While perusing the climate change headlines I couldn't help but notice a subtle correlation between the climate change debate and the death of the Greek philosopher Socrates.

As you may or may not know, Socrates is considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time - he is part of the foundation of Western civilization.

He could not read or write, yet his power and influence resulted from the realization: "I know one thing: that I know nothing" and he methodically questioned everything.

The process of methodically analyzing everything is now called the "Socratic Method."

Well back in 5th century BC Athens, the Sophis(upper class "intellectual wise men") and Athenian politicians did not appreciate Socrates questioning them....They didn't like him teaching young people how to think critically - so they executed him.

Fast forward to right now: climate change debate. Certain groups don't seem to like people being "skeptical" or asking questions in regards to climate change..

The "science is settled," "98% of scientist consensus," etc etc etc

Seems to me the climate change advocates are regressing intellectually....

Socrates most certainly was the ultimate "skeptic" --- and yet there's online petition to change the term used to reference skeptics

So was Socrates a "denier"?


Attachments:

NoticerofThings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While perusing the climate change headlines I
> couldn't help but notice a subtle correlation
> between the climate change debate and the death of
> the Greek philosopher Socrates.
>
> As you may or may not know, Socrates is considered
> one of the greatest philosophers of all time - he
> is part of the foundation of Western civilization.
>
>
> He could not read or write, yet his power and
> influence resulted from the realization: "I know
> one thing: that I know nothing" and he
> methodically questioned everything.
>
> The process of methodically analyzing everything
> is now called the "Socratic Method."
>
> Well back in 5th century BC Athens, the
> Sophis(upper class "intellectual wise men") and
> Athenian politicians did not appreciate Socrates
> questioning them....They didn't like him teaching
> young people how to think critically - so they
> executed him.
>
> Fast forward to right now: climate change debate.
> Certain groups don't seem to like people being
> "skeptical" or asking questions in regards to
> climate change..
>
> The "science is settled," "98% of scientist
> consensus," etc etc etc
>
> Seems to me the climate change advocates are
> regressing intellectually....
>
> Socrates most certainly was the ultimate "skeptic"
> --- and yet there's online petition to change
> the term used to reference skeptics
>
> So was Socrates a "denier"?

philosophy is for effete assholes

Then Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli went to court to try and obtain climate change data conducted by a U. of Va. professor. He lost in court but why didn't the UVa. turn over the data if it holds water? Somebody have something to hide?

Keep in mind many of the "scientists" who are harping about climate change
now were predicting another Ice Age back in the 70's.

How much money has Soros and Al Gore et al made off this?

Why isn't it still called "Global Warming"?

Here's a shocker for you.
All scientists are skeptics. That's their job. But when overwhelming evidence supports a theory, it relaxes the skepticism until a better theory is presented. If you have a dispute with climate change, you present your evidence in the form of a working model and/or in scientific papers. You don't just make random claims on websites.

Every scientist wants to be the first to disclaim a theory and take credit for it. Those who think scientists are closed to the idea of possible alternatives, know nothing of the scientific way.

So far, there are very few (if any) scientist in the field of climatology disagree with the current model. The ones who usually do, are scientists in other fields and/or paid by those whose business interests are threatened by the possible solutions.

Jesus-worshipping Dumbass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> philosophy is for effete assholes


The Socratic Method is a function of logic and reasoning.

The Greek philosophers developed the logical methods needed to progress math and science (Thales - deductive methodology for mathematical proofs; Pythagoras - Pythagorean Theorem geometry)

Don't let it hurt your little brain too much

Ive used the Socratic method to prove that Jesus and God are rulers of the heavens and earth.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a shocker for you.
> All scientists are skeptics. That's their job. But
> when overwhelming evidence supports a theory, it
> relaxes the skepticism until a better theory is
> presented. If you have a dispute with climate
> change, you present your evidence in the form of a
> working model and/or in scientific papers. You
> don't just make random claims on websites.
>
> Every scientist wants to be the first to disclaim
> a theory and take credit for it. Those who think
> scientists are closed to the idea of possible
> alternatives, know nothing of the scientific way.
>
> So far, there are very few (if any) scientist in
> the field of climatology disagree with the current
> model. The ones who usually do, are scientists in
> other fields and/or paid by those whose business
> interests are threatened by the possible
> solutions.

