating on the internet for some time, Proof of Global Warming [toilette-humor.com] .

The general media confuse correlation with causality.

Ajk, you reference John Coleman. He was, during the '70s, the comedic weatherman at WLS in Chicago who used to cross swords there with the sportscaster Bill Frink. As Wikkopedia notes, "At WLS, Coleman was teamed with Fahey Flynn, Joel Daly and Bill Frink to form the Eyewitness News Team, creating a news brand name and establishing a highly successful new local news format dubbed "happy talk" by a local television columnist. This style of local news has been widely copied. The team dominated Chicago television news ratings for more than a decade. During his time at Chicago's WLS-TV, Coleman was one of Chicago's most popular weathercasters, famous for his amusing and irreverent style.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)


He later was the founder and first president of the Weather channel.

Would you say that his opinion is disqualified because of his style?

Thanks for this additional background. As I noted: That is, I say again, "he appears to be a respected weatherman" but if that is not the case I would certainly want to know more. The designation "comedic weatherman" is neutral and is your designation, it seems, and does not appear in the link you provided. I would say that, whatever his past (and what were you or I doing in the 70's) which should be taken into account and considered where relevant, he seems serious enough now and has posted a background on the emergence of the global-warming issue on the station's website, and has named names. He has given specifics that can be verified, and I once again invite comments on those points. I did a spot test of the one issue from his interview, and verified that we have gone from scientists raising an ice-age warning to a global-warming alarm in the short span of some 20 years.

Besides telling jokes occasionally on ABC John Coleman was the Dean of weathermen in Chicago during that period. Most weathermen I've ever seen tell jokes. This style has nothing to do with their training or ability.

CDL

I recall the "ice age" predictions of the late 70's. There was during a time of severe blizzards.

I thought is somewhat amusing that less than two decades later we were to expect "global warming."

"Oh, man of little faith...." The Creator of all weather systems knows all the "checks and balances." Man's ignorance of nature is only slightly enlightened.
Fr Deacon Paul

I am with the Administrator on this one 100%.

Exactly right!