Here is a hypothetical question: If a founder of the Weather Channel released a public statement calling the theory of Man-Made Global Warming the “greatest scam in history,” would the media cover it? Well, we can move this to the realm of actual questions because that is exactly what happened on November 7th. John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel released a statement on his personal blog saying just that.
On Global Warming, Mr. Coleman also says he is,”…amazed, appalled and highly offended…,” by it. Mr. Coleman says he does not oppose environmentalism. This is a position I share. He goes on to say that:
“However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.”
This should be a pretty big strike against those who would have us hand over our energy policies to the United Nations. If Global Warming is a non-event as Mr. Coleman believes, then while we can continue to study global climate change, the focus should shift away from the realm of politics and back into the realm of science. Of course, this assumes that Mr. Coleman’s statements get out to the public.
I have been trying to watch for stories on the major networks talking about Mr. Coleman. Rush Limbaugh has covered it, as have Newsbusters and a website on climate change called ICECAP, and one NBC station in Augusta, GA. However, I haven’t been able to find coverage of Mr. Coleman on any of the other major news networks.
Here is an expert in the field of climatology who doesn’t believe in global warming. Without Mr. Coleman, one could argue that the Weather Channel may not have come into existence. Without the Weather Channel, where would the climatologist and weathermen employed by the Weather Channel be? Often when an expert disagrees with global warming, the “true-believers” attack the expert’s credentials, and not his or her statement. Surely we can skip that step this time and simply look at what Mr. Coleman said. If we question Mr. Coleman’s credentials, then I would argue there are no climatologist who should be believed or listened to on this topic.
We have an expert, a founder of the Weather Channel, who believes Global Warming is a scam and a hoax. Follow my link above and read his statement for yourself. Can we finally dispense with the “consensus” label and put man-made global warming back into the “scientific theory” category?
On Global Warming, Mr. Coleman also says he is,”…amazed, appalled and highly offended…,” by it. Mr. Coleman says he does not oppose environmentalism. This is a position I share. He goes on to say that:
“However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.”
This should be a pretty big strike against those who would have us hand over our energy policies to the United Nations. If Global Warming is a non-event as Mr. Coleman believes, then while we can continue to study global climate change, the focus should shift away from the realm of politics and back into the realm of science. Of course, this assumes that Mr. Coleman’s statements get out to the public.
I have been trying to watch for stories on the major networks talking about Mr. Coleman. Rush Limbaugh has covered it, as have Newsbusters and a website on climate change called ICECAP, and one NBC station in Augusta, GA. However, I haven’t been able to find coverage of Mr. Coleman on any of the other major news networks.
Here is an expert in the field of climatology who doesn’t believe in global warming. Without Mr. Coleman, one could argue that the Weather Channel may not have come into existence. Without the Weather Channel, where would the climatologist and weathermen employed by the Weather Channel be? Often when an expert disagrees with global warming, the “true-believers” attack the expert’s credentials, and not his or her statement. Surely we can skip that step this time and simply look at what Mr. Coleman said. If we question Mr. Coleman’s credentials, then I would argue there are no climatologist who should be believed or listened to on this topic.
We have an expert, a founder of the Weather Channel, who believes Global Warming is a scam and a hoax. Follow my link above and read his statement for yourself. Can we finally dispense with the “consensus” label and put man-made global warming back into the “scientific theory” category?
14 comments:
I don't think that being a weatherman qualifies anyone as an expert in climatology. There are no degrees associated with weatherman. He does not have a PHD. He has not spent thousands of hours in the field monitoring ice cores, or sampling water temperatures.
He is the founder of a very successful television company. The debate among real scientists has been over for a long time. Climate change is happening.
Hey, John Coleman used to be in Chicago. He came and spoke at our school when I was in 4th grade.
You know, this issue has become so polarizing that I'm afraid that people on the "Global warming is a scam" side of the argument will resist any kind of environmental activism for fear of being perceived as "believing" in global warming real.
I wish we could shelve this argument and all meet in the middle and agree that regardless of what you think about global warming, it makes sense for us to take steps to be more environmentally friendly.
Clean air and water is in the best interest of everyone, no matter what your stance on global warming is.
As per usual the real experts all agree that Global Warming is not man-made, but a scientific phenomenon that should be studied, not feared. As per usual the media ignores it.
We've come to expect that the left will simply ignore things that don't fit their world vision. They do it with good news from Iraq and they do it with anything that challenges the man-made Global Warming theory.
The problem is you're using logic to appeal to people who twist it to suit their goals. If you disagree with them you're wrong, it doesn't matter what evidence or experts you use to back up your argument.
Andy, this is stupid.
John Coleman is no more an "expert in the field of climatology" than this guy.
Worse, the dude didn't even found the weather channel--he had some ideas about it, but Frank Batten of Landmark founded it.
Andy writes: "If we question Mr. Coleman’s credentials, then I would argue there are no climatologist who should be believed or listened to on this topic." Umm, I can't help it: "what are Mr. Coleman's credentials, Andy?" Oh, you say he entered his career as a weather personality right after high school? I'm sure his high school had a great program in climate science. And we better trust him, because Andy says that if this high school graduate can't be trusted, then nobody can!
There will be always arguments for and against who or what is to blame for what is happening to the world but it doesn't take an expert to see that the human race has become gluttonous in its desire to consume.
If you were given a small patch of land to live on, the size of four car parking spaces and couldn't leave that space at any time, how carefully would you look after that plot in order to prolong your existence? Issues of waste and recyling would suddenly become much more important because your world has become much smaller.
That logic, that mentality needs to be applied on a global scale. Whether mankind is responsible for global warming or not, I have no idea and frankly don't care.... but the fact is we are not helping the issue and in our own small ways can all do something to help out.
Steve, if I quote those experts (the ones who do spend time in the field, the ones who do have PhD’s) then I am told their studies don’t count because they must take money from big oil.
Familyman, I agree. I think we do need to work hard towards clean air and clean water. I am a big fan of nuclear energy. No pollutant in the air with that process. However, most believes (see Anonymous) get a little crazy when you recommend nuclear energy. I don’t understand why we can’t find a common ground. I don’t believe in man-made global warming, but I do want to reduce our dependence on oil (especially foreign). Most man made global warming believers want clean air. Nuclear energy could help both sides.
Mr. President, I believe you are write. It seems that no matter what kind of expert I pick, anonymous and others don’t like them.
Anon, I am sorry, I thought the weather and climate were somehow related. I take Mr. Coleman at his word when he says he has studied the papers. I also agree that this should be about science. As far as credentials, surely you would agree that his credentials are better than Mr. Gore’s.
Paul, great comment. I think you are correct.
Andy.
OK, forget the IPCC. I guess you could argue that their opions could be influenced/corrupted by political considerations.
But how about -
The National Academy of Sciences
The American Geophysical Union
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
All three of which have said evidence that current climate change is being caused by humans is compelling.
Do these seem like the kind of organizations that would perpetrate a scam in the name of science?
If you are truly interested in a substantive debate on the topic based on the science, then throwing out hyperbolic rhetoric like "The Greatest Scam in History!" does nothing to bring the two sides together.
John Coleman may be a great TV weatherman, but I would say he is definitely on the fringe of the real scientific debate.
Scientists are indeed often wrong about climate change.
Consistently, they have *underestimated* how serious the problem is. That includes the IPCC. Here is a short and clear article on the issue.
I am getting tired of this. comments to discredit something, then a comment to discredit the discredit...next thing we will see is the hockey stick graph again! I am sick of people stating that this person is not qualified to say anything on this subject. What makes any of us qualified to determine who is qualified or not? the internet and the ability to read?
I do not know about global warming but i do know tires in rivers, oil slicks on the ocean, dirty haze over the cities is not good. Lets stop debating a theory and deal with what is right in front of us. That solves the issue on both sides. people stop talking about global warming and the things that cause the global warming are reduced.
Pack, I'm with you on reducing the causes of global warming.
But your frustration with the "debate" is no accident. This is exactly why fossil fuel companies try to keep the debate going--wear people down and confuse them. It's in their own in-house memos. Here's an excerpt from a Boston Globe article about the discovery of some of these strategies:
Using a combination of industry funding, media access and the support of the Republican-controlled Congress, doubters such as Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have convinced the public that there is far more doubt about the theory of global warming than really exists, argues Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner who has covered environmental issues since 1972.
It is largely because of their efforts, Gelbspan contends, that the Clinton Administration has taken no serious steps to curb global warming despite alarming signs, such as last week's flooding of Grand Forks, N.D., that human pollution may have made the climate not only warmer, but also more unstable.
"Americans don't know what is happening to the climate because the oil and coal industries have spent millions of dollars to persuade them that global warming isn't happening," writes Gelbspan.
The industry campaign has included recruiting scientists to produce videos, news articles and expert testimony challenging the theory of global warming.
A group of utilities and coal companies sought to "reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact," by targeting a media campaign at "older, less-educated men" and "young, low-income women," Gelbspan found.
Yes, it's there in their own memos: they're targeting those of us that they think are stupid.
Pack - That was exactly the point of both my posts.
So the oil and coal people have put up a defense by trying to persuade stupid people. That seems to be working. Perhaps a change in tactics is needed. Make it personal. Americans do not care about global. We care about ourselves. Telling people that the oceans will rise because of global warming makes the people inland say "hey that makes the beach not as far away." The oil and coal companies have taken it to the people and said this will cost you money. I don't care how dumb you are, people can understand that. Threating oceans rising will cause people to probably just say "build a wall." Would not be the first time we have city below sea level.
I'm not sure I understand...the article says our climate is more unstable. What exactly does that mean?
As for targeting stupid people, thanks to the poor education provided to the citizens of this country by our government we have more stupid people. Therefore, they are the target audience of those who wish to provide them with better information than they are getting in government schools. Isn't that what the MSM does everyday by only providing a liberal view of the issues? Thanks to government education the MSM can think for those stupid people and they won't have to do it for themselves, apparently.
pack04: I think that's a very important point. A little healthy self-interest here benefits all of us.
Post a Comment