Scientist who dissent from the "consensus"

dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/professor-fired-after-expressing-climate-change-skepticism/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university--banned-national-science-foundation

John Coleman (Weather Channel founder):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/11/03/why-does-anyone-pay-attention-to-john-coleman-weather-channel-co-founder-on-climate-change/

Plato's Retreat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli went to court
> to try and obtain climate change data conducted by
> a U. of Va. professor. He lost in court but why
> didn't the UVa. turn over the data if it holds
> water? Somebody have something to hide?


Why did they want that one professors data? There is plenty available without having to ask anyone.


> Keep in mind many of the "scientists" who are
> harping about climate change
> now were predicting another Ice Age back in the
> 70's.


Some believed and still believe another ice age is possible. If a super volcano were to erupt or there is ever a nuclear explosion(s), it's not only possible, but probable. Even without such disasters, it's still possible. That has no bearing whatsoever on our current understanding of the Earths ozone and the effect man made cO2 is having on it. It's very easy to test this.


> How much money has Soros and Al Gore et al made
> off this?

Barely anything compared to what the Koch brothers are making by causing it in the first place.


> Why isn't it still called "Global Warming"?

Because idiots like you couldn't fathom it. They changed it to climate change because in the first phase, certain areas will warm and others will cool. Weather patterns will begin to change and become extreme and unpredictable, which has already started.

vb34M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Scientist who dissent from the "consensus"
>
> dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/professor-fired-after-e
> xpressing-climate-change-skepticism/
>
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-d
> iverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellows
> hip-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warmi
> ng-unproved-science/
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skep
> tic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/
>
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-s
> acked-australian-university--banned-national-scien
> ce-foundation
>
> John Coleman (Weather Channel founder):
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weathe
> r-gang/wp/2014/11/03/why-does-anyone-pay-attention
> -to-john-coleman-weather-channel-co-founder-on-cli
> mate-change/


You're joking right?

None of those articles prove those scientists were fired for their theories on Climate change. Looks more like they fucked up in other areas.

As for the Weather channel guy, he's not a scientist. He just started the weather channel. Why the fuck would anyone care what he says?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plato's Retreat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli went to
> court
> > to try and obtain climate change data conducted
> by
> > a U. of Va. professor. He lost in court but why
> > didn't the UVa. turn over the data if it holds
> > water? Somebody have something to hide?
>
>
> Why did they want that one professors data? There
> is plenty available without having to ask anyone.
>
>
> > Keep in mind many of the "scientists" who are
> > harping about climate change
> > now were predicting another Ice Age back in the
> > 70's.
>
>
> Some believed and still believe another ice age is
> possible. If a super volcano were to erupt or
> there is ever a nuclear explosion(s), it's not
> only possible, but probable. Even without such
> disasters, it's still possible. That has no
> bearing whatsoever on our current understanding of
> the Earths ozone and the effect man made cO2 is
> having on it. It's very easy to test this.
>
>
> > How much money has Soros and Al Gore et al made
> > off this?
>
> Barely anything compared to what the Koch brothers
> are making by causing it in the first place.
>
>
> > Why isn't it still called "Global Warming"?
>
> Because idiots like you couldn't fathom it. They
> changed it to climate change because in the first
> phase, certain areas will warm and others will
> cool. Weather patterns will begin to change and
> become extreme and unpredictable, which has
> already started.



Here's a "denier" scientist: Dr Roy Spencer PhD (former NASA scientist)
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

The climate community just can't stand dissent - they bury anyone with an opposing view (while NOAA manipulates temperature records)...

It's not science

lol aiight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Here's a "denier" scientist: Dr Roy Spencer PhD
> (former NASA scientist)
> http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
>
> The climate community just can't stand dissent -
> they bury anyone with an opposing view (while NOAA
> manipulates temperature records)...
>
> It's not science


Here is his quote from your link.

“There's probably a natural reason for global warming … We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm …"


Probably a natural reason? He has nothing to support this and I could say that about a lot of things. It's like saying "there's probably a mermaid somewhere"


Another quote.

"The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less.”

WHAT! He should be fired because this is absurd and there are mountains of evidence to support the effect it's having. BTW, there are different types of c02, natural and man-made. Each have slightly different chemical makeup.

How the fuck did this guy ever get his degree. Next?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol aiight Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Here's a "denier" scientist: Dr Roy Spencer PhD
> > (former NASA scientist)
> > http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
> >
> > The climate community just can't stand dissent
> -
> > they bury anyone with an opposing view (while
> NOAA
> > manipulates temperature records)...
> >
> > It's not science
>
>
> Here is his quote from your link.
>
> “There's probably a natural reason for global
> warming … We will look back on it as a gigantic
> false alarm …"
>
>
> Probably a natural reason? He has nothing to
> support this and I could say that about a lot of
> things. It's like saying "there's probably a
> mermaid somewhere"
>
>
> Another quote.
>
> "The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we
> put into the atmosphere. I think we need to
> consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide
> is better than less.”
>
> WHAT! He should be fired because this is absurd
> and there are mountains of evidence to support the
> effect it's having. BTW, there are different types
> of c02, natural and man-made. Each have slightly
> different chemical makeup.
>
> How the fuck did this guy ever get his degree.
> Next?

I didn't create this thread to debate the specifics

The point is, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the whole climate change thing: Predictions/models never pan out, there is dissent in the scientific community, we don't know enough about the earth/climate yet...

Being skeptical is part of what makes Western Civ successful - we don't just accept edicts/consensus...

Just like Socrates taught ;)

Freezing cold outside is GLOBAL COOLING

Hotter than hell outside is GLOBAL WARMING

OR................

Maybe Earth is just going through periods in its' existence where it's hot sometimes and cold sometimes outside what we call normal..........IT'S CALLED LIFE!

SO, WHO CARES!

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a shocker for you.
> All scientists are skeptics. That's their job. But
> when overwhelming evidence supports a theory, it
> relaxes the skepticism until a better theory is
> presented. If you have a dispute with climate
> change, you present your evidence in the form of a
> working model and/or in scientific papers. You
> don't just make random claims on websites.
>
> Every scientist wants to be the first to disclaim
> a theory and take credit for it. Those who think
> scientists are closed to the idea of possible
> alternatives, know nothing of the scientific way.
>
> So far, there are very few (if any) scientist in
> the field of climatology disagree with the current
> model. The ones who usually do, are scientists in
> other fields and/or paid by those whose business
> interests are threatened by the possible
> solutions.


Not really true. Your various "97% consensus" and similar are bullshit numbers created for PR purposes which any real scientist would call absolute bullshit numbers. And the farther you take that down the chain to get to what most true believers think is "settled science" because of what they've been told by advocates, more and more fall off from that.

Most would agree that there is some indication of a warming trend. Taking things to the next steps of why, how much, over what period of time, what effects there may be, and whether that's directly correlated with human activity results in lots of disagreement. Tying it to a direct correlation to CO2 levels, there isn't nearly some overwhelming consensus in the way that it's presented. How the mechanics of the system work at a larger level is all over the place with various people "proving" and/or disproving completely disparate competing theories. And so on down the line.

