John Coleman, a credible expert

[larry kremis]

Relax people. We humans sure do love to worry, I guess a fabricated crisis gives us something to talk about, it breaks up the boredom. Plus, it's a great way for some people to get rich.

[larry kremis]

He was last seen in Orville, OH at the Smuckers fruit farm.

[P.A.]

Guys, it was on the Auto Channel or did you miss that little bit of information?

[larry kremis]

That didn't go unnoticed pickle. Amongst us laymen, there is only one definate, we definately don't know for sure and we can only CHOOSE to believe what we want. Money and/or political gain is behind the global warming thing (or should we say climate change thing?). Who's to say John Coleman isn't in it for the money, he's obviously a business man, he started the weather channel, he just may be a greedy bastard.

We don't know, we can only choose to believe what we want.

[TeeBubbaDee]

According to Wikipedia, Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views.

So if Fox News and a show called Bullshit, are the soap box he is using, I kinda have my doubts.

[CWO3ROBBIE]

Personallly I have trouble swollowing this guys bull shit. To me, he sure came accross as a snake oil salesman for the auto channel.
The size of the worlds population is increasing exponentially. The idea that this can continue with no negitive effect is absurd. Sure, if you don't stop uncontrolled population growth, go ahead, produce all the CO2 and anything else you want. If the human race wants to save itself, instead of destroying itself, it should be trying any and everything to slow down population growth. I can't for the life of me(Pun Intended) understand how any one smart enough to read could buy this crock. Sorry Larry, but you hit a nerve.

[larry kremis]

No apology necessary Robbie. I don't think any of us knows what to believe.

[CWO3ROBBIE]

Well, I have to admit that this has put me in such a funk that I probably should take a break. Larry, I can't believe that you think this guy is credible. I can't believe that anyone can't see that we are destroying the planet. Of course CO2 is a normal part of life. So is H2O, but too much or too little of it will sure kill you. I do agree that if we don't do something to stop the exponential population increase, burning fossel fuels will not cause the end of civilization. It will only increase the speed of it's arrival. But, I still can't understand how we can stick our heads in the sand and listen to crap this guy is handing out. It is an example of transparent twisting of facts to arrive at a conclusion that that helps the entity that is doing the twisting. You should have posted this in "We The People". There are a lot of people there who would be delighted to listen to it. Personally, I feel like throwing up.

[larry kremis]

As a meteoroligist, I find him more credible than Al Gore, a lifetime politician.

[CWO3ROBBIE]

This is the first time I have heard anyone say that it is the US that is the only one contributing to this problem. I have heard, and believe, that right now we are producing more atmospheric polutents than the other countries, but they are quickly catching up. And they are poluting their own countries much faster than we curently are poluting ours. This is not a problem occuring on a national basis, it is a human population problem.

[funesthememorious]

Here is my copy and paste answer. The alternate theories of global warming didn't surface until the right wing started to politicize it by throwing gobs of money to crack pot mad scientists.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. (8)

Between 1993 and 2003, 928 abstracts published in scientific journals, and listed in the ISI ( Information Science Institute ) database with the keywords "climate change" were analyzed.

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

[Bull]

Here is a great rebuttal piece to this guy. Remember much of his funding comes from Exxon.
It has to mwny links to paste here.
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/john_coleman/the...

[CWO3ROBBIE]

Bull, Thanks for trying to make this debate a little more informed. Unfortunately, I imagine it will be short TV clips that will determine what the public majority believe.