• Person A makes claim X.
• Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
• Therefore claim X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own.

The connection here is even weaker since it is not Coleman's credibility questioned, but his partner's credibility through advertising revenue on a TV channel.

Nice try Richard.  Now let's see you address the message, instead of the messenger.

I certainly didn't interpret your post as an attack--only a critique of your rebuttal as logically fallacious since your post addressed the credibility of the messenger not the message.  

I agree that Coleman employs a lot of emotional language that i would not have chosen.  But the "take away" message here is a credible meteorologist of international standing has made it clear that GW is more of a political football than a environmental phenomenon.

Am I out of step?  Perhaps.  But if so, I have a LOT of company--not the least of which are the 19K scientists who are a lot smarter than me who have signed a petition contesting both GW and the public policy designed to correct (or mitigate) it. 

I was in college in the early 70s when scientists rang the alarm over global cooling, so I am more cautious about accepting scientific claims of impending global climate disaster.   In my military mind, here's what I need.

• I need a consensus--a REAL scientific consensus devoid of political posturing--on the existence and scope of the problem.
• I need defined courses of action (COA development) with a cost-benefit analysis for each. These should include a range of options with varying degrees of intervention.
• I need evidence that any intervention recommended can meet a pre-defined "end state." I do not accept, as a general premise, that doing "something" is better than doing "nothing."  Sometimes the best answer to a problem is to do nothing if the problem is self-correcting or incapable of correction. 
• COAs must include measures of effectiveness, along with methods and timeline for evaluating them
• I need to see political leadership at the UN that will communicate the COA and identify the resources required and their source.
• Global problems require global solutions--no exemptions for third world gross polluters like China and India.

See?  I'm not unreasonable.  I just want the facts and a good plan.  To date, I've seen neither.  Nor has Einstein's barmaid who will be asked to pay for it.

I have just received the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report titled Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers [subject to copy-edit] I have copied out the first pages, slightly edited to remove references to figures that I cannot present here. This is the summary of the Observed changes in climate and their effects. Note the observed. These are observations: not theories, not hypotheses.. They prove nothing, since proof is not an option in science, only in mathematics, but they are all consistent with the hypothesis.This is the product of consensus work from specialist scientists.

Of interest to Mike is this passage "There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, with limited evidence of increases elsewhere." It goes on to note that trends elsewhere are unclear. I have a graph which shows fluctuations without a clear trend.

Richard

Extract begins:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C 1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR)

(Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe, and is greater at higher northern latitudes.

Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans. {1.1, 1.2}

Rising sea level is consistent with warming. Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1}

Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming. Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1}

From 1900 to 2005, precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia but declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has likely2 increased since the 1970s. {1.1}

It is very likely that over the past 50 years: cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is likely that: heat waves have become more frequent over most land areas, the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas, and since 1975 the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has increased worldwide. {1.1}

There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, with limited evidence of increases elsewhere. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. It is difficult to ascertain longer-term trends in cyclone activity, particularly prior to 1970. {1.1}

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1}

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. {1.2}

Changes in snow, ice and frozen ground have with high confidence increased the number and size of glacial lakes, increased ground instability in mountain and other permafrost regions, and led to changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems. {1.2}

There is high confidence that some hydrological systems have also been affected through increased runoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers, and effects on thermal structure and water quality of warming rivers and lakes. {1.2}

In terrestrial ecosystems, earlier timing of spring events and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent warming. In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in

ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish abundance are with high confidence associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation. {1.2}Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical

and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming. However, there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries. {1.2, 1.3}

GIVEN implies the subject is resolved.  The problem with all your GIVENs, is there is no consensus on their resolution, meaning they are not GIVENs at all.

Further, I have already provided statistical research about Atlantic hurricane trends 1900-2006 which is in direct dispute with the data and conclusions you provided.

Whose data is correct is not nearly as important as the obvious conclusion that the issue is not resolved with any degree of certainty required to commit public policy and resources.  No one is stopping you from buying your very own solar car or giving up your hydrocarbon-burning lifestyle.  But you are not entitled to impose that on me or the rest of the world.  I have no intention of regressing from the benefits of modern civilization or tubing the economies of the developed world without a lot more convincing data.

Ultimately, I think Dr. Bill Gray said it best.

Mike wrote: "I have no intention of regressing from the benefits of modern civilization or tubing the economies of the developed world without a lot more convincing data."

Mike, you are not reading, or not understanding , what I have written. Go back up and read what the Stern Review has to say about GPD.

Sorry...I didn't realize you were serious about the Stern Review since it was so highly criticised and even discredited by even LIBERAL think-tanks like the Cato Institute.

Really Richard!

Let's keep your rebuttal in context.  Of the entire article I provided, you cut and paste the entire sum of criticism of Dr. Gray's work---one paragraph, quoting one professor. 

Dr. Gray has good reason to be critical about scientists with whom he disagrees.  As he has become more vocal in his skepticism of AGW, funding for his research has withered.  This has not stopped him, but has been duly noted by those scientists contemplating similar positions.  They remain quiet...and funded.  This continues to enable agenda-driven lobbies to gain strength.  Today they ridicule and stifle dissent.  In an earlier era, they might have been labling dissenters as heretics and executing them.  Different era, same intolerance.

Really, you don't have a clue about my personal lifestyle and it's typical of you to engage in an ad hominem rebuttal instead of dealing with the facts. 

It's easier for you to speculate on my intentions rather than acknowledge that some of us are not sheep willing to be led by those with radical environmentally socialist agendas.  We are rational, thinking human beings who want the facts and a high degree of accountability from our political leadership before committing our resources to public policy.

The facts of my lifestyle are irrelevant, but you might be surprised to know that my family and I live a very green lifestyle since we are committed conservationists in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition, as opposed human-hating environmentalists of today.  And yes, I believe the free market will provide the best innovation for green technology for tomorrow.

Not only will I "imply it" I'll state it for the record that a carbon based economy currently presents the most efficient and cost effective energy (with the exception of nuclear power generation).  When and if alternative energies are competitive, the free market will drive the shift away from carbon based energy. 

After all, I am a conservationist, not an environmentalist and there are distinct differences.  In fact, I have a large triangular sticker on the back of my flex-fuel vehicle, emblazoned with a green tree, proclaiming "Hydrocarbon Powered Eco-Vehicle". 

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/07312007d.shtml

Yes, I accept that all resources are finite.  I also accept that the free market will provide the most efficient solutions when artifical barriers like junk science are removed.

If you accept that all resources are finite ones, then you should always be looking for new opportunities. You need to keep in mind that Exxon Mobil is not in the energy business, they are in the profit business--energy is simply the commodity for making that profit.

There is a huge company where I live that has been around for over a hundred years.  They amassed hundreds of thousands of acres upon which they planted pine trees to feed the pulp mill from which they made paper.  Cheap paper imports nearly bankrupted the mill in the last 20 years.  But the company reinvented itself as a Land Development company and began building airports, residential sub-divisions, industrial parks, etc.  Same company--new commodity.  They profited from land instead of paper.  It's no difference with energy-based companies who will happily make money from whatever energy source is most profitable.   They will invest in whatever is profitable in the spirit of capitalism and the free market.