Hello All!

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming Science 'Not Valid'

Meteorologist John Coleman, who co-founded The Weather Channel, says the claim that human activity is leading to global warming is no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, the "little evidence" there is for rising global
temperatures points to a "natural phenomenon," Coleman asserts.

In an open letter to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he wrote: "There is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar bears are increasing in number.

"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms.

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environmental agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Coleman says he based his views on the findings of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (not to be confused with the U.N. panel), a body of scientists and scholars who assess the science of global warming.

"There is no significant man-made global warming at this time. There has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future," says Coleman, who was the original meteorologist on "Good Morning America."

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

"There has been no warming over 18 years."

The U.N.'s IPCC argues that their research shows man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable, the Express in Britain reported.

Climate expert William Happer, a professor at Princeton University, expressed support for Coleman's claims.

"No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks
to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas
by advocates of government control [of] energy production," Happer said.

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide
will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."


"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

Winston Churchill

* PowerSIG/Win32 v2.00/alpha 1

... Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.
___ TagDude 0.92ss+[GH] with 23,200 taglines.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The Curmudgeon's Place telnet://curmudge.hopto.org !! (33:1/2)
þ Synchronet þ curmudge.hopto.org

Yeah? So? Why do we care what someone *thinks* about it?

On 10/26/14, The Curmudgeon said the following...

Hello All!

"As Coleman's critics have noted, he does not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor has he studied or conducted any research in that field; he merely parrots arguments advanced by others. Moreover, much of his criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work"

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming Science 'Not Valid'

Meteorologist John Coleman, who co-founded The WeatherChannel, says the claim that human activity is leading to global warming is no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, the "little evidence" there is for rising global
temperatures points to a "natural phenomenon," Coleman asserts.

In an open letter to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he wrote: "There is no climate crisis. The ocean
is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar bears are increasing in number.

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A52 (Linux)
* Origin: Cyberia BBS | Cyberia.Darktech.Org | Kingwood, TX

Re: Global Warming?
By: The Curmudgeon to All on Sun Oct 26 2014 04:57 pm

Despite starting the weather channel, Coleman has no training in climatology and has conducted no research in the field. According to snopes.com, there have been numerous line by line rebuttals of Coleman's speech on climate change. In fact, Coleman can't even speak on the science, his attitude is one of rejection of the motives behind the science of global warning.

As far as motives go and expertise, your Princeton professor is not an expert on climatology but physics, and also worked as the director of Energy under George Bush Senior, whose whole priority in life and in politics centered around the oil industry.

It amazes me that people read drivel like this and think they have stumbled into some conspiracy as if they've done superior research and found the truth. It takes all of 2 minutes to figure out that neither of these guys have much credibility in this field, and make zero scientific arguments.

Just because someone founded the history channel doesn't mean they know everything about history or can make it up as they go along. If a creative writing professor decides to tune in to these revised versions of history, it doesn't make them valid - it probably means the creative writing teacher sees job openings for their students making up history.

I'm trying to figure out Coleman's motivation, and I think he's just a cheapskate. The only variables he sees are the price of gas - but even with a limited understanding of how the weather works I know that the sun doesn't decide to shine or not based on the price of petroleum (directly).

My point being, is if you strip away all the fanfare, you're looking at very little substance in what these two 'gentlemen' bring to the table. They are not researchers, but biased spokespeople.

While this is not an issue I'm super passionate about, global warming, it's funny to see someone pointing out a conspiracy when they are actually perpetuating it. While I make no conclusions on global warming the fact that deniers trot out representatives such as the ones you reference, tends to push me in the direction that is real. By referencing such transparent, unqualified and biased people it has the opposite effect of your intention because it demonstrates the lack of credibility of that side of the argument.

I don't want global warming, it's already hot enough where I live. So to hear that it didn't exist would be grand. But you know, the Pentagon issued a report yesterday about the effects of Climate Change on National Security and it was pretty serious - and the Pentagon isn't following a political agenda (spare me your illuminati paranoia). Anyhow, it's a bit more recent than your weather channel guy's speech that he came up with 7 years ago after getting grouchy while watching a football game, and perhaps a little more thought out.

Just my 2 cents on this article.
ll morph G futureland.grudgemirror.com LaRRy LaGoMoRpH\-/
O
=M=
'not your average board check it out' /-\


---
þ Synchronet þ Futureland.Grudgemirror.Com ** LIVE ** Music and

Re: Re: Global Warming?
By: Gryphon to The Curmudgeon on Mon Oct 27 2014 09:47 am

"As Coleman's critics have noted, he does not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor has he studied or conducted any research in that field; he merely parrots arguments advanced by others. Moreover, much of his criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of

yeah, he only reported on the weather for 61 years. it's not like he paid attention when he was doing it and noticed any changes or patterns!

i remember regis and kelly did a spot where they got old old old newspaper and weather warnings.

it's the same old recycled shit since we could write. we're going to have another iceage! we have global warming! it's hot! it's cold! we're all gonna die.

it's all just making people money.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Global Warming?
By: LaRRy LaGoMoRpH to The Curmudgeon on Mon Oct 27 2014 11:55 am

As far as motives go and expertise, your Princeton professor is not an
expert on climatology but physics, and also worked as the director of
Energy under George Bush Senior, whose whole priority in life and in
politics centered around the oil industry.

It amazes me that people read drivel like this and think they have
stumbled into some conspiracy as if they've done superior research and
found the truth. It takes all of 2 minutes to figure out that neither of
these guys have much credibility in this field, and make zero scientific
arguments.

I dunno. A lot of bucks have been spewed in the Auto industry over this crap. Exactly how clean does a car need to run? My first brand new car was a Ford Maverick that went for $1999.00 before taxes. BRAND NEW! Anyone remember the commercial for it? How much harm did that car really cause? The same car with the immisions shit the government requires today goes for at least $18999.00 brand new today. I stopped jerkin off when I was 16 so don't jerk me off now!

That's my 2 cents. ;-)

Heliarc

---
þ Synchronet þ HAVENS BBS - hbbs.no-ip.org