Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at uscentrist.org

Global Warming Denier John Coleman meets up with Science

uscentrist.org — John Coleman (Weather Channel Founder) has been getting considerable airtime presenting himself as an expert on climate change, making broad statements such as global warming is "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." In this article his junk science is reduced to junk..

Bury

onyxcoltrane 70 days ago

141 diggs
digg it

bbwolf7, on 06/27/2008, -7/+26Coleman says" I do not oppose environmentalism. 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."

FTA: Mr. Coleman seems to not understand the difference between meteorology and climatology. The study of human caused Global Warming is 'not' predominantly "the science of meteorology". Meteorology has to do with the weather, which involves short term regional events. Global Warming has to do with Climatology which involves long term climate trends and influences.

From NASA:
meteorology 1 : a science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena and especially with weather and weather forecasting 2 : the atmospheric phenomena and weather of a region

climatology, climates 1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors 3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere
greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -6/+16What digg has joined together, let no Denier seperate ;-)
Fangsinmybeard, on 06/27/2008, -5/+8I find it interestingly poor argumentation that prior to the frenzied clash of debunking science and scientific evidence, there was a considerable effort to impugn experts in general. The juxtaposition of challenging expertise in general prior to the massive effort to educate people about global warming is far to much of a coincidence to be mere chance. The waters were being poisoned by a clearly sophisticated plan to polarize an issue that is not a polarizing issue, except for those who clearly have a wish for human extinction. On the one side you have those who wish to have humanity survive and on the other you have the highly deranged focus of ending all life in the planet, which I find curiously strange that the variability of human behavior has produced this phenomenon.
scamerica, on 06/27/2008, -23/+6Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
- Ebonsteel, on 06/27/2008, -4/+19Check their bank accounts for big fat grants from Exxon/Mobile then get back to me on the unbiased nature of their opinions.
  - scamerica, on 06/27/2008, -13/+2Idiot... The Big Oil are behind the global-warming scam
  - Ebonsteel, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8Wait a second ... you're the guy spouting Right Wing talking point *****, then claiming that the multi-BILLION dollar industry that is trying to silence all talk of global climate change is actually BEHIND the movement they are against ... and I'm the idiot?
    
    You are either severely deluded or an ignorant RW douchebag. My money is on both.
- monoa, on 06/27/2008, -2/+23The list can be summarised by the author of it, Lawrence Solomon: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." - http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=12d ...
  
  1. A detailed look at this list:
  * Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
  * Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
  * Prof. Paul Reiter is a medical entomologist (he studies insect-borne disease) and therefore has no training in climate science. He has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.
  * Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is a retired aeronautical engineer. He has provided no evidence to counter the accepted scientific consensus, and seems mainly concerned with the effect of turbulence on climate models.
  * Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
  * Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.
  * Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
  * Dr. Tom V. Segalstad - he provides no evidence for his claim re. "most leading geologists". He claims "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 .... is small" and has, again, provided no evidence for this claim which runs counter to all other measurements (atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315ppm to 387ppm in the past 45 years). He collaborates with the discredited Dr. Jaworowski on many of his published articles.
  * Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"
  * Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature...". He now says "The cause of
  this climate change is unknown".
  * Dr. Richard Lindzen is also a member of 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which receives major funding from ExxonMobil. He also works for 'Cato Institute' - again funded by ExxonMobil.
  * Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - his claims that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change have been discredited - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb ...
  * Dr. Richard Tol, an economist, does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, he has merely debated the economic impact.
  * Dr. Sami Solanki - "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
  * Prof. Freeman Dyson - "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
  * Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change and says "there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much." - http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
  
  2. Many of the people on this list are taken from the discredited Heartland Institute - http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-scientist- ...
  
  3. Who should you believe? The handful of discredited or misquoted scientists on this list or the thousands of credible scientists in *every* national academy in every developed country on the planet who say dangerous climate change is happening and is largely due to human activity?
  
