Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming is a scam

John Coleman is retired from the Weather Channel, and it's already been taken over by people who disagree with his vision:

Far from being intimidated by the political backlash, Dr. Cullen and executives at the channel say they have embraced the issue of global warming. Dr. Cullen is host of the weekly show “Forecast Earth,” formerly named “The Climate Code” where she has entertained such guests as former Vice President Al Gore. She also appears on the channel’s other programming with segments on hybrid taxicabs in New York City and the development of more fuel-efficient aircraft. The network’s other programs have also directly engaged the elephant in the room — or, in this case, the polar bear on the melting ice cap: a recent anniversary roundup of “The 100 Biggest Weather Moments” listed global warming as No. 1. And the network is training its meteorologists so that they can discuss long-term trends as well as five-day forecasts. Link

What I wonder is if Coleman still ran the Weather Channel, would his employees dare to do this even if they believed in global warming themselves? Or is global warming alarmism an audience-building necessity that he would have to run no matter what?

The opinion of one scientist is quite.. inconsequential.

There have been a lot of scientists who denied the validity of Enstein's theory.

Still today, there are scientists who still say that the evolution theory is totally erroneous.


The question is, do these scientists actually say what they say because they believe it, or to gain political favor from some target audience? There are christian foundation that monatery reward scientists for trying to debuke the evolution theory.

I am sure that, in the same way, some high-polluter companies (those who have the most to loose out of some sanction) have some sort of... compensation method for scientist who support their view of things.


To end it all, I don'T think that in 20 years we will actually see the floods, droughts, etc.. I think it's more 30-40 years ahead (or so the theories claim). So it's stupid to give a deadline evaluation date so short ahead of time.

Tell me, Draginol. In theory, only in THEORY, what would happen, if, in 20 years, we really see the floods, the droughts. That the world economy is thrown in chaos, and people dies. All of this because we listened to people like you. What would you say? or think?

On the other hand, if you happen to be right, but we do something about those polluters anyway. We still end up with something better (a world greener) than we started it.

What I wonder is if Coleman still ran the Weather Channel, would his employees dare to do this even if they believed in global warming themselves? Or is global warming alarmism an audience-building necessity that he would have to run no matter what?

I doubt it.  But I think they would feel free to support OR refute the charge, something that the current weathercasters there are trying to stiffle.

The opinion of one scientist is quite.. inconsequential.

You are making the same ignorant mistake as the creationists. You think the person is important, not the subject.

You are not supposed to appeal to authority or count the scientists supporting either idea. You are supposed to read what they have to say and let them help you understand the issue.

If 20 scientists deny gravity and only one insists that gravity exists, and the one gives verifiable experiments that confirm his theory that gravity exists while the 20 merely disagree with him, you can either believe them or him, but their number must not be of consequence.

Creationism is wrong not because only a minority of scientists support it, but because it is a ridiculous concept and cannot be verified by experiment. It requires faith where evolution does not. Creationists tend to be ignorant of what evolution is about (for example, evolution does not cover how the world came into being, just how it changed since then) or how evolution works (hence their obsession with "chance" and claims that evolution is "random"*).

Notes:

*A little help for the creationists: evolution, as science understands it, is the OPPOSITE of chance. Whenever you try to make a case for your pet theory of intelligent design or whatever and you use words like "random" to describe evolution, you WILL be wrong, because you are not talking about evolution and any point you might make will not have been about evolution.

(well, there is a random factor, is you consider the minor mutation a young member of a specie can have compared to it's parents. And if the minor mutation makes the young memeber of the specie to be better adapted, then the minor mutation will become the norm in the specie within 100 generations. Randomness create the mutation, but it's the validity and the survavibility of the mutation that creates the actual process of evolution.)

sorry please tell me how life evolved out of nothing.

ev·o·lu·tion


3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.



now tell me how do you mutate the gene pool when it doesn't exist.

don't get me wrong i believe that evolution takes place. but i also believe that god started the process.

well, the firsts sparks of life came from the fusions of some proteins, enzyms and other things like that that have formed randomly.

Off course, there have been hundreds of "first sparks of life" that died out because they weren't fit to survive. Until one of them got lucky and got all the best combination possible.

If God really was behind those "first sparks of life", he sure didn't knew what he was doing..

Or you could say that over the span of millions of years, probability dictated that it was only a matter of time that luck created the first life-worty sparks. It is clearly a trait of evolution from the nonliving to the living, coming out of randomness, but tried for survavibility.

Your argument for evolution is intelligently designed.

first we can make a cell with everything but we can't make it live.


second you can't have a cell without a cell wall. the cell wall keeps everything together.

There is a book you can read, by Richard Dawkins. He proposes a few ways in which life could have started. None of the ways have anything to do with evolution, which is, again, a theory that explaing how life changes, not how it starts.

Creationists do not know much about evolution (they have heard the word, they have trouble understanding what "theory" means in the scientific sense). Evolution does not explain how the universe started or even how life started.

And whether you believe in evolution or not is inconsequential. Evolution is the best theory we have for explaining what happened. It's a tool, not a belief or philosophy.

I use gravity to explain why stuff falls off my table, but I do not "believe" in gravity. Whether gravity is the truth is immaterial, it probably isn't, but it is the best explanation I have for explaining what I see and for predicting what happens when I again observe a pen rolling to the edge of my table.

You can believe in Creationism, but you cannot use it as a tool. It is not science. And it is a belief that contradicts the facts we know and hence a stupid belief. (I can believe that my car is red, but if it is green, my belief is stupid.)

Anyone who believes that G-d created the human body with all its design flaws (the eye, singular organs that do not have internal replacements etc.) and then created thousands of diseases that are trying to kill it in the most painful ways really must believe in a weird and merciless G-d.

this is what i believe

Genesis and the big bang theory go hand in hand.

Genesis and the theory of how the solar system also go hand in hand.

Noah could not have taken 2 of every land animal on the ark.


he could however take two of every type of animal ie two elephants not two Asian and two African. two deer not two caribou and two moose.

meaning after the flood there was a whole lot of evolving going on.

Say what now? I'm quite sure that evolution is completely and utterly random. Random mutations, random selection, random catastrophic events. It's a heap of chaos. Evolution has NEVER been presented to me as an orchestrated event. Only after millenia can a definite niche be carved out by a species in which specific characteristics are clearly observed to be beneficial. Or to sum it up, from chaos there is order.

~Zoo

sorry evolution has to do with changing to survive in the environment that you are living in.


take for instance the kodiak bear. it lives just far enough north that it is half way between that of a standard grizzly(if there are any) and a polar bear.

This would be called hedging your bets, or, in layman's terms, a complete cop-out.

As to the topic at hand, I don't know if I can believe the evidence of a single scientist against the overwhelming weight of so many others. I would love for them all to be proved wrong and for this maverick to be right. Living where I do, though, it is not hard to believe the majority are right.

It has to do with a species changing over time due to increased fitness. If a number of organisms happens to scrape by for awhile, beneficial traits are present and will become more prevalent due to increased breeding. This process is natural selection which occurs randomly. After awhile(a long, long, long, long, long while), these organisms become highly specialized for their environment.

They can't change(physically) to survive in the environment. They either survive or they die. Successive generations are influenced by who lives and dies and obtain those traits of the things that are good at living. One organism can't sponataneously evolve or decide what traits to pass on. Thus, it is random. Even if you were the best organism ever, a comet could hit you and now you're extinct. It's all about randomness, chance, and luck.

~Zoo

No, it isn't.

Please get that fact into your head.

As long as you are "sure" that evolution is random, you do not understand it and are talking about something else.

Genetic change is random, but evolution is not. Evolution is the result of some genetic changes surviving and others not. While both the genetic change and the environmental changes are random, evolution, which is the process that happens when the two react, is not random at all.

The gene better suited to get individuals to survive in a given environment WILL survive. Evolution does NOT randomly choose one gene over the other, evolution is the result of the reaction.

B'reshit bara Elohim et haShamaim v'et haAretz.

So far this is true. (In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth.)



That is true. Genesis is a bit earth-focused, but why wouldn't it be.



True. Noah didn't bring cangaroos, for example.



The text is a bit unclear. Noah was commanded to bring two or seven animals of each type. I assume they were his farm animals. He might have owned elephants. But he probably didn't keep them on a boat. He and his family probably survived the flood on a mountain top or other high-lying region. He probably used a boat to find out who else escaped the flood.

I don't think he had deer.

The flood was highly local, affecting, depending on what flood it was, today's black sea region (which was a fertile valley containing lakes 6000 years ago) or Mesopotamia (today's Iraq).



Not a whole lot, since the flood was only a few thousand years ago.

But I can see the argument, which is well-made. If Noah brought two of each animal and we have so many species now that two of each would be too many for any boat, there must have been creation of new species after the flood.

Since the Bible doesn't mention creation of new animals after the flood, those must have evolved from existing, already created, animals.

Whether you are hit by a comet is random.

But evolution is not about comets.

The comet hitting the animal is NOT evolution. Evolution is the sum of the lot. And the result IS (not could be) the survival of the genes best suited to the environment.

That doesn't mean that all good (fit) genes survive (keep on being present in new animals). It's more like a hot air baloon. Hot air will make the baloon go up, even though individual molecules of hot air might very well be helt down, due to, perhaps, being inside a house.

But even though individual hot air molecules will have a random chance of not being able to fly higher than cold air molecules, the hot air baloon rises and it is hardly the result of chance that it does.

For some reason people assume that evolution is different from other aspects of the world. It is not.

Gravity says that things fall towards the centre of gravity. But chance tells me that sometimes wind interferes and makes a feather fly high instead. But even though individual feathers can be randomly affected by wind, I would not call it a random event if a feather (or other thing) does fall to the ground.

I thought they demonstrate that very issue in American schools? The theory of gravity says that all objects fall at the same speed. Then the teacher goes and demonstrates how a pebble falls faster than a feather. Remove the air, and both fall at the same speed. And that is what the theory says. And while the presence of air that stops the feather from falling at its assigned speed is a random event (like a "comet" hitting and killing an animal), it is NOT a random event if, in the absence of air, pebble and feather fall at the same speed.

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/project697_57.html

the flood was the earths baptism. ie it had to be completely immersed or it didn't count.

Well, I guess it didn't count then.

Excellent. That clears up that issue.

OK before it is cleared up explain to me why almost ever ancient culture on the planet no matter where located has a flood wiping out planet story. if it was only a local occurrence. by the way the black sea flood would not have been about someone building a boat all they had to do was out run the tidal wave. and the Gilgamesh story doesn't fit because it only affected the merchant. yep i watched those stories too.

OK before it is cleared up explain to me why almost ever ancient culture on the planet no matter where located has a flood wiping out planet story. if it was only a local occurrence. by the way the black sea flood would not have been about someone building a boat all they had to do was out run the tidal wave. and the Gilgamesh story doesn't fit because it only affected the merchant. yep i watched those stories too.

Floods happen everywhere. And people tend to exagerate their own importance. I don't see how that is relevant. Most cultures very probably believed that the flood that wiped out their world wiped out the entire world.



I don't know how long the flooding would have taken. Do you? It might well have been prudent to build a boat to travel the area and find out whether the water withdraws or not.



There goes your wiping out planet story. If another flood story from the same region disagrees about the planet thing, how come you know it was the entire planet that was flooded?

Either way, most cultures assumed that the world they knew was the entire world. So any flood destroying their world was, obviously, a flood destroying the entire world. That doesn't mean that they knew anything about the flood's impact (or non-impact) on other regions.