User:Sagredo/sandbox

Coleman critics point out he has no education in the field of climate change. But he responds that he was a professional member of American Meteorological Society for many years and was the recipient of the AMS Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year award in 1982. He stands firm on his credibility on the topic saying, "I have been forecasting the weather on a daily basis for fifty years and have studied weather and climate daily for the entire period. While I am not qualified to do Climate research, I am a highly qualified professional in the field."

While many weathercasters such as Coleman disagree with the science of global warming, the American Meteorological Society has affirmed it. Studies released in 2010-2012 by the Center for Climate Change Communication found there was more scepticism of global warming among meteorologists and especially among weathercasters (such as Coleman is) than among climate scientists. Climatologists are almost always affiliated with universities or research institutions where a doctoral degree is required, and they use very different scientific methods from the meteorologists. However, most meteorologists have only a bachelor's degree. Coleman has a bachelor's degree in journalism.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Joe Bastardi and many other meteorologists do not agree with the science of climate change, although the American Meteorological Society has affirmed the science of global warming, and a majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. There is more scepticism of global warming among meteorologists and especially among weathercasters such as Bastardi than among climate scientists. Bastardi, like most meteorologists, has only a bachelor's degree, while climatologists are almost always affiliated with universities or research institutions where a doctoral degree is required. Also, meteorologists use very different scientific methods from climatologists.

Bastardi asserts that the world was likely warmer in the 1930s than today, that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans. He frequently argues in his columns that extreme weather events occur naturally and that there is not enough evidence to state that such events are unusual. Bastardi expects that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late-1970s due to a so-called "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Bastardi's statements imply that "he does not understand the very basics of the science."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This is cut down considerably from the original and re-written to show how Bastardi fits in with many meteorologists, but not with climatologists.

This makes several important points. First Bastardi has only a BS degree. Second Climatology is very different from meteorology. Third Bastardi's views are contrary to the AMS.

WP:WELLKNOWN - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

WP:BLPSTYLE - It does not state that material must be removed merely because it is contentious, removal is required if it is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Contentious is defined as Marked by heated arguments or controversy.

While Bastardi's statements about climate change are contentious in the realm of the public debate on the subject, it is not contentious to restate them here, whether as a quote or a policy position. There is no debate about what his views are, or what he said. Is someone claiming there is some misrepresentation of his statements or views? If placing Bastardi's views together with the mainstream science gives a negative impression of him, that's just the way it is.

Are there any criticisms of Doran_and_Kendall_Zimmerman.2C_2009? A quick google search didn't turn up any.

When someone appears repeatedly in the national media as an "expert," it's certainly appropriate to discuss his credentials. More so when he claims the majority of scientists are wrong.

Piling on? Bastardi chooses to put himself in the public debate. Again and again. He continually makes statements at odds with the majority of scientists. It's not like he misspoke once, or avoided publicity on this issue. In fact, he often tweets denialist comments and adds them to blogs. In an interview published by Vanity Fair in February of 2011, Bastardi said "his bread and butter are his corporate clients," the names of which he won’t divulge, saying only that he’s “heavily involved in energy." This can't be used, as would be guilt by association, not allowed by WP:BLP, but it shows why Bastardi says the things he does. He is bought and paid for by energy companies. His climate change denial may be more valuable to those interests than the forecasts they buy, because he helps delay legislation to regulate greenhouse gasses. (2/3 of all fossil fuels must remain in the ground. What is the value of 2/3 of Exxon's reserves?)

I once had an engineering professor who often said, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0 "Meet the scientists" by potholer54