John Coleman on Global Warming - Fraud!

**Volcon** · 06-14-2008 01:32 AM

John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce

The fraud of Global Warming

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../19842304.html

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The future of our civilization lies in the balance. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predicta calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Here is my rebuttal. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming? [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. [/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.[/FONT]

Thoughts?

Edit: Sorry about the weird [font] things in there, i'm not sure which i can remove without screwing up the whole formating. Mod care to help me with this?

**Sornaensis** · 06-14-2008 01:55 AM

As the birthrate rises, so does the deathrate.

Therefore babies must be killing people.

**wendylove** · 06-14-2008 07:15 PM

When have weather man been right, never. Therefore he must be wrong. Even than being a weather man is not good training in global warming, which he has not a degree in and is not in the revelant field, and he has no evidence to back up his claim.

So yeah.

As the birthrate rises, so does the deathrate.

Seis are you a global warming denier?

**ninja9578** · 06-14-2008 08:17 PM

"George Bush said that he now believes in global warm, as a result I'm not sure anymore" - Lewis Black

**Sornaensis** · 06-14-2008 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by wendylove

Seis are you a global warming denier?

Yes and no.

**Xaqaria** · 06-16-2008 06:19 AM

I won't say I believe the global warming hype but I won't be one to deny it outright; there just isn't enough data.

Mr. Coleman makes some good points but he's not a scientist, he's a tv personality. He doesn't have any degrees in meterology that I can find; he's just been reporting the weather for a long time (one webpage said since highschool, so there is a chance he doesn't have more than a highschool education or even less.)

Personally, my issues with oil dependancy aren't about the weather. If we learn that global warming is natural and is not caused by burning fossil fuels, at least by then we will have started to build an infrastructure that isn't reliant on them anyway and so will be more prepared when they do run out completely.

**RedfishBluefish** · 06-16-2008 08:00 AM

His arguments are lully.
How can 38 out of 100,000 molecules of HCN kill a full grown human?

**Xaqaria** · 06-16-2008 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

His arguments are lully.
How can 38 out of 100,000 molecules of HCN kill a full grown human?

I guess I missed that one, and I can't find it on a re-skim. Where did he mention Hydrogen cyanide?

**TRUTHSEEKER** · 06-17-2008 02:10 AM

Ahhhh,I was just wondering if any of you were going to actually look up any of this for yourselves or just bash and make jokes?

**Xaqaria** · 06-17-2008 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by TRUTHSEEKER

Ahhhh,I was just wondering if any of you were going to actually look up any of this for yourselves or just bash and make jokes?

What exactly do you expect us to look up? I did look up John Coleman's credentials and I couldn't find any, because he doesn't have any. He has been a weather man on tv all of his life and has done nothing else. He has no scientific experience whatsoever.

Most of his arguments were based on his own estimations and so there is nothing to look up. Its just the rantings of a senile old man who is pissed that he has to pay more to fill up the tank in his escalade.

Also, either a lot of assholes have been joining this site with no real interest in lucid dreaming or a bunch of you are too weak knee'd to post under one name and are making a bunch of alt accounts. There shouldn't be such a large number of people who join and immediately post in off topic.

**RedfishBluefish** · 06-17-2008 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I guess I missed that one, and I can't find it on a re-skim. Where did he mention Hydrogen cyanide?

He didn't. He said 38 out of 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide, and so he can't believe it can destroy the balance of the earth's atmosphere. I countered with an obvious example of a similar effect.

Sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, yeah, the guy knows nothing about climate science, so... his opinion doesn't really matter.

**TRUTHSEEKER** · 06-17-2008 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What exactly do you expect us to look up? I did look up John Coleman's credentials and I couldn't find any, because he doesn't have any. He has been a weather man on tv all of his life and has done nothing else. He has no scientific experience whatsoever.

Most of his arguments were based on his own estimations and so there is nothing to look up. Its just the rantings of a senile old man who is pissed that he has to pay more to fill up the tank in his escalade.