  4. "...no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
  
  5. There is another, equally dishonest and discredited, list of 31,000 'scientists' who deny anthropogenic climate change will cause "catastrophic heating". It's known as the 'Oregon Petition' and has been debunked as oil-industry propaganda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
  
  So, the entire list is composed of lies, misquotes and discredited claims - and this is all the reality deniers have available to them, along with wilful ignorance and dishonesty. Again, the author of the book, Lawrence Solomon, says: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."
  
  scamerica keeps pasting this list even though he knows it is fraudulent. That makes him some combination of dumb, deluded, dishonest and deranged.
  - onyxcoltrane, on 06/27/2008, -2/+15Monoa, Thanks for the vetting and links!
  - nblsavage, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8Excellent work monoa. This SHOULD shut scamerica up, but I'm sure it won't.
  - JoeVet, on 06/27/2008, -2/+9Add that Dr. Richard Lindzen, besides taking money from big oil is using global warming to advance his discredited iris effect. Lindzen hasn't published in years unless you count his opinion articles in newspapers.
  - Fordi, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2@Joe Vet:
    Lindzen is also now famous for stating a '50/50' chance of Global cooling v. warming, but asking 50:1 odds on a bet against a GW supporter if cooling were to happen in 20 years.
    
    That is, his mouth thinks there's a 50% chance of warming, but his wallet thinks there's a 98% chance of warming.
Jimmyb207, on 06/27/2008, -3/+9It's hard to believe sometimes how governments and politicians have seized global warming and turned it into a political tool. Let the scientists and climatologist figure this out. They will provide a solution that will benefit mankind, not just themselves
BitterrootBob, on 06/27/2008, -11/+5It's too cold in Montana anyway.
mikes1, on 06/27/2008, -4/+7Forget all that global warming nonsense. Ignoring the whiners with oceanfront property, global warming is good for us. http://www.sonoma.edu/users/f/freidel/global/372mo ...

Burning fossil fuels only helps to restore the natural order. Guess who it was that sequestered all that CO2 in the first place, making it unnaturally cold? Yep, the green plants! It's all a conspiracy by the "green movement." Their name tells all. They want the plants to take over.

It's flora vs. fauna, and as animals, it's our job to restore nature's balance.

FREE THE CO2! SUPPORT ANIMAL RIGHTS!
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4A 1995 paper by a technologist "explaining" climate science and biology? a man who was formally a tobacco industry apologist and produced a report that was known to be nonsense when it was first written? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_ ...
  
  This is what you offer?
  
  Is this post actually supposed to be sarcasm or humour? as with so much right wing stuff, it's really hard to tell
  http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_can ...
- Fordi, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1CO2 levels >= 10,000 ppm (1%) is actually toxic to most animal and insect life at even just a few hours exposure. How do I know?
  
  One of the best methods of fumigation when running a greenhouse is to hold CO2 concentration at around 1% within a greenhouse for about four hours, then ventilate it back to nominal concentrations. I can't say it kills all insect life (a thorough search is troublesome), but I know that if this is done at least once monthly, your greenhouse will not have mites, caterpillars, or other destructive insect life.
  
  Speaking of which, one of these days, I've gotta automate the process. I normally do it using a high-efficiency propane burner with a digital acid tester to check the acidity of water with greenhouse air bubbled through (CO2+H2O=>H2CO3, or carbonic acid) at the other end. Takes about an hour to get CO2 levels high enough to kill animal life. Wait four hours after that, and start the input and exhaust fans. I'm sure I could use an Arduino microcontroller to run that process....
AMACTASTIC, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2I never liked these types of articles, in which person A contradicts every point person B made, when B isn't there to defend himself.
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8But the advantage of espace is there is an exact record of what was said and the other party can respond later.
  - AMACTASTIC, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1True, but it is highly unlikely that the other party would respond to every article such as this
  - greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Of course, but if we compare it to the standard verbal exchanges then at least in espace they have the chance to. Heck, a third party may step in and pick it up. I'm nont saying it's perfect, but it's not so bad.
- Fordi, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1This has been the modus operandi of scientific journals for ages. You can be sure that if your name is mentioned in an article, you'll find out about it eventually, and have the option to write a response in your defence.
peterklok, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4All these internet arguments will make no difference. It is too late already. I just wonder how many humans will survive and in what kind of world. Even the super wealthy will have no place to hide.
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Sadly there is a very real possibility that you are correct. The Deniers have run a pretty successful delaying action. What is ironic is that when the ***** hits they will blame us; no doubt under the guise of God's wrath for our liberal sins, but you can bet they will claim it is our fault.
floatingorb, on 06/27/2008, -3/+4"...There is a big difference between weather and climate. Weather is short term, and studied largely by meteorologists. Climate is long term and studied largely by climatologists...."

