John Coleman debunks Global Warming

[Rambunctious]

The science that claims carbon output is changing the weather is flat out wrong. The reason carbon output was inserted into this asinine theory is because carbon output can be measured. If you can measure it then one can tax it and trade in on wall street. That is what Al Gore's movie was all about. Cap and TRADE! Key word trade as in trade carbon credits on wall street. This is all it's been about. Money! money grubbing rich politicians in this country and abroad.
And you liberals fall for it hook line and sinker. They knew you would, they also found and funded scientist's to come up with the theory that carbon was the culprit. They had to use flawed computer models to get the job done and then these so called scientist's covered that up. Hello! University of East Anglia.
Please people be a little more leery of what comes down the pike. Stop believing BS.

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman There is no significant man-made global warming at this time Watts Up With That

"There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years. William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences."

 

[Rambunctious]

Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman Climate Change Is a Myth Fox News Insider

 

[B. Kidd]

We've had to put up with 20 years of global warming bullshit, yet the ice packs are just doin' fine.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

 

[B. Kidd]

This years hurricane season was a real bitch, wasn't it?

 

[Rambunctious]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

What "data"? There's no "data" in your link, just opinions from a weatherman.

What about the exponentially larger number of PhDs and scientists on the other side?

 

[Rambunctious]

Stop answering questions with questions

 

[westwall]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

That's true. However the theory of anthropogenic global warming has failed every empirical test. Every single one. So it is a theory wholly founded on global climate models. Those models when tested with random numbers ALWAYS result in a warming signal so that inherent bias makes them fraudulent by accident or design.

 

[Iceweasel]

So the hysteria is all about global warming and a man that studies weather is unqualified? So temperature isn't really relevant to global warming? I kinda thought so. I heard some excerpts today and there was much more than his observations. Lots of links here:

Climate Change Reconsidered

 

[Broncho4]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

 

[westwall]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Predictable liberal response. Not surprised your head is too thick to comprehend this data. What about the 9000 PHD's and scientist's?

What "data"? There's no "data" in your link, just opinions from a weatherman.

What about the exponentially larger number of PhDs and scientists on the other side?

The only scientists who actively support the theory are those who benefit directly in the way of government grants. They have actively corrupted the peer review process to continue their extraordinarily poor scientific practices. One famous case witnessed a paper on polar bear mortality (since comprehensively debunked by polar bear biologists) that received widespread media coverage
being reviewed by the mans wife.

The paper challenging Steigs paper is yet another example of the climatologist corruption of the peer review process where Steig demanded, and was allowed, to be a reviewer of the paper that challenged his. If one wanted to see textbook examples of unethical behavior the science of climatology is replete with them.

 

[mamooth]

It's funny, how almost all of the deniers are reduced to endless tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, mixed in with a healthy dose of making crazy shit up. They're off in their own little delusional universe, screaming about the black helicopters sent by the UN to oppress them.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's funny, how almost all of the deniers are reduced to endless tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, mixed in with a healthy dose of making crazy shit up. They're off in their own little delusional universe, screaming about the black helicopters sent by the UN to oppress them.

How interesting we say the same thing about you all. However the difference is; time is on our side. The more time that passes by the more fraudulent the whole Global Warming theory becomes. You will feel foolish one day because you're being fooled today big time, and your gullibility is making a lot of unscrupulous people very wealthy.

 

[MaryL]

I guess nature doesn't care what John Coleman (Ironic last name) thinks, because global warming is real and, it's like you pooping, it is happening. Sorry. Reality doesn't listen to popular spokesmen, it sneaks up on ya. I have seen the climate change for over thirty years, and, sorry kids, it's real. No more whistling past the graveyard, face up to it.

 

[westwall]

It's funny, how almost all of the deniers are reduced to endless tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, mixed in with a healthy dose of making crazy shit up. They're off in their own little delusional universe, screaming about the black helicopters sent by the UN to oppress them.

Care to address the issues I raised then. You're long on insults, but real short on facts.

 

[westwall]

I guess nature doesn't care what John Coleman (Ironic last name) thinks, because global warming is real and, it's like you pooping, it is happening. Sorry. Reality doesn't listen to popular spokesmen, it sneaks up on ya. I have seen the climate change for over thirty years, and, sorry kids, it's real. No more whistling past the graveyard, face up to it.

Yes. It has indeed been happening for 14,000 years. Mans involvement in it what we are talking about, and to date there is no discernible human signal. None.

 

[boedicca]

John Coleman has no scientific background, and has provided no scientific basis for his "debunking".

There's a pretty big difference between spending years studying the atmosphere and reading the weather from a teleprompter.

Neither do most of the UN ICCP "scientists"...who are sociologist and other soft science nabobs.

Coleman is at least a rational thinker.

 

[Old Rocks]

I guess nature doesn't care what John Coleman (Ironic last name) thinks, because global warming is real and, it's like you pooping, it is happening. Sorry. Reality doesn't listen to popular spokesmen, it sneaks up on ya. I have seen the climate change for over thirty years, and, sorry kids, it's real. No more whistling past the graveyard, face up to it.

Yes. It has indeed been happening for 14,000 years. Mans involvement in it what we are talking about, and to date there is no discernible human signal. None.

Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change

Abstract
Humans directly change the dynamics of the water cycle through dams constructed for water storage, and through water withdrawals for industrial, agricultural, or domestic purposes. Climate change is expected to additionally affect water supply and demand. Here, analyses of climate change and direct human impacts on the terrestrial water cycle are presented and compared using a multimodel approach. Seven global hydrological models have been forced with multiple climate projections, and with and without taking into account impacts of human interventions such as dams and water withdrawals on the hydrological cycle. Model results are analyzed for different levels of global warming, allowing for analyses in line with temperature targets for climate change mitigation. The results indicate that direct human impacts on the water cycle in some regions, e.g., parts of Asia and in the western United States, are of the same order of magnitude, or even exceed impacts to be expected for moderate levels of global warming (+2 K). Despite some spread in model projections, irrigation water consumption is generally projected to increase with higher global mean temperatures. Irrigation water scarcity is particularly large in parts of southern and eastern Asia, and is expected to become even larger in the future.

And this paper says you are full of shit, Walleyes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World s Oceans

Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

1. Tim P. Barnett1,*,
2. David W. Pierce1,
3. Krishna M. AchutaRao2,
4. Peter J. Gleckler2,
5. Benjamin D. Santer2,
6. Jonathan M. Gregory3,
7. Warren M. Washington4

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

1. 
   View larger version:
   • In this page
     
   • In a new window
   • Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching
   Fig. 1.
   Warming signal strength by ocean and depth. The dots represent the projection of the observed temperature changes onto the model-based pattern of warming. They show substantial basin-to-basin differences in how the oceans have warmed over the past 40 years, although all oceans have experienced net warming over that interval. The horizontal bars represent the ±2SD limits associated with sampling uncertainty.
   
   And hundreds more papers like this in peer reviewed journals.