Also, either a lot of assholes have been joining this site with no real interest in lucid dreaming or a bunch of you are too weak knee'd to post under one name and are making a bunch of alt accounts. There shouldn't be such a large number of people who join and immediately post in off topic.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=1740
I didnt say look up the life history of John Coleman.He isnt the only one doing the science for this.Look up the stuff hes talking about.Researching just him makes no sense.Oh and i dont know what "assholes" you are talking about but i was just looking up some stuff on global warming and i found this site so deal with it.
Today the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is, surprisingly, much less then the amount of Co2 levels in earlier times.
Twenty years ago "they" said that we are going through global cooling.The reasons they gave for this global cooling were almost identical as the reasons they are giving today for global warming.Funny huh?
I could go on and on but ill let you read it for yourselves.Try those links i put up.If you arent afraid.
Instead of blindly listening to everything your preacher or your media says,look something up for yourself.

**dreamsinmymynd** · 06-20-2008 04:17 PM

1) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which are proven to increase the greenhouse effect
2) Cars give off carbon dioxide
3) There are millions of cars in the world now, compared to zero 100 years ago.

I don't see how anyone can deny global warming.

btw, tl;dr.

**Volcon** · 06-20-2008 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

1) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which are proven to increase the greenhouse effect
2) Cars give off carbon dioxide
3) There are millions of cars in the world now, compared to zero 100 years ago.

I don't see how anyone can deny global warming.

btw, tl;dr.

You should try to read the article before posting

**Xaqaria** · 06-21-2008 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by TRUTHSEEKER

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=1740
I didnt say look up the life history of John Coleman.He isnt the only one doing the science for this.Look up the stuff hes talking about.Researching just him makes no sense.Oh and i dont know what "assholes" you are talking about but i was just looking up some stuff on global warming and i found this site so deal with it.
Today the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is, surprisingly, much less then the amount of Co2 levels in earlier times.
Twenty years ago "they" said that we are going through global cooling.The reasons they gave for this global cooling were almost identical as the reasons they are giving today for global warming.Funny huh?
I could go on and on but ill let you read it for yourselves.Try those links i put up.If you arent afraid.
Instead of blindly listening to everything your preacher or your media says,look something up for yourself.

If you'll look up further, you'll notice I said that I am neither supporting or denying Global Warming. I know enough about the subject to form an informed opinion about someone's credibility on the subject, though. I worked for an organization that was trying to "combat global warming" and saw and heard plenty of the rhetoric from both sides of the issue.

I have done my own research on the subject, and I can tell that Mr. Coleman hasn't done much himself; otherwise he wouldn't have to use his own estimations as evidence for his position. He asserts that he's studied thousands of reports, but he doesn't actually cite any of them for us "to look something up for [ourselves]."

And by the way, if someone implies that you are an asshole, you don't necessarily have to confirm it in your very next post; but it sure helps us to identify you more quickly, so thanks.

**Xaqaria** · 06-21-2008 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

He didn't. He said 38 out of 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide, and so he can't believe it can destroy the balance of the earth's atmosphere. I countered with an obvious example of a similar effect.

Sorry for the confusion.
Anyway, yeah, the guy knows nothing about climate science, so... his opinion doesn't really matter.

I don't think your comparison applies very well, because his point was that carbon dioxide was already a trace gas in our atmosphere.

**Universal Mind** · 06-21-2008 07:29 AM

Global cooling is the real threat.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

However, there is global warming on Mars.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

**RedfishBluefish** · 06-21-2008 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't think your comparison applies very well, because his point was that carbon dioxide was already a trace gas in our atmosphere.

Are you sure? Well, his point still fails then, since we're considering what happens when you elevate CO₂ levels above trace levels.

**Half/Dreaming** · 06-22-2008 04:52 AM

Globlal warming activists have it made. Made like cake. If temperatures go up, they win. If temperatures go down, they win.

I still have to give them props for working it out like that.

**Volcon** · 07-07-2008 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Globlal warming activists have it made. Made like cake. If temperatures go up, they win. If temperatures go down, they win.

I still have to give them props for working it out like that.

Haha, they made sure to cover all their bases, so that no matter what the earth naturally does it's on our shoulders.

**Xei** · 07-08-2008 12:15 AM

Scepticism is inherent to science of course, but anthropic global warming is a hypothesis that I am very sceptical of indeed. The whole thing stinks. As has just been mentioned, it predicts both warming and cooling as observations, and so is unfalsifiable, which essentially means that it is not science.

It is news to me that 31,000 scientists have now signed a petition regarding their scepticism, but not very surprising really... really does make the 2,500 employed by the IPCC look ridiculous. And a note there, too; as a lucrative bureaucracy, the last thing the IPCC is ever going to is announce that global warming is nonsense. Isn't that rather frightening?

And before people start accusing a little scepticism as being indicative of large payoffs from the oil industry; no. In fact I completely support virtually all of the actions we need to take to combat global warming; namely replacing a dependence on oil with renewable sources of energy. It's actually a very realistic task. But I believe that because I know that relying on oil is going to become very very dangerous in the near future, and I am aware of the fact that it will not last that much longer, either. Not because I believe that using the stuff will cause the planet to burn.

I countered with an obvious example of a similar effect.

...no. A human as an analogy to the atmosphere? Right...

Of course you could always have used a decent example like CFCs, which of course concern the atmosphere and not organisms.

But then again CFCs were a very different situation because they involved chemical reactions in which a single CFC molecule could effectively catalyse the conversion of 10,000 O3 molecules. There is nothing similar in that situation with a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, which is simply a molecule.

**wendylove** · 07-08-2008 01:40 PM

Scepticism is inherent to science of course,

No this is wrong. There is a strong correlation, however in the philosophy of science scepticism does not play a part.

The whole thing stinks

Personal views don't play a part in science.

It is news to me that 31,000 scientists have now signed a petition regarding their scepticism, but not very surprising really...

Appeal to authority don't play a part.

As has just been mentioned, it predicts both warming and cooling as observations, and so is unfalsifiable, which essentially means that it is not science.

No, firstly alot of things in science our taking as true, but are not falsifiable, for example string theory or supersymmetry, hence it has moved on from Karl Popper. Global warming is science because it makes testable predictions like sea level rising, which has been observed. Not only that, but warming and cooling our two different things so ofcourse they predict different things.

Anyway, global cooling is caused by something else then global warming, which I don't want to go into just google it.

Also, the 31,000 scientist is a con, basically most i.e. 98% are not even in the revelant field. I could be a biologist and don't like global warming, however my view of it is nonsense. Thats like the creationist petitions against evolution, with atleast most of the people who sign it know jack about evolution.

Can you provide the link to the petition?

**Xei** · 07-08-2008 02:26 PM

What on Earth are you talking about? You took random pieces of my post and said random things about them completely out of context. That's not helpful at all.

Of course skepticism is inherent to science, it is the the crux of the whole foundation of the scientific method! Don't post nonsense.

The personal views thing made no sense at all. I was describing how unscientific this all is, what with all the media hijacking etc. What you said makes absolutely no sense and contributes nothing.

Appeal to authority? Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? I was expressing my reaction to reading that in the original post, not making an argument! I wasn't 'appealing' anybody nor was I even trying to make an argument. Seriously, do you not understand the concept of conversation? That is what a forum is for.

And finally, again, you are asking me to prove something that I didn't even bring up... it was in the OP's post?? Do you even know what 'appeal to authority' is? It certainly isn't expressing a reaction to what somebody just told you, which is what I was doing. Anyway, are you in some way incapable of using a search engine? I just googled for '31,000 global warming' and got many pages of info about it. Stop wasting my time.

And about falsifiability; okay, I definitely accept that in some situations you cannot falsify a scientific hypothesis. However, when this happens, it is definitely a cloudy area that some would not call science, but rather philosophy or mathematics. It only ever really happens in very abstract conditions, anyway, like string theory. I would class string theory as mathematics, personally.

But either way, that isn't relevant to global warming, which does make predictions. The problem is that I often hear people say 'global warming is actually a lot more complex that the globe warming overall, there will actually be complex areas of cooling with an average warming pattern over time', in response to falling temperatures. In my opinion it's all a load of nonsense. Any weather event out of the norm which occurs is put down to global warming in the media, and you do find yourself in an impossible situation; when you have a hypothesis which is supported by every single event possible (except perhaps a global temperature plummet, although you'd still have some naysayers at first I reckon), then you simply cannot use anything as evidence for that hypothesis. I could speculate that a giant squid in the North Atlantic is going to cause the weather to either go up or go down in the next decade, but if the temperature rose or fell, it is not evidence for my giant squid.

**wendylove** · 07-08-2008 03:31 PM

Of course skepticism is inherent to science, it is the the crux of the whole foundation of the scientific method! Don't post nonsense.

No its not. There is not many biologist working in evolution who our skeptical of it, nor any chemist who believe there is no atoms. Once a theory is established it is no longer question, intill a new observation blows that theory to bits.

The personal views thing made no sense at all

You said the theory stinks, which is a personal view.

I was describing how unscientific this all is, what with all the media hijacking etc.

The media, again so what? wow we they post articles on global warming.

Appeal to authority? Seriously, did you even read what I wrote?

You said 31,000 scientist signed a petition saying global warming is wrong, which is an appeal to authority.

Anyway, are you in some way incapable of using a search engine? I just googled for '31,000 global warming' and got many pages of info about it. Stop wasting my time

Always provide a link when making a claim, espically a big one. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/ read this bit

any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!

Thats the problem, most don't know jack about climate chance, because they have not the revelant degree.

let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

What does a dentist know about climate change?

This shows the petition is a joke.

It only ever really happens in very abstract conditions, anyway, like string theory. I would class string theory as mathematics, personally.

Personal view again.

'global warming is actually a lot more complex that the globe warming overall, there will actually be complex areas of cooling with an average warming pattern over time',

Hence why you need a degree in the revelant field to understand it, and not dentistry.

In my opinion it's all a load of nonsense.

Personal view again.

Any weather event out of the norm which occurs is put down to global warming in the media

The media is a bunch of idiots, so what? I wouldn't go onto a creationist website to find information about evolution, why would you care what the media say?

when you have a hypothesis which is supported by every single event possible (except perhaps a global temperature plummet, although you'd still have some naysayers at first I reckon), then you simply cannot use anything as evidence for that hypothesis

Again, the media is rubbish and is not a peer reviewed journal.

I could speculate that a giant squid in the North Atlantic is going to cause the weather to either go up or go down in the next decade, but if the temperature rose or fell, it is not evidence for my giant squid.

Firstly, strawman. Lastly, get a degree in a revelant field i.e. not dentistry and then come back.

**Xei** · 07-08-2008 04:25 PM

I've been in a few too many conversations about global warming to get properly involved because they always take up a very large amount of time and ultimately get nowhere. But again, a pretty worthless post there. Taking tiny and completely irrelevant bits of my post completely out of context and 'refuting' them even when in quite a few cases I wasn't even making the point you quoted does not qualify as a response, wendy, although I'm sure it is a lot easier for you than actually putting some thought into the matter and for the casual reader may look as if you actually have something intelligent to say. You didn't do anything to address what I actually said in my post; not that I'm asking you to bother, as I said I don't have the time to get into a conversation about this, and I don't really find it very interesting anyway.

Thread: John Coleman on Global Warming - Fraud!

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

John Coleman on Global Warming - Fraud!

?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions