Weather Channel Founder takes down Prince Charles on global warming & Syria

By |2015-11-24T03:02:01+00:00November 24th, 2015|Videos|91 Comments

John Coleman: “The Prince reminds me somewhat of Al Gore here in the U.S. — a lifetime devoted to something that is science and they are not scientists. They have had the lemonade and drunk it fully. I am sure they believe and they are sincere, but they are dead wrong.”


  1. Ian5 November 24, 2015 at 3:11 AM

    “I am sure they believe and they are sincere, but they are dead wrong.”

    John, I am sure you are a nice man but while you criticize the Prince, you conveniently ignore the fact that virtually every American and international scientific academy acknowledges the science of climate change and shares his view that human-caused GHG emissions are the major cause of climate-warming.

    • Edward Lewis November 24, 2015 at 10:48 AM

      That statement, sir, is a tremendous prevarication, and a subterfuge.

    • GlenFS November 24, 2015 at 11:05 AM

      The Prince is a nice man who believes these corrupt academies of “science”. Never accept data manipulated by those with a cause. The very antithesis of science.

      • cshorey November 24, 2015 at 2:20 PM

        What are you talking about? If this is a climate gate comment, you’ve been duped.

    • Rick Vaile November 24, 2015 at 1:29 PM

      All science points to human GHG emissions as minuscule compared to the natural emissions. Check the links below with different views. What is true?

      Ask yourself how did the first ice age melt down? The world works on lets say ebs and flows or cycles. The orbits change, the sun gets closer & gets farther away. The are way to many things that make the world work the way it does. Humans have changed it somewhat but I would suggest not as much as the fear mongers tell us. Heck there are some scientist that say global cooling is just around the corner. Here is a link to a bunch of global cooling theories. Who do we believe.

      Do we need to cut back ? Sure we do, human GHG does have a impact how can it not it is out there, but there needs to be common sense when doing it. Every climate change treaty signed such as Kyoto & Copenhagen Accord have not even come close to being fulfilled.

      People need to look at the big picture and realistic goals. They say we need to do this for our future family and so forth. People need to know that we are somebodies future family and need to make sure we are looked after as well.

      • cshorey November 24, 2015 at 2:19 PM

        Low concentration argument: try putting 400 ppm Fe in your body. The atmosphere is 99.9% made of gasses that have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect (N2, O2, H2, Ar . . . ). Our climate state is completely determined by trace gasses. Bad argument move on.

        Asking myself how Milankovitch cycles work, and hey, I’ve got the answer. It was orbitally controlled. These very same orbital patterns should be causing a general cooling ever since 6000 years ago and expected for another 23,000 years (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1980). Bad argument #2, move on.

        Nothing but opinion here, but glad you realize greenhouse gasses do have an effect, even if you are not quoting good science. So please, yes, look at the big picture. Look at the fact that the senators that just voted against the clean power plan have been shown to have been taking large amounts of money from coal interests. Look at the real climate scientists and what they are saying and why. Think how dumb a conspiracy of the majority of climate scientists just sounds silly.

        • Rick Vaile November 24, 2015 at 2:48 PM

          Who is to say your scientists are the good science? That is why I stated who do you believe. There are always two or more sides to how people read an interpret research.

          400 ppm Fe in my body? apparently if this is the case we are already doing it. I feel no different than lets say 20 years ago beside a few lbs gained in the weight category. That number does not come from just Human production. It reads to me that as you state climate is determined by trace gases so GHG really does not effect the climate in any discernible way? You could be right

          The Milankovitch cycle ” results in long term fluctuations in the energy that the Earth. There is good evidence of changes in isolation have influenced the Earth’s past climate. However, alone these changes are insufficient to explain past climate. Other complex feedback effects are also important.” As I stated, there are a lot of things involved that I also believe are beyond the Human senses and sciences.

          15.3 Natural Variations: Past Climates “On even longer time scales, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 may have been as high as 3000 ppmv during the Cretaceous period (90-65 million years ago).”

