Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming

[kari21]

As to John Coleman, this is his opinion. He has never published anything in any scientific journals on climate. He has never published anything that challenged Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. If it is such a sham, then why does he not do so? Well the answer is simple, he is simply giving his opinion but he has nothing in terms of science to substantiate his opinion with.

By that same measure, if you've never published anything on global warming in peer-reviewed journals, why should we listen to you?

[KeilanS]

As to John Coleman, this is his opinion. He has never published anything in any scientific journals on climate. He has never published anything that challenged Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. If it is such a sham, then why does he not do so? Well the answer is simple, he is simply giving his opinion but he has nothing in terms of science to substantiate his opinion with.

By that same measure, if you've never published anything on global warming in peer-reviewed journals, why should we listen to you?

That was mean... but I laughed. Sorry Forrest.

[forrestkc]

As to John Coleman, this is his opinion. He has never published anything in any scientific journals on climate. He has never published anything that challenged Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. If it is such a sham, then why does he not do so? Well the answer is simple, he is simply giving his opinion but he has nothing in terms of science to substantiate his opinion with.

By that same measure, if you've never published anything on global warming in peer-reviewed journals, why should we listen to you?

Because I quote them. I don't pretend to have discovered anything that mainstream science has not, thats why I quote their studies and their published work. I don't just spout off my opinion.

As Mr. Coleman:

Forget science, we got ourselves a conspiracy theorist!

8 Nov 07

Forget any real science, when it comes to right-wing bloggers apparently all it takes to disprove an entire body of scientific evidence is the conspiracy theories of a retired weatherman.

The blog portion of Brett Bozell's Media Research Center, Newsbusters, ExxonMobil funded, echo chamber is today asking, "if the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?"

Yesterday, John Coleman, a founder of The Weather Channel, wrote an article for the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a right-wing climate change skeptic site, claiming man-made global warming is just a

[kari21]

Because I quote them. I don't pretend to have discovered anything that mainstream science has not, thats why I quote their studies and their published work. I don't just spout off my opinion.

And yet, you reject what other qualified scientists have said against the theory of man-made global warming.

[forrestkc]

Because I quote them. I don't pretend to have discovered anything that mainstream science has not, thats why I quote their studies and their published work. I don't just spout off my opinion.

And yet, you reject what other qualified scientists have said against the theory of man-made global warming.

Which ones? If 99 out of 100 scientists agree on something, and one doesn't, and most of the times, that 1% that doesn't has a financial motive for going against the consensus, which one are you going to go with?

[kari21]

Because I quote them. I don't pretend to have discovered anything that mainstream science has not, thats why I quote their studies and their published work. I don't just spout off my opinion.

And yet, you reject what other qualified scientists have said against the theory of man-made global warming.

Which ones? If 99 out of 100 scientists agree on something, and one doesn't, and most of the times, that 1% that doesn't has a financial motive for going against the consensus, which one are you going to go with?

Are you actually saying that those scientists who do not agree with the theory are only doing so because of a financial motive? Is it possible that those who DO go along with the crowd are the ones who are doing so to gain research funds?

[Marnie]

Thanks for the post Marnie...

You are entirely welcome.

You know, I post "interesting news stories" because I find them interesting. Watching the kids bantering back and forth, while entertaining, is somewhat wearisome, though. If I read the phrase, "peer reviewed" one more time, I'll puke, I swear I will.

Some Christians seem to forget that these verses are in the Bible--

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. "As long as the earth endures,

seedtime and harvest,

cold and heat,

summer and winter,

day and night

will never cease."

--Gen. 8:21-22

[Guest]

Thanks for the post Marnie...

You are entirely welcome.

You know, I post "interesting news stories" because I find them interesting. Watching the kids bantering back and forth, while entertaining, is somewhat wearisome, though. If I read the phrase, "peer reviewed" one more time, I'll puke, I swear I will.

Some Christians seem to forget that these verses are in the Bible--

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. "As long as the earth endures,

seedtime and harvest,

cold and heat,

summer and winter,

day and night

will never cease."

--Gen. 8:21-22

Thank you for this Marnie! Couldn't have said it better.

[forrestkc]

Because I quote them. I don't pretend to have discovered anything that mainstream science has not, thats why I quote their studies and their published work. I don't just spout off my opinion.

And yet, you reject what other qualified scientists have said against the theory of man-made global warming.

Which ones? If 99 out of 100 scientists agree on something, and one doesn't, and most of the times, that 1% that doesn't has a financial motive for going against the consensus, which one are you going to go with?

Are you actually saying that those scientists who do not agree with the theory are only doing so because of a financial motive? Is it possible that those who DO go along with the crowd are the ones who are doing so to gain research funds?

Are you saying that Exxon would not pay for research that challenged Anthropogenic Global Warming?

I am saying that most that go against the concensus have an obvious financial motive. Some don't, but there is never a 100% agreement on any emerging science.

[undone]

What is Mr. Coleman's theory on why the polar ice caps appear to be shrinking? I've watched the NASA Channel footage which show the progressive recession of the ice over time enough to realize something's up. Is it a totally natural cycle or should we not pay attention and do what we can to prevent/curtail any man-made problems?

Who can actually say they support the production of so called "Green House" gases?

Supposedly, the earth was covered with volcanic dust a zillion years ago with absolutely no ice on its surface, but then became a snowball. There wasn't any cars or aerosol cans back then.