Thanks NurseCarmen, but I didn’t think Coleman could be the person SA was referring to, because he is not the CEO of the Weather Channel. He was indeed one of its founders, but was forced out after its first year in 1982, a quarter-century ago.
If all the information Starving Artist is relying on is as antiquated as that, no wonder he doesn’t believe in global warming.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Cite? Where are you getting the claim that “no television meteorologists in the country believe in global warming, and that the CEO of the Weather Channel debunks it”?
You may be interested to learn that the American Meteorological Society has issued an official statement on climate change that accepts mainstream climate science findings on the subject:
You may also be interested to learn that the Weather Channel’s official Climate Expert is climatologist Dr. Heidi Cullen, a well-known advocate for AGW awareness.
If the Weather Channel CEO really doesn’t believe in the existence of climate change, as you claim, s/he has apparently not been listening to his/her own TV station, or else is deliberately promoting views and information on that station that s/he thinks are nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
And as NurseCarmen alludes, it was the founder of the Weather Channel who made the comments I referenced. My mistake. His comments may be found here.
And while I was unable to find the article I read some months back regarding the 100% figure of meteorologists doubtful of GW, I did find a cite that claims 95%, so perhaps you’ll accept that my recollection in this regard was not far off. It can be found here.
And here is a cite in which your vaunted Heidi Cullen proposes that any meteorologist who expresses skepticism and disagrees with her regarding global warming be denied certification…in other words, her position basically is “Agree with me or lose your credentials.” Pretty cool, huh?
Now, as I said above, it has not, been my intention to get involved in a drawn out debate regarding my views as my purpose in this thread was merely to describe why I was dubious. I’ll not be participating further.
Cheers. 
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
As far as global warming goes, I believe the environmental movement is only using the global warming fad as a vehicle for pushing their socialistic agenda. Reason being… I find it curious that their “solutions” to global warming always come down to higher taxes, more government control over corporations, more regulations, and less freedom. I am thoroughly convinced the global warming supporters would not entertain any solution that did not raise taxes, did *not * increase regulations, and did *not * infringe upon people’s freedoms.
[/QUOTE]
Hows about you throw out a solution that doesn’t do one of those things, and see what reaction you get rather than telling us what would happen if you did something.
Or, how about what CA has done, by offering tax breaks to people who install solar panels on their property? That might be seen as a tax increase for those who don’t take such actions, but that’s a tax increase for not doing your part, not a net tax increase on the general populace.
But I’d also point you to Kimstu’s post. There can be no denying that fossil fuel consumption is highly subsidized by our government. How about we remove those subsidies?
[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
Kimstu, John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, is a well known AGW skeptic. He has been published widely (Although, not in the afore mentioned peer reviewed channels.) His published works are often cited by the talking heads. An important caveat, meteorology is not the same as climatology. They are two pretty drastically different sciences.
[/QUOTE]
Right. Meteorologists can’t tell us what the weather will be next week, but climatologist can us what it will be like 50 years from now.
Just kidding… I know that’s a distortion of what these guys actually do.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Right. Meteorologists can’t tell us what the weather will be next week, but climatologist can us what it will be like 50 years from now.
[/QUOTE]
The real way to tell the difference between the two is the climatologist is wearing a sportcoat at least 10 years out of fashion.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
It’s a given fact that the sun controls global warming cycles. It has done so since its creation. We humans have very little to do with global warming, and it will stay that way until we find where the thermostat is located.
When one starts from a position of knowledge, it is easy to see where things are manipulated and distorted to the contrary.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a good Fundamentalist Christian answer for us.
JM:
Liberals get a hard on when someone suggests higher taxes and more government regulations for any reason. (I know… I used to be one.) The global warming fad is just another avenue for fulfilling their agenda.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
How about we remove those subsidies?
[/QUOTE]
Sounds good to me.
Ahem…kindly omit the stray comma in the phrase “it has not, been my intention.” Editing is not always my friend.
Also, the comment I referenced by John Coleman, although it may date back to 1982, was touted on one of the news pages I visit only a couple of months ago. Either I didn’t notice, or it wasn’t made clear, that his comments date back that far.
This kind of thing is exactly why I say you can’t trust what you hear from the news media and/or the experts on this issue. I am probably at least a little more tuned in to these kinds of things than the average bear, and yet I had no idea that such dated material had been drug up and presented as being current, and while its age doesn’t necessarily discount its accuracy, it would have been helpful to have known it anyway.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I’ll not be participating further.
