01/22/2010: You might recognize John Coleman, a former TV weather man out of Chicago, who went on to became the original TV meteorologist on ABC's Good Morning America when it debuted back in 1975. He hung his hat with that highly-rated show for seven years, which, as you may recall, was primarily hosted successfully for years by David Hartman, and who was eventually scripted along with a full co-host, Joan Lunden after she joined the show a few years later.*
As pointed out on the Wiki post, linked above, in 1981, Coleman got together with a "communications entrepreneur" named Frank Batten, and they became the founders of the Weather Channel. Coleman is now no longer affiliated with that organization.
Though at 75, he is semi-retired, John still does the weather for an independent TV station out in San Diego, KUSI-TV. If you would like to view more of John Coleman's clips on global warming, links are posted here on their site.
As he will tell you in the following clip, John's been doing this for 55 years.
John believes that global warming is a scam. Here is his pitch on the topic.
ht to reader, Jake, who kindly sent the link along to me. Thanks Jake!
* Years later, after Hartman retired in 1987, Joan Lunden and Charlie Gibson went to to become the network's top-rated team on the show, overtaking the Today Show for a stint.
Labels: global warming, John Coleman, Weather Channel
posted by Trochilus @ 1/22/2010 10:58:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Yes, believe the old as dirt retired weatherman, not NASA. That will serve US well I'm sure. I'm off to the American Museum of Natural History Global Climate Change Exhibit. Another bastion of left wing liberal scientific manipulation.
Got KIds
GotKids:
Was the first half of your obnoxious comment what your PC friends like to call age discrimination?
It sure reads like a nasty personal attack to me, as opposed to responding to anything the man actually said. Sadly, it's all too typical of you.
You'll no doubt recall, GotKids that in the past you had to apologise for deliberately misrepresented my statements, having attributing comments to me that I never made.
One thing is for certain . . . you have no credibility with me.
I wonder why don't you learn to stick to facts? Don't you realize that no one (save yourself) is interested in your silly childish sniping?
So, I'll certainly listen to what he has to say, and consistently disregard any nasty, baseless sniping from you in response, every single time, as would anyone with a basic sense of decency.
Hey, back on the topic, how are those IPCC "predictions" based on idle chatter working out for you? The glaciers? Or, perhaps the latest . . . baseless North African crop yield claims?
I'm sure it must be pretty embarrassing to some folks -- those who actually do have intellectual integrity -- that the United Nations body charged with overseeing the issue cites baseless student opinions for proof that the glaciers will melt by 2035. Or, studies that never took place as a basis for other claims?
Oooops!
The truth is, I ignored your prior comments on the prior post below, hoping that you really were tired (as you said) and would just go away.
Your obsession, for example, with my expressed curiosity about the role that sunspots (or lack thereof) may play in temperature here on earth is particularly amusing to me, especially given the series of historical coincidences matching low periods of sunspot activity with periods of cooler weather. But you seem so insistent on laughing at that, all without citing any authority for your views, as usual.
There are obviously several contributing factors to our ever-changing climate here on earth, and in my opinion periods of low sunspot activity constitute one of the significant ones.
You can laugh at that all you want, but while you're chuckling along, why not give YOUR concise summary, or explanation for the significant drops in temperatures associated with the "Maunder Minimum," know here on earth by those focusing on climate and the weather as, the "Little Ice Age?"
Hello Trochilus,
How do you know I didn't watch John Cloeman. I did and I was not convinced. A Meteorologist, at least by my son's American Heritage Dictionary is someone who specializes in meteorology, the study of the atmosphere and weather. A climate paleontologist is someone who studies and climate and weather over across the swath of ancient life. The last one I spoke to said there was cause for deep concern.
I gave you a link to scientific studies discounting sun-spots as a legitimate explanation for global climate change. If you choose to ignore them that's up to you but don't call my assertions baseless.
Finally, based upon the dearth of comments to your posts I'd think you'd be glad to have any kind of traffic to your blog. But you'll be glad to know that the sun-spot fantasy is taking root in our schools where children are being taught to ignore climate change. I wonder how that would have worked out for the whales circa 1970's when they were being hunted to extinction and critics of that time were saying there was nothing to be concerned about.
But I'll do a little research on your man Coleman. Seem to remember Media Matters exposing his self righteous indignation much the same way Pat Robertson has been completely discredited.
Got Kids
GotKids,
If you watched the clip of Coleman (not "Cloeman") and came away with the silly conclusion that the man is as "self righteous" as Pat Robertson, citing Media Matters as your source, then sadly I'd say that you need to improve your reading list.
If you came away from looking into the effect that surface sun activity, or the lack thereof, has on our temperature and/or climate, and somehow concluded that there is none, then revamp your sources of information altogether.
By the way, just so you do not re-initiate your unfortunate habit of attributing statements or views to me that I do not hold, I have not said that sunspot activity or inactivity was the only factor, or even the predominant factor affecting our climate. But based on what I have read, I believe that it is a significant factor, as do many who know a great deal more than you or I.
As for your false attributions, recall that in the past you had to apologize to me for one outrage. You have also accused me of making comments about Barack Obama that were laced with racial innuendo in a slanderous comment you posted in another venue, one for which you have yet to apologize.
So far as I can tell, Media Matters -- apparently your favored source for information -- is seemingly premised on the whiny and quite risible belief that 100% of the press should be 100% in the tank at all times for the left – instead of just being decidedly biased against Republicans and conservatives most of the time.
Your comment, above, stating that you "gave me a link," does not establish anything. How about sticking to facts, or, at least cite sources that rely on facts as a basis for making arguments?
Of course, as we all know the "facts" related to climate paleontology at times are difficult to come by. Picking and choosing the numbers – or, someone's best guess at the "correct" numbers – seems to have become the game. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has done a commendable job of picking apart some of the choices of number sets made by the know-it-alls in the IPCC stable who are attempting to shove their economic and political agenda down the throats of the world.
And, the insular group of IPCC beholden "climate experts,' as revealed by the hack/leak of the e-mails, has played their part by engaging in a series of disreputable practices, including actually destroying original data; employing "tricks" to arrive at scientific conclusions; suppressing information to hide the decline; violating FOI requirements; and so on. We now also know that the IPCC has repeatedly cited laughable "studies" in order to make demonstrably false claims about glaciers, crop projections in North Africa, areas below sea level in the Netherlands, and a host of other questionable claims, that are only now being documented.
One would think that when the former Chair of the IPCC publicly warns the group that they are losing their credibility, that would cause even true believers like yourself to stand up and take notice. But apparently that is not true in your case.
Should you wish to begin considering such matters – as opposed to continuously flinging the highly partisan rubbish you read (and write?) on Media Matters -- then, I suggest you take the time to trace some of the challenges that legitimate critics have leveled. For example, why not read the multi-part challenge that Steve McIntyre has posted over time to the Briffa tree ring study?
As for your comment about "sunspot activity" why not begin by looking at some of the statements that even some of the inner circle of warmists have conceded to on the topic in e-mails as amongst themselves?\
Are you going to continually flog me for something I did not even say/write. I referefnced your brand of right wing conservatism with racism (visa vi anti-misogenation laws that would have made my very existence illegal) the history of which is well documented. If that assaulted your world view, TOUGH. What I did apologize for was the logical asumption that I was attributing those view specifically to you. In hindsight maybe that was inappropriate. But the fact remains that you have aligned yourself with an indeology that has a history. Some of which, history has not been favorable to.
You label me a liberal, an assertion I do not particularly agree with but for the sake of argument I will accept. Now if you charge my "persuasion" with coddling union interests, I would accept that as fact and a failure of the ideology. Enough said on that subject?
On the issue of climate change. I would like to believe you had some objectivity on the subject but your sources belie your motivation. Way back when on "that other site" you continuously sourced Powerline. I thought that was actually an energy resorce sight. When I visited it was another right wing blog. You can banter about MMFA all you want but I dare you to show me ONE instance where they have not legimately exposed right wing lies for just that. ONE time and I will never donate $$$$ to them again, that's the dare.
I am not a climate scientisits nor do I care to be one. I am a father of two small children who cares about their future. And when a NASA scientist tells me to my face that all is not well in Kansas, that sir get's my attention. So I did some research and guess what? She was right. Now I know your gonna cite some comment out of context, and I'm sure your pobably already drafting your latest right wing propgaganda piece citing the CRU scientist stating no global warming since 1995. But as that pesky MMFA points out, in a full excerpt of the interview, there is a difference between a scientific statistical differecne and no differecnce at all, and just how close to a scientific statisical difference there in fact is. But that's my rub with you and your ilk Trochilus. You take an ounce of truth and turn it into a pound of lies. And you know what? There was a time that I believed guys like you. But no more. Mine eyes have seen the glory. I could tell you stories.
You can hold tight to your conservatism Troch. And I wish you the best with it, if it makes you happy. But twisting the truth for mass consumption has consequences. In this life or the next.
Best regards my friend.
Got Kids
I normally eschew the temptation to correct spelling or grammatical errors, but in this case your latest comment was so replete with them that I cannot help but believe that it was written in such haste that it represents a level of desperation on your part.
Or, perhaps something else?
Here's a quick lineup (in bold) from your latest comment:
visa vi -- Referefnced -- anti-misogenation – asumption – indeology – resorce – legimately – scientisits – pobably – propgaganda -- differecne -- differecnce – statisical
Hell, GotKids, you can even misspell the same word twice (... differecne and no differecnce ...) in a consistent way, even when you line the two errors up twice in a row!
_____________________________
Now, let me take a moment to respond to the substance of your comment.
Regarding your prior comments still vaguely attempting to align me with racists or racist views:
I feel compelled to remind you of it on each occasion when you make some new and baseless presumption about my views. Suffice it to say that if -- as you now say -- your concern was with anti-miscegenation laws, I think I suddenly get it!
It goes something like this, no? When you can’t think of any adequate response, just whip out the race card and accuse the person of racism!
That seems to be the standard Democrat rejoinder to aim at all Republicans, one which was, I remind you, initiated by Barack Obama early on in the summer of the 2009 Presidential election cycle.
In Missouri, he said:
"Nobody thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face. So what they are going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all of those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Earlier in Florida he had said:
"[T]hey're going to try to make you afraid of me," Obama said. "He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama got away with it, by toning it down. But many of his supporters never stopped.
And since the election, it seems to be one of the standard rejoinders to anyone who has merely expressed opposition to any of Mr. Obama’s policies. That ugly trend was actively promoted by one of the biggest race-baiters of all time, former President Jimmy Carter. Remember when he claimed [in 2004] that one million blacks and minorities had been disenfranchised during the 2000 presidential election? I do. Of course, not one single instance had ever been documented. Not one. But he said there were a million cases, and John Kerry stood there right next to him in Plains, GA, nodding his head in agreement like a bobble doll!
You seemingly apologized to me at the time, but then immediately took it half back, making it into a sort of conditional apology.
(more to follow in next comment)
As for your beliefs on AGW and climate change, stick to them if you wish. But the fact remains that Phil Jones, and some of the other major players in promoting AGW and climate change, are now singing an entirely different tune than they were just a few precious months ago.
If, for example, you don’t believe that Jones suddenly throwing in the towel on the Medieval Warm Period is a major turn-about, then you just haven’t been paying attention. That "hockey stick" now looks more like the bent-handle snow shovel my neighbor was wielding the other day!
I am not a climate scientist either, but there are a sufficient number of legitimate questions that have been raised about the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and perhaps even more about scare-mongering projections regarding so-called climate change claims, that we would all be complete fools to either accept the science as "settled" or the IPCC projections as likely.
On repeated occasions, you have also attempted out of hand to belittle a few comments I made about what effect, if any, that a very highly unusual lack of sunspot activity over the course of several very recent years has had, and may continue to have on the climate.
Why not actually take the time to educate yourself about it instead of ignoring the facts?
Here . . . choose your video preference and see what some real scientists have to say!
And if you cannot figure out the implications thereof, just write them and ask.
Post a Comment
<< Home