Very true. Every American could benefit from setting aside a bit of arrogance and conserving a bit. I just ditched my sedan for a compact with a 5 speed and almost doubled my highway miles/gallon. I stopped buying bottled water and all the other simple crap that anyone can do to help with cleaner air and oceans without decimating their way of life.
The problem I have with the elitists is that they are getting rich by pushing lies, inaccuracies and fear. They promised us that Florida would be under water after the worst hurricane seasons ever in 2006 and 2007! Well???? As far as I know, they were some of the mildest. The truth is they just don’t know and they are not just saying “live a little more sustainably”, they are talking about destroying our economy while doing nothing about China, India and the middle east. What good is that going to do? Tank the dollar and throw us into a worldwide recession where large areas of the world starve?
You only hear about the Arctic ice receding and not about the ice in the Antarctic increasing. Could it be that like Mars, our northern hemisphere is tipping closer to the sun? Admittedly, I am not a Climatologist, Astronomer or even a Meteorologist but I can see that when my doctor is telling me that cutting whiskey out of my life will help me live longer and healthier; then he drains a full glass of Jack Daniels and pours himself another, maybe this guy has another agenda.

Mr. Coleman equates global warming with climate change (see page 2 “Global Warming i.e. Climate Change”) and attempts to debunk both with his position paper. They aren’t the same. Global warming is one theory (yes, I believe the verdict is still out, but that drastic change is a real possibility) of the outcome of Climate Change. Mr. Coleman ignorantly states that they are the same.

Even his source for primary authority, which he points to ad naseum in his “briefs”, completely disagrees with him on this point. In fact, http://www.icecap.us expressly states: “We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon. ”

I love how Mr. Coleman state’s that he has “studied” the issue. He’s a weatherman, not a climatologist. Even if he does have advanced training in meteorology (I can’t find any info about his educational background, but I’m sure he’d tout it, if it helped him), to suggest, as he does expressly, that meteorology is the study of climate change (on page 2 of his position paper) demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding (or blatant misrepresentation) of the disciplines.

By definition, Meteorology is the study of weather process and forecasting over the short term. Climatology is the study of climate over the long-term. His piece is intellectually dishonest and it discredits his whole position.

Sure, meteorologist have something to say about the issues. They can be smart people who can contribute to the process. Yet, Mr. Coleman denigrates Meteorologists with PhDs (page 2) as likely single-minded. Apparently, only meteorologists who are weather forecasters and agree with Mr. Coleman’s views are truly capable of telling us what’s what regarding long-term climate change.

Another glaring example of his intellectual dishonesty is the statement “CO2 is not a pollutant” on page 7 and 9. Mr. Coleman intimates that it is not a pollutant simply because CO2 occurs naturally in the environment. Mr. Coleman argues that CO2 is also not a pollutant b/c plants need it to grow, and plants do better when they have more. He undermines his credibility by making such simplistic and ridiculous statements such as this.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “pollutant” as “A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment…”. In my environmental studies education, I learned the definition a little more bluntly: shit can be good and it can be bad. It just depends on what you do with it, how you do what you do with it, and when you do it.

Understanding these issues is not the sole domain of scientists. Yet, to be arrogant, if not dishonest, about your authority and understanding of the issues is to undermine the credibility of your position. And you open yourself up to being ignored and discredited as Mr. Coleman surely should be.

I’ll listen to opposing views, but don’t insult my intelligence by parading out a T.V. Weatherman who has the chutzpah to suggest he is among the intellectual elite, by simply equating a career in meteorology with the discipline of climatology; who thinks that nothing that occurs naturally can be a pollutant; and who believes that climate change and global warming are equivalent and neither are real (despite his own primary source authority expressely disagreeing with him).

Moreover, most everybody excepts the “precautionary principle” as applied in the medical profession. Would’t it be wise to adopt the same principle when environmental health is at stake? I truly hope Mr. Coleman can flash those pearly whites and say “I told you so.” The stakes are too high for him to be wrong on the ultimate issue and for us to not have acted to address the threat.

The tragic truth about all of this, is we won’t know who was “right” and who was “wrong” until it is likely to late to avoid much of the impacts. I suggest we proceed to understand as much as we can and act in accordance with the precautionary principle. We can start by first making sure we put Mr. Coleman’s 40 pages of “briefs” in the proper place, the recycling bin.

Fact – the world always has and always will warm and cool

Fact – All of Europe once accepted that the earth was flat; that didn’t make it so.

Fact – I love recycling. I was just finishing separating my junk mail, newspapers, glass and plastic not ten minutes ago.