Weather Channel Co-Founder slams Feds climate report

John Coleman the co-founder of the Weather Channel has come out and stated that the climate report issued by the Federal government is a

‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’

He calls it a 600 page litany of doom. The article below shows a graph depicting global temperatures for the last 17 yrs and 9 mos.
He further states that the climate change date has been bent by the scientists that live off of the $2.6 Billion per year of federal grants.

See article:
www.climatedepot.com... f-the-data-and-agenda-driven-destructive-episode-of-bad-science-gone-berserk/

a reply to: fltcui

Interesting!! S&F

I do not know what to make, really, of all the hype.
It is caused by human activity, it isn't caused by human activity -
I don't know. But I DO know that the weather in my part of the world has been changing.

The other day I read on TWC that this summer is predicted to be colder than normal for my region...
we have had several winters now where we alternately got "dumped on" and "missed entirely" -
either snowed or iced in, or May looking like August. Truly 'severe' weather - which is always exciting to me - but rain blowing UP the hill outside my house, and incredible lightning storms....not our usual fare.

I think the fact is that the climate is changing. Why, I don't really know. But I do think human activity has caused a lot of pollution, poisoning, and damage to the Earth. But it is, without a doubt, changing. I tend to think it's a normal cyclical change, though - but I'm not convinced that human activity didn't facilitate it.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Why do you suppose it is so difficult to forecast weather?

It is dynamic, it changes all the time. It vacillates in small cycles and large cycles. The kleptocrats are just exploiting that natural change and trying to link man's activities to it to CASH OUT. Try to see the forest for the trees here.

Is pollution bad? Yeah - bad for humans. The earth doesn't care, though. Everything we "dump" on it came from it, so when people say "we're polluting the earth", they really mean "we're polluting ourselves."

Well, I'm certainly not going to listen to anyone who gets paid via a grant when they say something either way. I go with the theory that humans are too insignificant in the grand scheme of things to change something like weather patterns. Most people can't even change their minds, let alone the weather. If they could, why don't the Army Corps of Engineers for example build a system that diverts water from flooded areas back east to the drought stricken areas out west.

Until people can figure out how to change things ON the planet, I'm never going to believe they have the capability to change things ABOVE the planet.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Is pollution bad? Yeah - bad for humans. The earth doesn't care, though. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I understand your point, and acknowledge it...
however, floating islands of garbage and landfills are NOT "okay" with the earth, or the other life forms we share it with.
I think humans are lacking in foresight to think it's okay to just strip her of whatever, inject her with whatever-else, choke and poison her.

I believe the Earth will survive after humanity has vanished, and eventually heal....
but we are certainly not HELPING.

I agree about weather. My dad used to say, "If you want ultimate job security, be a weatherman - they can be wrong every day and still keep their jobs."

Did you know, also, that MOST National Weather Service offices don't even have...

.
.
.
windows??
Seriously. A local weatherman/meteorologist came to speak at a school where I was working, and told us that.
LOL!!

The climate of Earth has never been “normal” or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed. The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.

a reply to: fltcui

This is all that needs to be said about this whole thing. Everything else is just hair splitting for the masses.
The sun drives everything. Climate change is real....but we are not the cause.

P.S. I do openly admit we are a messy and destructive species and the continued rape of the worlds forests can have no positive outcome at all. I believe deforestation will have a more profound impact on climate than carbon ever could on its own...but the combination of increased carbon and less trees could cause a tipping point to be reached.

Really no matter what is the cause we are #ed anyhow, while the earths climate change we are disscusing the cause, while disscusing the cause the climate keeps changing and before we know it it becomes a major problem, then we will start disscusing who we should blame and the disscusions will continue untill there are no one left to disscus.

Above is pure fiction with a hint of truth of how stupid people are when they can't agree on something that should be rather simple.

Well he says what's on the tin. He also gives credit to those who walked away from the hype. One scientist some time ago walked away from the IPCC panel, when all sorts of crazy research was being mooted as long as it involved 'Global Warming' as it was then. This last doom and gloom report from the IPCC panel on the now, 'Climate Change' also had one panel member who refused to sign up to this report. Now this home grown Federal report is probably the last straw for John Coleman. It would be interesting to see who the hundreds of scientist are involved who signed up to this Federal report.

a reply to: mark1167
I agree with you. I also believe that the sun is the driving force behind our climate. I believe we are stewards of our home planet and as such, we should take great care in not polluting it. Green energy isn't bad, just too expensive right now to replace the fossil fuel plants that provide the majority of our energy.
Nothing will change as far as energy generation until there's a breakthrough in fusion technology.
But I do wish that the federal government would stop the lying. I don't believe ANYTHING that comes out of Washington anymore.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
Well, I'm certainly not going to listen to anyone who gets paid via a grant when they say something either way. I go with the theory that humans are too insignificant in the grand scheme of things to change something like weather patterns. Most people can't even change their minds, let alone the weather. If they could, why don't the Army Corps of Engineers for example build a system that diverts water from flooded areas back east to the drought stricken areas out west.

Until people can figure out how to change things ON the planet, I'm never going to believe they have the capability to change things ABOVE the planet.

Have you heard of the Salton Sea? Perhaps you should read up on its history. We've dug holes visible from space with the naked eye. You have the audacity to say we can't influence the weather? The heat island effect is pretty well known for messing with local climate - in fact, it's a core belief to climate change skeptics - that the heat island effect is messing with thermometers over time.

You won't believe anyone who gets a grant? Well, how about someone who recreated the data independently and without funding. His findings are closely in line with the IPCC. Will that change your mind, or will you simply move the goalposts you have set? Be honest.

originally posted by: fltcui
John Coleman the co-founder of the Weather Channel has come out and stated that the climate report issued by the Federal government is a

‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’

Why should we care? He doesn't even have a degree in meteorology (despite being a TV meteorologist back in the day)! He's a journalist and businessman - little more.

Why does he have any credibility when he himself says:

Coleman says he became an outspoken skeptic of global warming in 2007 after watching NBC‘s ‘Green is Universal’ week, where the studio lights were cut for portions of Sunday Night Football’s pre-game and half-time shows.

www.skepticalscience.com...

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Also check out that big global warming & climate change myths list:
www.skepticalscience.com...

They get mentioned over and over again by people like; it's the sun!, volcano's have a much great impact and so on (self proclaimed scientists?).

Simply put, we should be discussing ways to survive natural change, not trying to figure out who or what to blame for it.

As other posters point out, we spend a lot of time arguing semantics and academic theory with no experimental proof, yet the clock keeps ticking forward.

To think that we can actually change climate, when we can't accurately predict the weather, is absurd.

We should be focusing on how to build homes to withstand the elements, and droughts, and blizzards. We should be looking for ways to grow food in the harshest of conditions so that we can continue to feed the population even when the climate changes. We should be looking into ways to preserve food for long durations.

We should be talking about how to solve those problems, not placing blame in order to generate more tax revenue for runaway governments and corporations who have no concern for the fate of the greater good of mankind.

We (when I say we, I mean those that represent us) seem to come up with the perfect solutions that solve the wrong problems, and those solutions always seem to create more problems that we didn't need to solve in the first place. When are we going to start looking at ways to sustain our existence and future growth?

We know that "some day", our planet will run out of resources needed to sustain us. Why aren't we looking at ways to generate those resources from scratch? (fusion perhaps?) Better yet, maybe we should be looking for a way to get off this planet some day to sustain our species.

We're all one race, one people, yet we let ourselves become divided by those who gain from our lack of unity. It's time to take those variables out of the equation and course-correct, or it won't be you or I that is doomed, it will be all of humanity.

~Namaste

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
Most people can't even change their minds, let alone the weather. If they could, why don't the Army Corps of Engineers for example build a system that diverts water from flooded areas back east to the drought stricken areas out west.

Because it costs enormous amounts of money. Would you sacrifice your kids education for it? Exactly...not many would.

a reply to: fltcui
I said this nine years ago,its all about ther money and grants.

I only have a few things to say, briefly.

1: Methane.
2: Positive feedback loops.
3: Methane.
4: The exponential function.
5: Methane.
6: Water is a tremendous heat sink, and the Earth has a # ton of it (thats where all the heat is going)
7: Methane.
8: Arctic sea ice loss, meaning reduced albedo (reflectivity), leading to more of #2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9.
9: Did I mention methane yet?
10: Humans are notorious for not being able to accept what is right in front of their collective faces, and will skew the situation in anyway to make it appear, to themselves, that the situation is different than how it truly is. The scientists say its 100 years off, and keep moving the goal posts to sleep better at night. The uneducated proles call it a hoax to sleep better at night.

Those who get it, get it. Those who dont (most of the population), will eventually get it when they are starving to death.

Gah... who am I kidding... they wont get it then, either.

arctic-news.blogspot.com... is a good site for those who want to see the bigger picture here, beyond the politicians, the mainstream scientists, and the socially accepted thought norm for this particular topic.

Accept the information or reject it... obnoxiously squeal "doooooom!!" if it helps you get your mind off of the facts... but what is, is, whether its believed to be so, or not.

a reply to: Greven

visible from space with the naked eye? no it's not, it's more like visible from satellite cameras that can zoom in from space not the "naked eye", besides the only naked eyes to see from space have never been used to survey any such thing so how can you claim such a thing like it's fact?

besides even if it were true such a fact is no indication of whether we can affect the climate on a grand scale or not.

We are destroying the planet Earth and her ability support human life. There is no debating this. The ways to fix this hurt some of the biggest businesses in the world. Even though many of us are aware, very few have the resources to make changes.

Big business know this, so things like global warming are hyped. Unless temperatures are changing exponentially, we will not be able to detect slight changes in our life time and prove in in the scientific sense. In others works global warming ca not be proved or disproved, the debate is nothing but a distraction to bigger man made ecological catastrophes currently in progress.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well, it is a fact that the climate is changing, and has been for millions of years. Do humans play a role? I don't know, but I wold think that a lot of the things humans do are not good for the environment. One side says it is about money, but if you look at the other side (in one way or another) it is about money for them, too. Like, claiming everything they are doing or putting into the air and water is fine so they can continue to do whatever it is that they are doing....and continue to make millions in profit. People say "you cannot deny science" and I agree, but when they are paid by our government, I get suspicious.

originally posted by: jrod
We are destroying the planet Earth and her ability support human life. There is no debating this. The ways to fix this hurt some of the biggest businesses in the world. Even though many of us are aware, very few have the resources to make changes.

Big business know this, so things like global warming are hyped. Unless temperatures are changing exponentially, we will not be able to detect slight changes in our life time and prove in in the scientific sense. In others works global warming ca not be proved or disproved, the debate is nothing but a distraction to bigger man made ecological catastrophes currently in progress.

How can it not be proven? It HAS been proven that at some points in our earth's life, that there has been signigicant climate change, one of which was 40 million years ago, and I asume there wasn't any SUV's at that time. But to say it hasn't been proven doesn't make sense. And like another said, when you have trash islands the size of Texas floating in our ocean, that does NO GOOD for the earth and the life within it