Pop science is notorious for this kind of misrepresentation, especially where there are political motivations in play. Anyone who tells you that there is some great consensus and that it's "settled science" that the planet is warming at a rate of N degrees/year specifically because of CO2 levels tied to fossil fuel use which will result in some "proven" direct effects on ice levels, weather, etc., and that we can stop that by passing some regulations and/or transferring money to third-world countries as the current "accepted" belief of advocates goes, is absolutely full of shit. Really no other way to characterize it.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plato's Retreat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli went to
> court
> > to try and obtain climate change data conducted
> by
> > a U. of Va. professor. He lost in court but why
> > didn't the UVa. turn over the data if it holds
> > water? Somebody have something to hide?
>
>
> Why did they want that one professors data? There
> is plenty available without having to ask anyone.
>
>
> > Keep in mind many of the "scientists" who are
> > harping about climate change
> > now were predicting another Ice Age back in the
> > 70's.
>
>
> Some believed and still believe another ice age is
> possible. If a super volcano were to erupt or
> there is ever a nuclear explosion(s), it's not
> only possible, but probable. Even without such
> disasters, it's still possible. That has no
> bearing whatsoever on our current understanding of
> the Earths ozone and the effect man made cO2 is
> having on it. It's very easy to test this.
>
>
> > How much money has Soros and Al Gore et al made
> > off this?
>
> Barely anything compared to what the Koch brothers
> are making by causing it in the first place.
>
>
> > Why isn't it still called "Global Warming"?
>
> Because idiots like you couldn't fathom it. They
> changed it to climate change because in the first
> phase, certain areas will warm and others will
> cool. Weather patterns will begin to change and
> become extreme and unpredictable, which has
> already started.

You're stupid.

C'mon guys. Is it safe to assume you all passed 9-10th grade science? Okay, then you know what c02 is and that, by it's very observeable nature, traps heat. So when you spray a bunch of c02 in your kitchen and then let the sunlight come through the window, you can measure how much heat and at what temperature the room stays vs without spraying the c02.

Didn't you guys ever have a chemistry set when you were kids. You make this sound like it's some far out crazy theory. It's not.

Our atmosphere, when working properly, lets heat in from the sun. Normal amounts of this heat is absorbed by the ocean and other stuff, the rest basically bounces off the surface and escapes through the ozone. c02 keeps the heat from escaping the ozone and directs it back to Earth, trapping it inside. Hence the term, Global Warming.

What part of this do you not understand? We can measure past amounts of c02 throughout history in ice layers, trees, etc.. and compare to today. The only time period in history that comes close was was there was a natural catastrophy (see super volcano, meteor strike, etc...).

Maybe it's not me whose drinking Kool-Aid. I'm pretty sure it's you.

We actually are heading towards another ice age. We have been going that direction for a while. But the next ice age won't hit its peak for another 50,000 years. The Earth has done this since almost the beginning of the planet. So arguing over shit that has happened over the last 100 years is pointless.

But in fact there have been many ice ages, most of them long before humans made their first appearance. And the familiar picture of an ice age is of a comparatively mild one: others were so severe that the entire Earth froze over, for tens or even hundreds of millions of years.

In fact, the planet seems to have three main settings: "greenhouse", when tropical temperatures extend to the poles and there are no ice sheets at all; "icehouse", when there is some permanent ice, although its extent varies greatly; and "snowball", in which the planet's entire surface is frozen over.

Why the ice periodically advances – and why it retreats again – is a mystery that glaciologists have only just started to unravel. Here's our recap of all the back and forth they're trying to explain.

Snowball Earth

2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago

The Huronian glaciation is the oldest ice age we know about. The Earth was just over 2 billion years old, and home only to unicellular life-forms.

The early stages of the Huronian, from 2.4 to 2.3 billion years ago, seem to have been particularly severe, with the entire planet frozen over in the first "snowball Earth". This may have been triggered by a 250-million-year lull in volcanic activity, which would have meant less carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere, and a reduced greenhouse effect.

Deep freeze

850 to 630 million years ago

During the 200 million years of the Cryogenian period, the Earth was plunged into some of the deepest cold it has ever experienced – and the emergence of complex life may have caused it.

One theory is that the glaciation was triggered by the evolution of large cells, and possibly also multicellular organisms, that sank to the seabed after dying. This would have sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, weakening the greenhouse effect and thus lowering global temperatures.