Cheers.
[/QUOTE]
Good idea. Your future contributions to this thread will equal your contributions up to this point.
Crafter Man, for the record:
“Socialistic” is an adjective with a clear dictionary definition. It doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean on a given occasion. In particular, it isnot synonymous with “statist,” which is how you usually seem to be using it.
“Liberals” come in as many stripes as “conservatives,” and your broad brush indictments of some fancied monolithic Liberal stance are simply making you look stupid.
A fair number of so-called Libeals are Left-Libertarians, who combine a generally classic libertarian outlook with the view that social justice and the protection of human rights and amelioration of human distress requires government action that is anathema to the more conservative school of libertarian.
This is one Liberal who strongly supports the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, complete with “emanations and penumbras,” and including the personal-guarantee stance on the Second Amendment. To be totally frank, the amount of gun-related violence in some urban areas concerns me, and I would love to see right-to-bear-arms activists identifying means they could support to protect people threatened by that violence. But in my mind, the solution to that does not mandate vitiating the Second Amendment as some other liberal folk seem to feel is needed.
IMO, the only things which should be stereotyped are Mauve-Era photographs.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Reason 1: Alarm about it primarily comes from the left, the same ideology that 35 years ago was clammering that we were killing all the trees; that 30 years ago was claiming the world was running out of oil; that 25 years ago was certain we were all going to die from air, water and polution, etc., etc. Of course none of that happened and today no one is particularly concerned over these calamitous occurrances. I know that nominal steps have been taken to deal with these concerns, primarily due to pressure from the left, but I’m not convinced that they played that much of a role in reducing the alleged danger.
[/quote]
I agree that the enviros have cried wolf far too often. On the other hand, it’s been pretty much a toss-up as to who has been telling the tallest tales when it comes to environmental issues. Check the history of lead in gasoline, acid rain, paticulate matter, etc., and you’ll see a common thread of industries denying problems exist, denying they are responsible, denying anything can be done about them. The reality has been quite different. All the trees are not dead, but there have definitely been some major damage done in the Smoky Mountains and Appalachians.
I hope that is true, but I doubt it very much. One of the frustrating things about environmental issues is to watch how the U.S. deals with perceived military threats vs. perceived environmental threats. Both have major national security implications (see this on the national security implications of climate change from a group not likely aligned with the left), but if it can be bombed or shot, we’ll deal with it. If it requires pretty much any other response, we ignore it.
I’ll refer back to the link above, which is to a report by the Military Advisory Board, which included Gen. Anthony Zinni. When these guys start saying many of the same things as the enviros, the scientific community, and a growing number of corporate execs, it’s well past the time to pay attention to Messrs. Limbaugh and O’Reilly.
There is actually a lot that can be done about it. Postponing any response will only lead to more severe problems down the road. It is indeed going to be exceedingly difficult, expensive, and contentious, and there will be scads of people and countries taking advantage of whomever they can. But did we back down when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??!!* Seriously, though, this is something that will have impacts that are difficult, expensive, and contentious, and far more so than the response. The first steps that can and should be taken have significant benefits beyond CO2 control, and will begin buying us time to get the more serious responses in place. By that time, we’ll begin seeing (or not, if we’re all way off base) the more pronounced impacts and can decide in a rational manner whether to continue with more stringent measures.
*Cite - Bluto, Animal House, 1978.
:smack:
I know I said I was outta here, but your post, Public Animal No. 9, was too good to ignore. If more of the posters around here were to adopt your style, discussion of these issues would be both much more rewarding and much more productive (the Limbaugh and O’Reilly comment aside, that is, as I don’t listen to Limbaugh at all and don’t see an hour of O’Reilly a year.)
But thanks again. Excellent post.
And since you brought it up, I’m glad we made the Germans pay for Pearl Harbor. I just regret we didn’t do a better job of defending Poland from the Japanese onslaught.
:rolleyes: Feel free to be the first to take your own advice, Art. You were the one who waltzed in here accusing liberals of being alarmists and mainstream climate scientists of being untrustworthy sources. Now you’re all sulky because other people are questioning your views and asking to see your evidence.
That’s a pretty lame cite you’ve got there. It’s a link to a blog which quotes a few meteorologists criticizing GW ideas, and including what appears to be a quoted newspaper headline with no link and no reference information: “Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears in February 2007 - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical”. Who made that “claim”? On what was it based?
You apparently couldn’t even be bothered to google the headline to see if you could come up with any actual information about it. So here you go. Turns out it appears to be nothing more than an unsupported claim by one AGW-skeptic meteorologist about how many of his colleagues agree with him. Not a poll; not a survey; an unsupported claim. You might prefer to blame “culture war polarization” for my failure to be impressed with it, but frankly you haven’t really got much of anything there.
Pretty misquoted. Cullen’s position is not “Agree with me or lose your credentials”, but rather “Be able to understand and correctly represent the fundamental scientific issues involved in climate change, or you don’t deserve to be credentialed by a professional organization that’s responsible for informing the public on these issues.”
Remember, as I pointed out above, the American Meteorological Society (which awards the “Seal of Approval” of which Cullen was speaking) has issued an official statement on climate change which recognizes mainstream climate-science positions on climate change issues. Professional meteorologists who hold the Society’s official Seal of Approval should be expected to understand these issues, and not repeat egregious misinformation about the science involved.
Moreover, I brought up Heidi Cullen not to “vaunt” her, but merely to point out to you that the Weather Channel’s leadership evidently takes the issue of AGW quite seriously, given that an AGW-awareness advocate like Cullen is their official Climate Expert. Of course, now that we know that the person you were calling a “debunker” ofglobal warming is not actually the CEO of the Weather Channel, as you originally misstated, but rather an elderly TV weatherman whose connection with the Weather Channel ended a quarter-century ago, it’s not particularly relevant what the Weather Channel’s position on climate change is. But I didn’t know that when I read your earlier, inaccurate, posts.
Watch it, you’re getting confused again. Nobody here is claiming that Coleman’s comments “date back that far”. What I pointed out was simply that Coleman’s long-extinct connection with the Weather Channel dates back that far, which is why I didn’t realize that he was the person you were referring to with the phrase “CEO of the Weather Channel”.
You did. Bye.
SA resigning from threads: Cher’s Farewell Tour, Cher’s Final Farewell Tour, and Cher’s Absitively Posolutely Last Forever This Time I Really Mean It Tour.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
:rolleyes: Feel free to be the first to take your own advice, Art. You were the one who waltzed in here accusing liberals of being alarmists and mainstream climate scientists of being untrustworthy sources. Now you’re all sulky because other people are questioning your views and asking to see your evidence.
[/quote]
Au contraire. Now you’ve blown it, stu. I’m not as busy as I was earlier and so now I can spare the time to show you the many ways where you err in this wrongheaded post of yours.
In the first place, I didn’t “waltz” in anywhere. This OP of this thread, which was in another forum at the time, posed a question as to why conservatives don’t believe in global warming. I simply attempted to give him/her an honest appraisal of my attitudes in regard to it. The tone of the OP was such that an answer appeared to be all that was required and that the OP wasn’t trolling (and I mean that in the traditional sense, not the SDMB sense) for bait with which to start an argument. I gave my take on the subject. I didn’t “accuse” liberals of being alarmists; I said that was how I viewed them. This is a subtle distinction that you may not be able to make, but in my mind it’s quite clear. It was an opinion, you see, not a purported statement of fact.
Nor did I assail “mainstream” scientists of being unworthy sources. I quite clearly stated–and if you don’t recall this I eagerly invite you to reread my original post in this thread–that politicians, the news media and experts can’t be believed in regard to this issue, whether the information is coming from the right or the left.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
That’s a pretty lame cite you’ve got there.
[/quote]
Not if you understand my purpose in posting it. As I stated upthread, it has not been my intention to proselytize my point of view and/or to argue its veracity. I was simply stating my view, period. You thought you’d be cute and demand a cite for how it was that I came to believe the things I said. I provided a sample of the comments I had run across from time to time simply in order to illustrate that I hadn’t pulled these them out of thin air. It was not and is not, my intent to argue the veracity of the comments I made but simply to show that I had indeed seen them out and about on the intarwebs. It should be perfectly clear from my original post that I’m not claiming to have the answers in regard to global warming as my primary complaint regarding the issue is that it’s virtually impossible for the average citizen to get the straight scoop about it. Now, I’ve been given links to publications and articles that will very likely give me better information on the subject than I’ve seen up to this point–and if so, good for me–but regarding the question of why conservatives in general don’t get too worked up about the subject, the answer remains as it was to begin with.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Pretty misquoted. Cullen’s position is not “Agree with me or lose your credentials”, but rather “Be able to understand and correctly represent the fundamental scientific issues involved in climate change, or you don’t deserve to be credentialed by a professional organization that’s responsible for informing the public on these issues.”
[/quote]
You know as well as I do that this is a subject given to endless debate and parsing of one aspect or another. If the answer was as clear-cut and definate as you like to think, there would be no room for doubt. Like it or not, the issue of global warming is far from decided, both in terms of whether or not it actually exists and if it does how bad is it? I have no doubt that there are plenty of honest, reputable scientists whose integrity is unquestioned who have their doubts as to global warming and/or whatever dangers it may pose to the planet. Cullen’s position is clearly just what I said it was: “Agree with me or lose your credentials!” All you’ve done is give voice to her rationale. Not a big surprise there.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Remember, as I pointed out above, the American Meteorological Society (which awards the “Seal of Approval” of which Cullen was speaking) has issued an official statement on climate change which recognizes mainstream climate-science positions on climate change issues. Professional meteorologists who hold the Society’s official Seal of Approval should be expected to understand these issues, and not repeat egregious misinformation about the science involved.
[/quote]
I see. So any meteorologist who has honest doubts, questions or opinions as to the veracity of the official position is expected in your mind to supress them and toe the party line, is that it? Further, I don’t recall having mentioned that they repeat “egregious information”, I merely stated that I’ve read that they don’t believe it’s a problem. Now while I have no doubt that to you this is indeed egregious information, to me it simply an honest difference of opinion.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Moreover, I brought up Heidi Cullen not to “vaunt” her, but merely to point out to you that the Weather Channel’s leadership evidently takes the issue of AGW quite seriously, given that an AGW-awareness advocate like Cullen is their official Climate Expert. Of course, now that we know that the person you were calling a “debunker” ofglobal warming is not actually the CEO of the Weather Channel, as you originally misstated, but rather an elderly TV weatherman whose connection with the Weather Channel ended a quarter-century ago, it’s not particularly relevant what the Weather Channel’s position on climate change is. But I didn’t know that when I read your earlier, inaccurate, posts.
[/quote]
While I would quibble with your characterization of the man who founded the Weather Channel as a mere “weatherman”, the rest of your point is valid. Certainly Cullen takes the issue seriously as it appears she will brook no disagreement.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Watch it, you’re getting confused again. Nobody here is claiming that Coleman’s comments “date back that far”. What I pointed out was simply that Coleman’s long-extinct connection with the Weather Channel dates back that far, which is why I didn’t realize that he was the person you were referring to with the phrase “CEO of the Weather Channel”.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re the one who’s confused, mon frere. Allow me to refresh your memory with your own words from not that far upthread:
*
"Thanks NurseCarmen, but I didn’t think Coleman could be the person SA was referring to, because he is not the CEO of the Weather Channel. He was indeed one of its founders, but was forced out after its first year in 1982, a quarter-century ago.
If all the information Starving Artist is relying on is as antiquated as that, no wonder he doesn’t believe in global warming."*
Note that it was you yourself who first dated Coleman’s exit from the Weather Channel as having occurred in 1982, and it was you who commented that I was relying on information “as antiquated as that”. If that’s not saying Coleman’s comments “date back that far”, I don’t know what is.
Now, in regard to my supposed “sulking” over having having been questioned in regard to my opinion on this matter, you couldn’t be more wrong. I haven’t strived to assert my position in this thread; I’ve sought only to describe it. Therefore, there’s nothing to sulk over. My comments to Public Animal No. 9 were simply an expression of my appreciation of his even-handed and reasonable explanation of his point of view. NurseCarmen and a couple of others in this thread have done the same. It is these posters from whom I learn the most.
Starving Artist, there is nothing dishonorable about having been mistaken. It happens to all of us. It seems to happen to me more frequently than most people.
I really hope that someone or something is going to step in at the last moment with the good news that the scientists are all wrong about global warming. But it is down to a pitiful few holdouts now and they are not all that reputable.
The polar ice caps are melting. You now the famous Northwest passage that early explorers were always looking for? Now it exists – and it barely made the frontpage a few weeks ago.
In something like the last ten years, about a fourth of the Northern polar ice caps has gone. I think it took most of the Twentieth Century for the first one quarter to go.
I hope that I have my facts straight. They are at least close and recent television news. I will try to find cites if you need them. This is general information that is out there. The researchers are on the scene and have been.
There are others are your political persuasion that are changing their minds about global warming. As for what the consequences are going to be, I don’t claim to understand. I do remember from long ago science classes that even small changes in the food chain can result in big differences down the line.
About the only Right Wing sources that I would pay much attention to are The Wall Street Journal and The National Review. Even then, I don’t like the bitter pill, but there is some thought behind what I read. I know there are other good ones.
You can learn a lot here even when you don’t post. Keep and open mind and don’t duck out.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I would say that rarely does a company put very much money into R&D and then try to figure out a way to sell it. They may check with R&D to see if their idea is feasible before testing the idea, but they won’t actually have the product developed…it’s too expensive to do it that way, and too much risk. But what they typically try to do, rather than survey a market to get ideas, is they watch the trends, as I mentioned earlier, and then brainstorm ideas from there. It’s cheaper and easier than doing focus groups and hoping some participant will give them a good idea. As far as the organic products…these are the types of trends I mean. Companies pick up on this stuff from the media…“oh, everyone’s talking about organics these days, we should try that out.” They test the idea to see if people want organics, especially Safeway customers, to be sure that peope believe that it “fits” Safeway to carry organics. If the idea tests well, they try a small line. Then, as you say, if that sells well, they add to it.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been in R&D for over 25 years, but in bleeding edge stuff. I’m sure the new softer toilet paper is marketing driven, but really new stuff begins with a technical idea which is discussed with marketing for competitive analysis and some market analysis. Neither the microprocessor or the PC came from market analysis or focus groups. I don’t think even the IBM PC did, since it was so far removed from the IBM mainstream.
But my point again is that good marketing and some government assistance in changing the parameters of the market would help in driving changes. The market for cars with gas at $1 looks different from the market with gas at $3. I know from personal experience that R&D on processes with low environmental impact is a lot easier to justify if you worry about getting a big fine and bad publicity. Sure, the company will say it’s all for the good of the earth, but the bottom line still rules.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
SA resigning from threads: Cher’s Farewell Tour, Cher’s Final Farewell Tour, and Cher’s Absitively Posolutely Last Forever This Time I Really Mean It Tour.
[/QUOTE]
You forgot the Eagles’ Farewell 1 Tour. Perhaps I should take a page from their book and start numbering my farewells too. As Glenn Frey said, you can have as many farewell tours as you want as long as you keep numbering them. 
But for now I’m off to bed. Chow, luce.
Oh, and stu…I do know it’s ciao. Mmkay?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yep. Bell labs used to do that, but it’s almost unheard of these days.
If you look at the development of the PC, it was hobbyists who created the product, and then a few visionaries who realized they could capitalize on it. Gordon Moore (one of the founders of Intel) didn’t think there would be much demand for a PC, but Steve Jobs thought otherwise. Once it caught on, of course, companies were going to try and stimulate demand with marketing campaigns. It’s a definite feedback loop, but it has to get kick started, and it’s very hard to do that without some demand. Products get test marketing and shit-canned all the time. Companies can’t just push junk on people if they aren’t satisfying some kind of demand.
Maybe designer clothing might seem to fall in the “invented demand” category, but even then the designers are appealing to some basic human need to establish oneself higher up on the social ladder. That’s part of human nature, not something some marketing guy invented.
[/QUOTE]
But the development of the microprocessor had nothing to do with the PC - which didn’t exist yet, even in hobbyist form. I wrote an 8080 simulator in 1974, from a draft of the instruction set. The first processor came from a generalization of a chip for a calculator. PCs could not exist without microprocessors, but microprocessor can exist just fine without PCs. Most do.
Intel processors weren’t even very popular until in “the most important sales call in company history” (as I remember the Intel museum describing it) they sold it to IBM. The Motorola 6820 was a far better processor with a much less braindead instruction set.
It’s true that products must satisfy some kind of demand - but it might be a demand no one had known they had yet.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yep. Bell labs used to do that, but it’s almost unheard of these days.
[/QUOTE]
As an old Bell Labber, most people have a really distorted view of what went on there, in part due to the Bell System PR.
Most of Area 11, the old research area, had nothing to do with new products, or had a goal of creating new products. It changed after divestiture, and because Arno bought into the idea of Area 11 “contributing,” but they never did it very well. The other areas were a bit more market driven, in the distorted market of a monopoly. People who write switching software would often add features the OpCos could sell. On the other hand, I interviewed with a group doing PBX software, and some of the MTS’s proudly told me the marketing people told them what to write, but they pretty much added features that seemed cool. I don’t know how true that was, but it was more of a feature of the monopoly than of anything else.
Bell Labs had a lot of grunt engineers also. Not everyone was writing papers.