Founder of Weather Channel - Global Warming is a myth

The Founder of the Weather Channel John Coleman has come out and said that there is no man made Climate Change and explains how the theory came into being.

Of course most people are house trained by the establishment and just take on the liberal left views, with no analysis or validations. Views like 97% of “scientists” back man made climate change (wrong - 97% of government climate change funded scientists back this), or the polar ice caps are decreasing and penguins are falling off floating ice (wrong, the ice caps have been vastly expanding).

Hear this guy out. He has been a Weatherman for more than half a century.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Doones

Original post by Oceans111

Hear this guy out. He has been a Weatherman for more than half a century.

Is he a scientist or a broadcaster? What are his academic/research qualifications?

Reply 2

Oceans111

Original post by Doonesbury

Is he a scientist or a broadcaster? What are his academic/research qualifications?

His credentials are in broadcasting. But nevertheless 60 years experience with meteorology.

Why do people think you need academic credentials in a subject to have knowledge. Many people have a lot of knowledge is subjects without any credentials.

Reply 3

Doones

Original post by Oceans111

His credentials are in broadcasting.

So you'd also trust Ulrika's view of climate change more than 97% of scientists? :beard:

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 4

Oceans111

Original post by Doonesbury

Spoiler: Al Gore who came up with the theory of man made global warming has no credentials in meteorology also, we went to law school.

Reply 5

Oceans111

Original post by Doonesbury

So you'd also trust Ulrika's view of climate change more than 97% of scientists? :beard:

I already covered that one, see my OP.

Spoiler: Its nonsense that 97% of scientists believe the theory. 97% of IPC. Scientists who are paid to promote the theory, promote it.

You guys have all the credentials, why can’t you discover these basic facts?

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 6

Doones

Original post by Oceans111

Spoiler: Al Gore who came up with the theory of man made global warming has no credentials in meteorology also, we went to law school.

The idea of man made global warming long precedes Gore's involvement.

"Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

But note the academic interest, he didn't just study "Law" (actually he majored in Government, not Law) at Harvard.

Reply 7

Oceans111

Original post by Doonesbury

Hearing a lecturers opinions on a subject he didn’t major in does not give him credentials in meteorology - not that credentials trump a sound argument.

Al Gores argument was not sound - it was a complete failure, a scare tactic from the start and Everything he predicted failed.

Thank God he wasn’t voted in as President.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 8

Napp

Original post by Oceans111

Pray tell what proof you have that global warming isnt real then? Personally one would rather trust people who have spent years researching it and have a verifiable expertise on the matter as opposed to a weather girl with a laser pointer.

Original post by Oceans111

Onlly if there wasn't there was a physical mechanism between carbon dioxide and infrared absorption.
Only if there wasn't a measurable increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration far in excess of anything seen in the last half million years

Also

Reply 11

howitoughttobe

Original post by Oceans111

wrong - 97% of government climate change funded scientists back this

Original post by Doonesbury

So you'd also trust Ulrika's view of climate change more than 97% of scientists? :beard:

Actually you're both wrong. The 97% figure comes from a study done of nearly 12,000 papers on climate change, where the abstract was read to determine the paper's position on man-made global warming. Of the papers that expressed an opinion, 97.1% agreed that it was man-made. However, 66.4% of the papers in the study expressed no opinion whatsoever as to the cause of global warming and that is why the statistic is wrong.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

Reply 12

Jinxed cupcake

Man made climate change has been thoroughly debunked. It is used by leftists to increase taxes and state power.

Reply 13

piehaus

Original post by Oceans111

i literally am losing my tether with people thinking global warming is a myth. how is global warming a myth when we can measure the temperature of our oceans ? ocean temperatures are rising on average by 1 degree celsius every year, how can that be made up lmaooooo. people who don’t think global warming is real are just too ignorant to want to make a change, because yes, whilst global warming is a generally natural phenomenon, overtime the anthropogenic influences have undeniable worsened climate change, and like i said, you cannot fake or fabricate the fact that for example our oceans are becoming warmer every single year due to global warming.

Reply 14

Doones

Original post by Manitude

Also

97% this. +3% for safety.

Reply 15

Oceans111

Original post by Napp

Your argument is the “They must know best” argument. That is a terrible way of doing business in the world because everyone is just assuming that there is this all seeing and all knowing “they” that often simply doesn’t exist.

Why have global warming scientists got it wrong? Because they are politically funded and therefore a political unit. This body make a lot of false statements and claims. Let’s start with the false 97% of scientists claim and the fact that their computer temperature predictions never happened. Temperatures have stayed the same for the last 20 years, and additionally the earth naturally has temperature cycles and we never ever broke out of a natural temperature cycle.

Reply 16

Oceans111

Original post by piehaus

Try and use some data and not emotion. Emotion has zero validity in a scientific debate.

Reply 17

Doones

Original post by Oceans111

Try and use some data and not emotion. Emotion has zero validity in a scientific debate.

Says the guy advocating for a TV broadcaster.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 18

Doones

[video="youtube;-yIHxOui9nQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/video]

Reply 19

Dez

Original post by Oceans111

Many different scientific agencies dotted around the world have produced evidence spanning decades (centuries in some cases) of climate measurement. Practically all the data paints a consistent picture: global warming exists. There is simply no way to deny that temperatures are rising, or that atmospheric CO2 is at record levels.

Original post by Oceans111

Why have global warming scientists got it wrong? Because they are politically funded and therefore a political unit.

All scientists get their funding from somewhere, they rarely work for free. That doesn't mean we can just throw out every single bit of work they've ever done. Sure, keeping a skeptical mind is important (fundamental to the scientific process really), but in order to be skeptical you need to actually look at the evidence, not just reject it out of hand.

Also, it's really quite ironic that you're suggesting politicians are buying them off, when most western governments are actually actively working against ecology and environmentalism.

Original post by Oceans111

This body make a lot of false statements and claims. Let’s start with the false 97% of scientists claim and the fact that their computer temperature predictions never happened. Temperatures have stayed the same for the last 20 years, and additionally the earth naturally has temperature cycles and we never ever broke out of a natural temperature cycle.

Temperatures have not stayed the same for the past 20 years. That statement doesn't even make sense, temperatures don't even stay the same over the course of 24 hours yet alone two decades. Again, there is plenty of evidence here to prove you wrong, and unless you are going to scientifically analyse and conclusively prove that all of these studies are in some way flawed (go ahead, I'll wait) you need to accept that the most likely truth is not what you say it is.