There seem to have been two distinct Cryogenian ice ages: the so-called Sturtian glaciation between 750 and 700 million years ago, followed by the Varanger (or Marinoan) glaciation, 660 to 635 million years ago. There's some evidence that Earth became a snowball at times during the big freezes, but researchers are still trying to work out exactly what happened.

Mass extinction

460 to 430 million years ago

Straddling the late Ordovician period and the early Silurian period, the Andean-Saharan ice age was marked by a mass extinction, the second most severe in Earth's historyMovie Camera.

The die-off was surpassed only by the gargantuan Permian extinction 250 million years ago. But as the ecosystem recovered after the freeze, it expanded, with land plants becoming common over the course of the Silurian period. And those plants may have caused the next great ice age.



360 to 260 million years ago

Like the Cryogenian glaciation, the Karoo ice age featured two peaks in ice cover that may well have been distinct ice ages. They took place in the Mississipian period, 359 to 318 million years ago, and again in the Pennsylvanian 318 to 299 million years ago.

These ice ages may have been the result of the expansion of land plants that followed the Cryogenian. As plants spread over the planet, they absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and released oxygen (PDF). As a result CO2 levels fell and the greenhouse effect weakened, triggering an ice age.

There is some evidence that the ice came and went in regular cycles, driven by changes in Earth's orbit. If true, this would mean that the Karoo ice age operated in much the same way as the current one.

Antarctica freezes over

14 million years ago

Antarctica wasn't always a frozen wasteland. It wasn't until around 34 million years agoMovie Camera that the first small glaciers formed on the tops of Antarctica's mountains. And it was 20 million years later, when world-wide temperatures dropped by 8 °C, that the glaciers' ice froze onto the rock, and the southern ice sheet was born.

This temperature drop was triggered by the rise of the Himalayas. As they grew higher they were exposed to increased weathering, which sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere and reduced the greenhouse effect.

The northern hemisphere remained relatively ice-free for longer, with Greenland and the Arctic becoming heavily glaciated only around 3.2 million years ago.

Latest advance of the ice

2.58 million years ago

The Quaternary glaciation started just a few million years ago – and is still going on. So its history is relatively recent, in geological terms, and can be studied in far more detail than the others'. It's evident that the ice sheets have gone through multiple stages of growth and retreat over the course of the Quaternary.

During the first two-thirds of the Quaternary, the ice advanced and retreated roughly every 41,000 years – the same tempo as the changes in the tilt of Earth's axis. About a million years ago, the ice switched to a 100,000-year cycle for reasons that were until recently a mystery. Now more detailed information about the timing of the ice's movements may have helped glaciologists find an answer.

To make matters more complicated still, the ice didn't advance and retreat simultaneously all around the world. Often it would begin advancing on one continent, with the others only being covered thousands of years later, and then linger on a few continents several millennia after it had disappeared from the others.

So there were actually many overlapping glaciations within the Quaternary, each separately named: the Bavelian and Cromerian complexes of glacials and interglacials; the Elsterian glacial; the Holsteinian interglacial and the Saalian glaciation, among others.

Between 130,000 and 114,000 years ago, the ice retreated during the Eemian interglacial – and then advanced again to create the glacial that most people know as "the ice age".

Our ice age

110,000 to 12,000 years ago

The cool temperatures of the Quaternary may have allowed our brains to become much larger than those of our of hominid ancestors. While that's still open to debate, it's plausible that the most recent glacial period left its mark on our species.

Neanderthals, with whom we shared the planet until just before the last glacial maximum, 20,000 years ago, may have struggled to survive as the rising and falling ice ate away at their habitat – although many other explanations for their extinction have been suggested. What is beyond doubt is that Homo sapiens survived and turned to farming soon after the ice retreated, setting the stage for the rise of modern civilisation.

As the glacial period drew to a close and temperatures began to rise, there were two final cold snaps. First, the chilly "Older Dryas" of 14,700 to 13,400 years ago transformed most of Europe from forest to tundra, like modern-day Siberia. After a brief respite, the Younger Dryas, between 12,800 to 11,500 years ago, froze Europe solid within a matter of months – probably as a result of meltwater from retreating glaciers shutting down the Atlantic Ocean's "conveyor-belt" current, although a cometary impact has also been blamed.

Twelve thousand years ago, the great ice sheets retreated at the beginning of the latest interglacial – the Flandrian – allowing humans to return to northern latitudes. This period has been relatively warm, and the climate relatively stable, although it has been slightly colder than the last interglacial, the Eemian, and sea levels are currently at least 3 metres lower – differences that are being closely scrutinised by researchers keen to understand how our climate will develop.

But this respite from the ice is likely to prove short-lived, at least in geological terms. Human effects on the climate notwithstanding, the cycle will continue to turn, the hothouse period will some day come to an end – and the ice sheets will descend again.

vb34M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> John Coleman (Weather Channel founder):
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weathe
> r-gang/wp/2014/11/03/why-does-anyone-pay-attention
> -to-john-coleman-weather-channel-co-founder-on-cli
> mate-change/

John Coleman is not by any stretch a scientist.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon guys. Is it safe to assume you all passed
> 9-10th grade science? Okay, then you know what c02
> is and that, by it's very observeable nature,
> traps heat. So when you spray a bunch of c02 in
> your kitchen and then let the sunlight come
> through the window, you can measure how much heat
> and at what temperature the room stays vs without
> spraying the c02.
>
> Didn't you guys ever have a chemistry set when you
> were kids. You make this sound like it's some far
> out crazy theory. It's not.
>
> Our atmosphere, when working properly, lets heat
> in from the sun. Normal amounts of this heat is
> absorbed by the ocean and other stuff, the rest
> basically bounces off the surface and escapes
> through the ozone. c02 keeps the heat from
> escaping the ozone and directs it back to Earth,
> trapping it inside. Hence the term, Global
> Warming.
>
> What part of this do you not understand? We can
> measure past amounts of c02 throughout history in
> ice layers, trees, etc.. and compare to today. The
> only time period in history that comes close was
> was there was a natural catastrophy (see super
> volcano, meteor strike, etc...).
>
> Maybe it's not me whose drinking Kool-Aid. I'm
> pretty sure it's you.


No, it's not nearly that simple. And your own suggestion that it is shows you to be the one who's lacking here.

Because something can be shown to have some effect as in the case of some simple relationship similar to that of CO2 acting as a "greenhouse gas" doesn't mean that necessarily applies in a direct way in the context of a more complex and dynamic system. Which should be apparent to you given that the expected result of higher C02 concentrations has not been seen in corresponding rising temperatures. Why that's the case now is the subject of substantial investigation and disagreement with various competing theories.

The measurement of historical CO2 and temperature and what, if any, correlation there has been and may be at various points in time subject to various other known and unknown factors also varies and the levels differ by what, as you mention, is used as the basis for measures. e.g.,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11640-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-rising-as-temperatures-fell.html?page=2

Thinking that it's all that simple as you've presented it here makes you the one who's simple.

Let me guess... You have no real science background right?

TWGV6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vb34M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > John Coleman (Weather Channel founder):
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weathe
>
> >
> r-gang/wp/2014/11/03/why-does-anyone-pay-attention
>
> >
> -to-john-coleman-weather-channel-co-founder-on-cli
>
> > mate-change/
>
> John Coleman is not by any stretch a scientist.


I'm sure he does know thing or two about weather/climate being in the industry for decades. Might know a couple scientists.

More importantly, he probably knows the weather/climate community well enough to recognize a scam when he sees one

How much grant money has been provided for the "settled science" camp as opposed to the "denier" camp?

Even scientists like to eat...............well.

The Potomac river is frozen. Niagra falls froze up last year, It is fucking cold.

,,,
Attachments: