One more voice of reason in the wilderness. Climatology and meteorology are very closely related and when someone with Coleman's or Dr. Gray's experience says something like this, it can't just be dismissed as the rantings of an old man, despite what Brookline Tom or Mark would like us to believe. His age and years of experience, like Dr. Gray's, give them excellent credibility. More so than any faulty climate model.
Listen up folk's, the lie's we've been conditioned to take as gospel are falling apart, just as they should.

John Coleman sees the manmade global warming hysteria for what it is - a well-orchestrated campaign to seize control over people's lives by falsely claiming that we are facing the end of civilization unless we follow them. I particularly liked Mr. Coleman's assessment:

"Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

Remember, the doom and gloom claims are all based on computer models which cannot accurately predict anything, including tomorrow's weather. AGW is a scam and I'm glad to see more and more people speaking out about it. Bravo - John Coleman!

Great to see more Meteorologists come out and say that GW is a crock. I guess the GW crowd will start their spin on what a crackpot he is and do their best to demonize him also. He is correct in saying time will tell. The GW lie is on borrowed time. Sad that they have already duped alot of money that could have gone to alot of good causes instead of something that was make believe. Very very immoral practice but I guess these kind of things have always been around. Thanks for posting Brett.

I think John Coleman is absolutely right, and he has the guts to say what he believes. I was wondering when, or if, your blog would acknowledge his words.
Jim

People need to speak out on this.. To think Man has caused global warming is wrong. Look at the earth from space, water covers the majority of earth. Mankind only takes up a small amount of space on land. Look at the sun compared to earth any warming is coming from sun activity. We are in a natural cycle and in a few years the ones saying global warming will be saying another ice age is coming. Seems like I remember in college in the 70's all the talk from professors we were going to cause another ice age in 10 to 20 years. Still waiting.. People need to chill out and enjoy the warm period another cold period will return sooner than later..

Thank you for your link to John Colemans discussion on Global Warming. He is absolutly correct. I think it's criminal how the global warming advocates along with the Liberal media are brain washing the general public. Too many people are not thinkers and are easily influenced by lies. Even if global warming were going on there is nothing we can do about it. I hope the public finally learns the truth.

There is legitimate cause for concern about how climate change affects the large populations populating the earth. There is also legitimate concern about how man's activities affect the environment.

And Mr. Coleman is absolutely correct about the atrocious, dishonest science and politics driving the panic. And Mr. Lomborg is absolutely correct that given the human condition we can't impact climate change appreciably, so our resources are better devoted to improving the world in realistic ways.

Left unchecked, marching toward the cliff of economic suicide will be a catastrophe. Amazing to me that AGW advocates believe that the impossible goal of 80% CO2 reduction will somehow be easier once Obama or Hillary signs it into law. We need intelligent and honest politicians, but there seem to be very few of those around.

Let's see...

The skeptics will say that he is right and point to the fact that he was probably forced out at TWC.

The AGWers will say that he is wrong, mad at TWC for being forced out, and just a TV weatherman. Obviously, he is getting money from EXXON and the Bush administration forced him to make the comments under threat.

Should just about cover it.

Me, I think the comments are rational and well put together considering he obviously follows what has transpired over the years.

but I still think that a large portion of the general public has not heard about the global warming comments from John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel.

REPLY: Can't imagine why, Brett!

Save the plantet from hot air. MUZZLE THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!!

We can only hope that the cooling Coleman is talking about occures soon before any major amounts of money are spent.

John Coleman loses me when he says I know I am correct. Sorry -- when it comes to Global Warming, it's impossible to know who is or is not correct until some point long in the future.

Seriously people, anytime someone says something like "liberal media...brainwashing...fraudulent science.." your bullshit meter should kick into the red. Science is all about peer review. If Mr. Coleman believes so strongly that Global Warming is a fraud, then it should be pretty easy for him to advocate such positions in a peer reviewed journal. Ranting and raving on some website is no different than the thousands of pages that say we never went to the moon. You could take his post for one of the many pages linked from www.badastronomy.com that say such things.

And if he's right, then he'll be the most famous scientist of the day for proving everyone else wrong.

People are political - science is not. And, while the media certainly has their own agenda, you'll never get anyone but the wackos to go along with you when you claim "everyone's trying to hide the truth".

That was more of a rant than an informed, well reasoned argument. Careful readers will note that he presents no facts, information or studies, nor does he shed new light on the issue of climate change. He simply makes baseless attacks against "dastardly scientists" and "environmental whacko types." How is this helpful? If you want to make a counter argument that the world is not warming, I'm sure its possible to come up with something more intelligent and coherant than this rambling diatribe. Also as a side note: he states that global warming is the "science of meteorology" - its not, its the science of climatology.

enviornmentalists knew they could not win the fight against the enviornement with out something as big as global warming on their side

they wanted to believe it was man made because that is the only way, they would see the change they wanted.

they did not stop to think of the greater implications people could face, how global warming would be used to facilitate political and industrial change as well as uniting the nations in a scam to bring about the end of national soverignity. As carroll quigly from tradgedy and hope and the club or rome had spoken about. people like their little comfort zone's and do not like talk of cover-ups because they threaten to shake them from their "happy realities"

thankfully more respected people are hopefully going to put a stop to the manipulation (which by the way) when people live busy lives, and the media is falsely trusted, it is quite easy upon a unsuspecting popualation who is convinced conspiracy's are always imaginary.

I would like to believe john coleman, and i use to, but the part about how the polar sea ice melting will not come true, well over the past 20 years we have lost over 1/3 of the total polar sea ice. and 2007 was a new all time ice minimum in the artic. now this proves absolutely nothing as we have only had satellites for 30 years, all this proves is that the artic is warming; could it just be a natural cycle, yes.

