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.
Well, no.
All of the climate scientists that I personally know believe in man-made global warming (and there are actually quite a few, I come from a scientist-heavy family with a lot of scientist friends), and none of them have any financial stake in it.
To be honest, I know enough about the subject to know that I have no fucking clue about the subject - and I also don't really care that much about it. I'm not a "save the earth" type.
From where I sit, there's a lot of faulty logic on both sides of this debate.