Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

24 posts / 0 new

I guess not every scientist believes, so there is still room for debate.

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

"In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "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 (in fact storms are diminishing).
"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-glob...

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

Comments

Dexterous,

: - )I hope you are right because if you are wrong we have already cooked our goose! : - )

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm
Quote Dexterous:I guess not every scientist believes, so there is still room for debate.

Scientist my ass! He's a freakin' TV weatherman with a degree in journalism. He doesn't even have a degree in meteorology, never mind, climatology. He wouldn't amount to a pimple on a climate scientist's butt. Sounds like he's off his rocker, if ya' ask me. Thanks, for the laugh, Dex.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: John Coleman (born October 15, 1934) is an American TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel. He has retired from broadcasting after nearly 61 years, working the last twenty at KUSI-TV in San Diego

Coleman started his career in 1953 at WCIA in Champaign Illinois, doing the early evening weather forecast and a local bandstand show called "At The Hop" while he was a student at the University of Illinois. After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD in Peoria Illinois. Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TVin Chicago.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 3:24 am
Quote express.co.uk:Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-glob...

And NIPCC is funded by the Heartland Institute which gets funds from the Koch Bros.

Quote theconversation.com:he NIPCC is a group of climate change “sceptics”, bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute’s backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.
---------
We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real. Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data.

http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudos...

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

When 97 or 98 out of 100 doctors diagnose an illness as appendicitis and the other two or three diagnose it as acute gas and advise you to go home and wait for a good fart then those two or three are what are commonly referred to as "quacks." And if you choose to take their advice over the advice of the other 97 or 98% of doctors who suggest immediate surgery you die. Climate scientists are the experts on the matter and there is a concensus among them regardless of any outliers.

So no, there is not still a debate, only the bellowing of a few quacks attempting to drown out the voice of reason for ideological or financial gain. Nice try though Dex, you get an "E" for effort.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 10:43 pm

The fascinating thing about climate science is that it involves a great variety of scientists and others including archaeologists and historians, all offering different pieces of the puzzle.

But while it could be possible for one whole area of science to take a wrong turn or collude or be bought for a while, when it comes to evidence of past and present cimate, there are too many contributions from all kinds of observers and academics which corroborate each other.

Of course, crystal ball gazing is another matter; people are free to come up with alternative scenarios that match the known facts. But this guy is not entitled to his own 'facts'.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This guy used a magic eight ball for his research.

.weather humor

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Palindromedary:
Quote express.co.uk:Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-glob... And NIPCC is funded by the Heartland Institute which gets funds from the Koch Bros.
Quote theconversation.com:he NIPCC is a group of climate change “sceptics”, bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute’s backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation. --------- We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real. Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data.
http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378
...and the Koch's have poured 3/4 of a B. $ into cancer research, much of it through the "David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research (/ˈkk/ kohk; also referred to as theKoch Institute, KI, or CCR/KI) is a cancer research center affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. The Institute is one of eightNational Cancer Institute-designated basic research centers in the United States.", so anything MIT does is, by transferrence automatically suspect? Lol.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

I hope the "LOL" at the end of your sentence is you looking in the mirror. What a horrible stretch and twist on your part mj.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I hope the "LOL" at the end of your sentence is you looking in the mirror. What a horrible stretch and twist on your part mj.

Koch's Money --> Heartland Inst. --> NIPCC --> Bad!

Koch's Money --> Koch Inst. for Cancer Research --> MIT --> Bad!

I believe it's called "transference" and the same illogical reasoning is used in both cases. Not a stretch at all.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

So you don't the first article posted on this topic, here is another:

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/6...

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

In March 2009, Forbes ran a feature on Newsmax describing it as a "media empire" and the "great right hope" of the Republican Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media

It would be best if political agendas left science to science.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

M2, that visit to that island of your post was really exotic, but the drug effect was depressing. I do get some empathy for what it must be like to be hooked on this shit.

It would even be nice if political ideology were really about politics instead of diversions into moral theology without a clue.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote polycarp2:It would be best if political agendas left science to science.
Now that's something about which we can agree.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I hope the "LOL" at the end of your sentence is you looking in the mirror. What a horrible stretch and twist on your part mj.

Koch's Money --> Heartland Inst. --> NIPCC --> Bad!

Koch's Money --> Koch Inst. for Cancer Research --> MIT --> Bad!

I believe it's called "transference" and the same illogical reasoning is used in both cases. Not a stretch at all.

That's like saying that since Jeffrey Dahmer drank Pepsi anyone who drinks pepsi is suspect.

Many evil people have been guilty of doing good things. Giving money to cancer research is a very good thing. It has no connection to one's political moral code. So yes, it's a tremendous stretch.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Even a Koch brother can die from cancer.

drbjmn
Joined:
Jul. 22, 2013 4:52 am

I like the analogy someone else made here:

You go to 99 doctors and all 99 tells you the bad news. You don't like what you hear, so you go to doctor #100 and he says, cool dude, you are fit as a fiddle, nothing to worry about.

99 doctors gives you the bad news. 1 doctor tells nothing to worry about. So who are you going to believe? It's your life on the line.

And for global warming, it seems that deniers would put their life in the lone doctor in the example. You go on your merry way. Ignorance is truly a bliss. Be happy.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

I suspect, the Kock brothers receive hefty tax benefits from their 'philanthropy,' as well as the patent rights for any life prolonging drugs which may result from the research. Cha-ching!

I can't decide: "NewsSmack" or "NewSmax"...... lol!

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 3:24 am

I suspect, the Kock brothers receive hefty tax benefits from their 'philanthropy,' as well as the patent rights for any life prolonging drugs which may result from the research. Cha-ching!

I can't decide: "NewsSmack" or "NewSmax"...... lol!

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 3:24 am
Quote douglaslee:

This guy used a magic eight ball for his research.

Odds are, the magic eight ball is more often right than he is; after all, he is a tv weatherman.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 3:24 am

Well Dex, between the title of this thread and your name attached to it, I knew we were in for a good round of BS, along with a stiff dose of junk science. You shillin' for Big Oil, Dex, or are you simply inclined to say "Nay" just 'cuz we lefties say "Yay"? If some lefty happened to mention the sky is blue, would you argue with that as well? Sure sounds like it.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland
Joined:
Mar. 10, 2011 9:42 am

Late but important changes the Express has been forced to make to it's article.

Correction

This article originally referred to John Coleman as a top meteorologist; that reference has now been removed. It also claimed that in 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming. In fact, the InterAcademy Council had not found that. The article has now been amended.

Neobiognosis's picture
Neobiognosis
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2015 2:57 pm
Quote Palindromedary:
Quote express.co.uk:Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-glob... And NIPCC is funded by the Heartland Institute which gets funds from the Koch Bros.
Quote theconversation.com:he NIPCC is a group of climate change “sceptics”, bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute’s backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation. --------- We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real. Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data.
http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378
I've seen that 97% claim often and always thought that it was probably bunkum then today I ran across an article that addresses this particular piece of 'alarmist' propaganda:

"A common claim among proponents of action on climate change is that the overwhelming majority of climatologists agree on global warming science. One commonly cited statistic is that 97 percent of climatologists agree on global warming. This 97 percent number is recited and embellished by politicians and environmental activist organizations pushing to decarbonize America and the world’s energy sector. In a 2014 commencement speech at Boston College, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”[2] This is, in fact, not the case.

The figure comes from a 2013 Cook et al. study in Environmental Research Letters that examines the abstracts of nearly 12,000 academic papers on climate change and global warming between 1991–2011. Of those papers, 66.4 percent expressed no opinion on anthropogenic warming, 32.6 percent “endorsed” anthropogenic warming, 0.7 percent rejected anthropogenic warming, and 0.3 percent were unsure of the cause.[3] Of the 33.6 percent expressing an opinion on man-made global warming, “97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”[4] Importantly, the claim says nothing about urgency or danger.

Cook’s paper was the subject of much criticism. Richard Tol, a professor at the University of Sussex, warned that “[t]his claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low.”[5] David R. Legates, former director of University of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research, along with three other researchers, analyzed the same set of papers in the Cook study. They found that a mere 0.3 percent of all papers, or 1 percent of the 4,014 papers expressing an opinion on the matter, claim that the majority of warming since 1950 is man-made.[6]

Further, the Cook et al. study is misleading as to what there is consensus on and glosses over major points of uncertainty and disagreement in the scientific community. To be clear, Cook et al. do not attempt to quantify how much global warming is man-made, or even say that man-made emissions contribute to the majority of global warming. The specific or even generalized amount of warming caused by anthropogenic emissions, according to Cook’s study, is undetermined. Furthermore, the search terms Cook used to aggregate the climate papers exclude research papers from climate “skeptics,” such as MIT atmospheric physicist and former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributor Dr. Richard Lindzen.[7]

The 97 percent statistic is nothing more than a false talking point; no overwhelming consensus exists among climatologists on the magnitude of future warming or on the urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Thank you for your comment here. I was about tto say the same thing until I saw your comment. Yeah, the original posters link to that "express.co" story made no mention of the fact that it had been amended. Interestingly, the way they worded their 'amendment' style of correction indicated to me that even tthe 'express' smelled BS.

Mr.Wayne's picture
Mr.Wayne
Joined:
Feb. 19, 2016 10:06 am

Why Don't Norwegians Immigrate to the United States?

This is from Occupy Democrats: "Dear Trump: this is why Norwegians don't immigrate to America."

The World Happiness Rank for the United States, we're number 19 - Norway, number one.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system