You carbon crazies are making my point; Policy is being made on "weather" which is what we experience and can observe in our 'can't remember last tuesday'-style memories. Climate always changes drastically but more slowly than is retained in our memories.-- It's a time-scale thing.

Well, some say that "wide swings" is due to rapid anthropogenic climate change (what happened to "global warming"?) -- It is a bit inconvenient to explain the extra use (not cost) of heating oil these past years, isn't it?

Borrowed from SouthPark:
"Because of global warming, we are all going to freeze to death."

George Carlin on ' Saving The Planet':
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Enjoy your global tax on life, carbon crazies ( stop breathing and I'll buy your credit!!).
- trumpydumpy, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5While I agree that a carbon tax will do little or nothing to help solve this problem, ignoring the facts about greenhouse gas emissions won't either. Yes, the big corporations and Al Gore are trying to cash in on this global warming craze, and no that does not mean it isn't real. Carbon dioxide is not the only heat trapping gas emitted by cars, and plants are not unlimited sponges for CO2.
  - floatingorb, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2I just farted -- Damn!!! it contains methane. I want to be in 'compliance' and do the right thing; What form do I need to fill out and declare that? Is there a shot I can get so I don't fart so much?
    
    I'm not a 'denier'; I expect and embrace climate change, as some welcome the sunrise or sunset -- we missed our 'eden' of an inter-glacial this time round. How is more CO2 accumulated on this planet unless it is imported from off-world? It was apparently much higher in the past before most of it got turned into limestone; A time when colossal beasts roamed the entire globe and had plenty to eat.
    
    CO2 is our friend at many times the current concentrations!!
    People want to let a very tyranical system TRY to hold the gas at a set level because they are conditioned to believe that to do otherwise is totally bad.
  - Fordi, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"plants are not unlimited sponges for CO2."
    
    This isn't really true; plants can and do survive and thrive on much higher concentrations of CO2 that animals can. In fact, plant absorption (on average) of carbon dioxide increases at a rate of O(log(n))* where n is CO2 concentration.
    
    The question isn't whether plants are 'unlimited spnges' for CO2; they are. The question is whether their sequestration rates can keep up with our emission rates, what sort of lag is involved, and how much climatological damage can be done before CO2 levels plateau and ultimately reduce.
    
    Remember: the earth was once primarily anaerobic; the advent of plant life made oxygen available for animal life to form. Even if we convert this world's oxygen entirely back into CO2, we'll have our 70 N2:20 O2:9.95 X:0.05 CO2** balance again soon - the question is how soon, and is it soon enough.
    
    * Big O notation; ask a programer. Allows for knowledge of magnitude without knowledge of specific numbers.
    
    ** That's a rough ratio, defining comfortable conditions for mankind, of:
    70% Nitrogen
    20% Oxygen
    9.95% Other stuff
    0.05% Carbon Dioxide (500 ppm)
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2No, as you well know from discussions we have had on other threads, drastic change is catastrophic
  
  Here is a great example of the reality of how increased CO2 is helping plants to grow http://digg.com/environment/48_Wildfires_Currently ...
  and here http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/jun08/jun23/Droug ... and http://digg.com/environment/Global_Warming_and_Agr ...
  
  Funny idea of Eden if you ask me. If that is your idea of paradise you could move to Darfur now and get a jump on everyone else.
  
  Reality trumps beliefs, look at the real world instead of your assumptions.
- greenfyre, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5To a very limitd extent policy is being influenced by science, not weather. Switching to a different post hasn't changed the fact that you are still talking about your faith and beliefs, not the science.
  
  The science is still here:
  
  http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
  http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
  http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
  
  Not at South Park or from a comedian. Deal with it, or acknowledge to yourself that clinging to a delusion is more important to you than truth.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Global Warming Denier John Coleman meets up with Science

Login or register to add a comment