Why did the prior lawyer for Exxon-Mobil edit releases about climate change while working for the Bush admin. if it is not real?(60 minutes) Just for his excellant proofreading skills I suppose. Wake up. The media does not care if it is real or not, the fact is that more people are talking about global warming (mostly scientists) so that makes for better ratings. I'm sure all the people running out of water are excited about the "cooling period" that's coming as well as residents of fire baked California. Oh and restless leg syndrome, ADD/ADHD are real too. Wicked bright as we say in Maine.

Darren,

By forcing non-believers out, it is much easier to claim a consensus. Anyone who disagrees is a crackpot and their vote is automatically excluded.

The British foreign secretary Margaret Beckett wanted to make it illegal for skeptics to have "access to the press."

Do these fanatics ever think about the slippery slope they are moving down? I guess when people think they are saving the world, nothing else matters.

So if the mainstream media is lying about climate change we don't have to trust them about what really happened on 9/11. Not trying to fluff your feathers but you can't have it both ways. Controlled by the elite or not controlled by the elite, there is only one answer.

Mike,

over the past 20 years we have lost over 1/3 of the total polar sea ice.

Polar sea ice is actually quite close to the 1971-1990 average and will likely be above normal within the next week or two. Additionally, Antarctic ice set a record maximum this year.

Might be good to check the facts for yourself instead of relying on the people John Coleman is warning you about.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

It is interesting to really see beyond "weather adjustment" statistics and question the hysteria,

it makes me wonder, are people searching for some sort of belief in weather, or maybe once step further, finding a answer in creation from weather?

it does make me wonder why soo much attention is drawn into it,

especially awarding the nobel peace price to Al Gore, when there are many other people who are addressing the statistal representations of it everyday,

its like there is some sort of media wonderment, searching for some sort of reason,

well its strange

Bushhater,

When I was a child, half of China and India were starving largely due to a drought. Was that Bush's fault, or was it Exxon's fault? "There is only one answer" - you can't have it both ways.

I'm quite certain too that the Irish potato famine was a CIA plot.

John Coleman is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. The meteorological community is more skeptical of AGW because they seem to believe that climate is similar to synoptic weather forecasting. Two words: It's not.

If I had a toothache, I'm going to the dentist. Not a cardiologist. Not a podiatrist. Not a dermatologist. A dentist.

A similar analogy can be used for meteorology and climatology. That's not to say that meteorologists can't have an opinion, but, simply put, this is not their line of work, and I think they need to forthright with their audience in acknowledging that fact.

Mark,

Climate modelers have no standard of verification. They can be wrong every single time, and get away with impunity. What other profession has such low standards, besides possibly members of Congress?

Meteorologist's work on the other hand is judged every single day by an audience of billions. Their predictions are transparent and verified.

Patrick, how do you reconcile your statement that Arctic Sea Ice is shortly to be above normal with the sea ice anomaly time series at that same website?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

Patrick Henry,

I know that sea-ice cover has rebounded somewhat, but the fact that it is near average for this time of year does not change the fact that the summer sea ice extent is on a downward trend, and that the summer of 2007 was significantly lower than the previously observed minimum summer sea ice extent. That is a statistically significant event, and requires explanation. It is, of course possible for that explanation to be "natural variation," although I personally doubt that that is the case.
On the other hand, I give you that mainstream AGW theory also needs to explain the "anomolus" lack of warmth being observed in the antarcttic region.

I would like to publically thank Mark for making my predictive post of noon today come true.

I wonder, would mark like to go whole hog and point out that Mr. Coleman is getting money from Big Oil and further is being abetted by the Bush Admin.?

LOL.

Mark,

Even Mann and Hanson have been found somewhat lacking in the Statistical and Computer Science fields recently. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea for Climatologists to get some advice once in a while from outside of their little sphere?

The real debate is not whether GW is occurring, but whether CO2 emissions are causing it. In general, global temperatures have been rising since about 1850, but the CO2 postulation is highly questionable. For one, the CO2 side has no explanation for decline in temperatures between 1940 and 1975, when industrialization and carbon use was exploding worldwide. Instead, there are much stronger correlations between global warming and sunspots. A closer look at the evidence suggests that higher temperatures cause a rise in CO2, not the other way around. In addition, scientists have not found a corresponding increase in the temperature of the troposphere, which they postulate would be the case if greenhouse gases were the cause of the current climate change.
Finally, GW may not be anywhere near the threat activists say it is. Far more people die from cold than heat. Warmer weather means longer growing seasons. Over the course of history, warm periods have been marked by peace and human achievement.
And yes, because elements of the environmental movement have made CO2 the culprit, and fashioned nightmare scenarios with no basis in scientific fact, Coleman is right when he says much of GW has been used as a political hammer to attack worldwide business and industry, at a cost we consumers will ultimately bear. We can be thankful that in the US, lawmakers (so far) are content to pay lip service to the AGW side--and the occasional bit of hyperventilated legislation--like California's attempt to ban incandescent light bulbs--gets emphatically and rightfully voted down. Still, Arkansas' carbon emission restrictions prevented an auto factory from locating there, so several thousand jobs went to Tennessee instead. Take a look at some of the European "Green" sites and you'll see that radicals in the AGW movement will not rest until they've used this trumped up "planetary emergency" to take away your freedom not just to drive a car, but to travel where you want (because flying causes GW), live where you want (because "sprawl" causes GW), eat (transporting food causes GW) and drink (bottled water causes GW) what you want.
While we should be conscious of preserving the environment, and I think we can better in this regard, we run great risk misdirecting our resources into carbon reduction.