          I do believe 90-65 million years ago there was not alot of human usage when it came to fossil fuels. I could be wrong though.

        • Roald J. Larsen November 24, 2015 at 3:56 PM

          The atmosphere is not a body.

          Temperature on earth is controlled by the sun, full stop!

      • Ian5 November 24, 2015 at 8:21 PM

        “All science points to GHG emissions as minuscule compared to the natural emissions”.

        Your understanding is incomplete. The level of atmospheric CO2 has
        been accelerating and has now achieved 400 ppm – a level not seen on earth for hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of years. The additional CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

      • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 9:04 AM

        Carbon cycle. Educate yourself on it.



        • Brin Jenkins November 28, 2015 at 4:19 AM

          That’s usually your third letter of response to a dissenter.

          Why not formulate, or find someone more able, an understandable explanation on the mechanism that CO2 causes this warming?

          That will be read by many doubting, and you have a brilliant opportunity to explain why you believe it.

          • Dano2 November 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM

            Back with this ploy again, are you.



      • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM

        Swift Boat propagandiist!




    • Roald J. Larsen November 24, 2015 at 3:18 PM

      The swindle is about to end, only the most ignorant still argue about this hoax.

      We can even prove Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC doesn’t know/understand the climate science just by one simple graph. 102 times Playstation 64 models vs. Reality times 6;

      If they knew the science they wouldn’t, 1. Miss on the predictions, 2. They would only need one model.

      Because the temperature doesn’t show any increase despite the fact that our emissions of CO2 are through the roof, they cheat, ref.:

      Like last year, they say this year will be record warm, ref.:

      Of course it will, no need to cheat if you don’t get the result you want, right!??

      The reality, however, shows no such thing, ref.:

      This is the science Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC doesn’t understand, ref.:

      • Ian5 November 24, 2015 at 8:11 PM

        More links to the usual fringe rubbish sites.

        • Roald J. Larsen November 25, 2015 at 7:45 AM

          Tell me, did you read any of it?

          If it is rubbish (as in bad and wrong), why don’t you post documentation showing us all how it is wrong ..

          Here’s more inconvenient facts;

          • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 9:03 AM

            Disinformation site! Drink!

            Anyhoo, the basis for that chart was taken down here.



        • Al November 25, 2015 at 11:22 AM

          Lan5 – If that came from a rubbish site, where did the science come from for the Al Gore movie? Nothing in that movie came true. Not only that, the science from that movie came from grant based science! After reading your posts to other people, I can see this isn’t science to you, it’s a religion to defend! You need to look at both sides of the equation, something real scientists do, not the ones collection grants from a left wing administration.

          • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 4:26 PM

            Comical: Nothing in that movie came true



      • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 9:02 AM

        You were duped. Why are denialists so easily duped?!?!?!?!?!?!?



    • Al November 24, 2015 at 5:57 PM

      Total bullshit! Many American scientists think this is hogwash and some are too afraid to speak out. This is an academic money grab and nothing else.

      • Ian5 November 24, 2015 at 8:11 PM

        Please educate yourself:

        Of course there will always be extreme views but
        they are few and far between. For example, if you take a serious look at
        Heartland’s International conference on climate change the
        roster of speakers is unimpressive, laughable really. Many are PR people and
        lobbyists, there to misinform and mislead.

        • Al November 24, 2015 at 8:21 PM

          Once again, total bullshit! Human emissions are nothing compared to emissions in nature. Not only that, if you actually believe scientists can tell how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago accurately by looking at ice samples and call it fact, you are a fool looking for a grant.

          • Ian5 November 24, 2015 at 8:39 PM

            So how do YOU explain the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution? Levels of CO2 have now achieved 400 ppm – a level not seen on earth for hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of years. The additional CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels. Analysis techniques of ancient atmosphere entrained in ice cores isn’t new “magic”. It has been around and accepted for decades. Inform yourself:


            • Al November 25, 2015 at 12:13 AM

              Very simple. There is absolutely no way to predict how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago with any kind of precision, unless of course you are looking for a grant. I know how the grant systems work, and I know humans can’t be trusted when trying to report the facts with an almost religious fervor. So if you believe scientists CAN measure CO2 in the past, scientists say during the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods, CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppm. Ice caps managed to exist back then! Right now, we seem to be at a very low point in our history for CO2 levels. It all depends where you think normal is! Higher CO2 levels are actually BETTER for the earth in terms of climate and food production. As far as your stupid condescending remarks telling me to educate myself, you are just showing your ignorance.

              • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM

                Oh come on, at least I said please. Actually what i find condescending is the way you refer to the collective body of climate science as bullshit and hogwash, suggesting that the only thing motivating scientists and scientific discovery is grant money. And you dismiss the science behind ice core analysis because you can’t reconcile the results with your narrow ideology.

                FYI, the estimates of 4000 ppm during the Late Ordovician era (over 400 million years ago) are not direct measurements from ice cores, they are projected from the late Robert Berner’s geochemical model GEOCARB. Although CO2 is an important factor influencing climate, it would be incorrect to assume it is the only factor especially at that time scale.

                • Al November 25, 2015 at 11:06 AM

                  Once again, all you have are assumptions! Bullshit and hogwash pretty much explains the current theory of climate science. It’s also corrupt with money and brainwashing on the scale of religious extremism. When you grow up, you will find that grant money moves mountains and changes ideology. If it makes you feel any better, follow your God.

                  • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 11:21 AM

                    Gee you seem flustered. Take a deep breath. I asked you a simple question. What about the 25% increase in CO2 (and accelerating) since 1960? Where.did that come from?

                    • Al November 25, 2015 at 11:47 AM

                      There was no way of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in 1960 to any degree of accuracy! To answer your question, it doesn’t matter! 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere up from 0.038%. The only difference this statistically insignificant trace element in the atmosphere makes is that plants grow better! The sun regulates temperatures. The laughable part about all this is that the 400 ppm came from an atmospheric site in Hawaii. The location of the site is 50 miles from a volcano! Follow your God.

                    • Al November 25, 2015 at 11:55 AM

                      So Lan5, tell me. All of the statistics, measurements,and predictions from the AL Gore movie came from scientists getting huge grants to study the atmosphere. Why did all the scientists get most of their predictions wrong? You see the God implications here don’t you? Before they called it climate change, they called it global warming. NASA came out with a chart showing global warming one back in 2000. When the press looked into it, they found that NASA was taking measurements form one of their own buildings with an air conditioner working hard 20 feet from the temperature probe! Follow the money!

                    • Al November 25, 2015 at 12:06 PM

                      Listen to what this book author predicted. He was 100% on the money! Everything scientist have predicted so far is total bullshit! Follow the money! Ian5, follow your God.

                    • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 11:08 PM

                      Nice! FOX News and Inofe. Complete rubbish. Legitimate science is based on evidence and reason not ideology.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:15 AM

                      You just contradicted yourself!

                    • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 11:23 PM

                      I think the God implications are that you should not leave your brain at the front steps of a place of worship. You are just parroting long-debunked Heartland talking points. Educate yourself first, then pray about it.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:20 AM

                      Too bad you are just a kid and you don’t understand. People like you follow the flock and never look at the other side of the problem. You follow like it’s a religion and don’t do any research on your own. You constantly follow your God. Some day when you grow up, you will understand. This has nothing to do with formal religion. It has everything to do with following junk science like a dogma to a point where you emulate a religious experience! Follow your God.

                    • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 11:36 PM

                      Fine, you don’t like Al Gore? Then go visit the University of Wisconsin. It has an excellent climate science and adaptation research group. Inform yourself instead of misleading others and ranting about your narrow ideology.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:27 AM

                      Never did I say I don’t like Al Gore! You spun it again! But you’re just a kid! I said nothing in his movie ever panned out! All that research from scientists receiving huge grants, and nothing came out of it! It was an attempt by a Democratic administration to push Cap & Trade, and scientists knew all about it! Huge grants were available and the outcome was known even before all the research was in! I’m from Wisconsin and I know all about the climate research going on at the university.

                    • Ian5 November 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM

                      I can’t help people that don’t want to learn. Maybe some of the folks a the University of Wisconsin can help you. You say you know all about the climate research going on at the university. Have you ever spoken to any of the staff? Their findings are in complete opposition to your extreme views.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:47 AM

                      Actually, my views are in the majority! Scientists not looking for grants in the subject pretty much side with me. Scientists that side with you are guaranteed to get grants! The ones that side with me will never see a dime! The problem is you won’t do the research so in reality, you are the problem. Nothing good ever comes from following the pied piper, unless you are paid to follow! These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
                      David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
                      Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[18][unreliable source?][19]
                      Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[20][21][22][23]
                      Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [24][25]
                      Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[26][27]
                      Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of theNational Academy of Sciences[28][29][30][31]
                      Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]
                      Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada[39][40][41]
                      Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUACommission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[42][43]
                      Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[44][45]
                      Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[46][47][48][49]
                      Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[50]
                      Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[51][52]
                      Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[53][54]
                      Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [55][56]
                      Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[57][58]
                      Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[59][60]

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:48 AM

                      These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
                      Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[62][63]
                      Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[64][65][66]
                      Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[67][68][69]
                      Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[70][71]
                      Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[72][73]
                      Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science,University of Auckland[74][75]
                      David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[76][77]
                      Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[78][79]
                      William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[80][81]
                      William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[82][83]
                      Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[84][85]
                      Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[86][87]
                      William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[88][89]
                      David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[90][91]
                      Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[92][93]
                      Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[94][95]
                      Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[96][97][98]
                      Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[99][100]
                      Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[101][102]
                      Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[103][104]
                      Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[105][106][107]
                      Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[108][109]
                      Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[110][111]
                      Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[112][113][114][115]
                      Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[116][117]
                      Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[118][119]
                      Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[120][121]
                      George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[122][123]
                      Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[124][125]

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:51 AM

                      From the Wall St. Journal, “Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.”

                    • Ian5 November 26, 2015 at 1:05 AM

                      Heartland rubbish from Joe Bast.

                    • Ian5 November 26, 2015 at 1:03 AM

                      Here look at this figure closely. It comes fro the same wiki pape that you are cutting/pasting from:



                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 1:14 AM

                      You must have missed this! “For the purpose of this list, a “scientist” is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology.” In fact, in that graph, only 12% of the scientists were actual climatologists! Yikes!

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 1:23 AM

                      Here is something for you to think about Ian5 as you start looking for another major! “Whenever debate is silenced, whenever someone with an opposing viewpoint is labeled as a “denier,” and whenever “supporters” call for the “deniers” imprisonment, you’re not dealing with science. You’re dealing with ideology, and a dangerous one at that.” “From The National Review: In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.”

                    • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 2:35 PM

                      You suggest that there was no way of accurately measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in 1960. When did the means of doing this become available? 1965? 1975? 2000 or last year? Please tell us.

                      The Keeling Curve is one of the most clearly-defined observations in climatology. There are no valid scientific reasons for doubting it.

                    • Al November 25, 2015 at 3:14 PM

                      “The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Mauna Loa is a volcano and it doesn’t seem to me that a volcano is the best place to be taking CO2measurements”

                    • Al November 25, 2015 at 3:24 PM

                      1975 is when the first IR detector was used to calculate CO2. Not an exact science back then! It has been refined many times over by now, but calculations of past CO2 in graphic form is easy to postulate depending on how much you get for a grant and who’s paying for it! Remember Cap & Trade? Anyone remember Al Gore? Anyone remember how bad it was for your cholesterol to eat eggs? Follow your God.

                    • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM

                      So you’re saying that the accuracy of 1975 CO2 measurements were acceptable to you? Concentrations were reportedly about 330 ppm back then. How do you explain the over 20 percent increase in 40 years? The Mauna Loa record isn’t the only monitoring station. The results there correlate with data from other monitoring stations. Inform yourself instead of bleating misleading talking points.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:18 AM

                      You must be a kid. No where did I write that I accept the measurements of 1975. You are spinning. You are not much of a scientist! You don’t even read the posts!

                    • Ian5 November 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM

                      So what are you saying then? That none of the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa or other sites.. like say the Jubany Station in Antarctica are acceptable to you? Are you suggesting that the researchers are just fabricating data? That the researchers around the world from different countries are secretly conspiring?

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:35 AM

                      I am saying that none of the CO2 measurements from the dinosaurs to the invention of the IR technology are accurate. They are estimates for data collected from scientists with an agenda. I am saying the Sun is the prime mover of temperature for the Earth. I am saying the Greenhouse effect never happened, I am saying scientists know that and they changed global warming to climate change. I am saying ever since the idea of Cap & Trade bogus estimated of climate change are grossly exaggerated for money, I am saying no one on earth knows the correct amount of CO2 needed for a perfect atmosphere. I am saying that an increase in CO2 is better for the atmosphere causing crops to grow faster. I am saying CO2 is a trace gas that even if it went to 10,000 PPM, it would still be a trace gas equaling less than 1% of the atmosphere. (CO2 = .037) I am saying people like you that don’t do your own research are the problem. I am saying scientists are human and are not immune to the value of the dollar. That pretty much says it all. Flame away!

                    • Ian5 November 26, 2015 at 12:46 AM

                      “none of the CO2 measurements are accurate”. So if I have this right, you’re saying that none of the data collected are accurate including what is being measured and collected today? Data from all the different atmospheric sites including mauna loa, located around the world and run by different agencies in different countries? Yet the data are all consistent. Gee how can that be? Either it’s a coincidence that the all their inaccurate measurements are consistent OR…they are all colluding and conspiring because they got grants! OR… you are completely misinformed and can’t accept the findings of those grant-grubbing scientists because they don’t line up with your narrow ideology. Choose one.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 12:54 AM

                      Why do i have to keep explaining this to you? I know, you’re just a kid. Everything you just asked me I answered. You are going in circles! You keep asking the question a different way, and expect to get a different answer! That is lazy. Ask me a new question or give it up.

                    • Ian5 November 26, 2015 at 12:59 AM

                      Nope, you’ve been exposed.

                    • Al November 26, 2015 at 1:01 AM

                      Thanks for the debate. Please don’t pick science as a major!

                    • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 4:23 PM

                      Greenhouse effect.



                    • Al November 25, 2015 at 4:29 PM

                      Sorry Dano. Greenhouse effect never happened! That’s why they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change!

                    • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 4:35 PM


                      I love me some Internet Performance Art! I LOLzed! Kudos to the author of this character!



                    • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 4:25 PM

                      Whoa. haven’t gotten to collect these points in a while, derptastic!

                      o Measuring CO2 by a volcano is crazy [10 points]




              • Ian5 November 25, 2015 at 2:04 AM

                And forget about the change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100,000 years. What about the 25% increase (and accelerating) since 1960? Where did that come from? Tainted by grant money?


              • Brin Jenkins November 25, 2015 at 8:11 AM

                CO2 is great for fruit and vegetables, a trip around Sicily will visually confirm that the CO2 from Etna boosts fertility beyond that of Malta, only a few miles away without the volcano.

                • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 8:54 AM

                  Comical! I LOLzed!



                • Al November 25, 2015 at 11:17 AM

                  You are right Brin! National Geographic actually predicted that third world nations are predicted to increase food production with an increase in CO2. Seeing that there is no base value for the perfect amount of CO2, and measuring CO2 in ice cores is very inaccurate, scientists are guessing at this. It all depends on the amount of the grant! This is bullshit science at it’s best. An embarrassment to the scientific community. All you have to do is watch Al Gores movie. Absolutely nothing came true from that movie, and all the facts came from grant based science!

              • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM

                There is absolutely no way to predict how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 100,000 years ago with any kind of precision

                Aside from the fact you don’t predict anything in the past, you measure it, educate yourself on ice cores. Everyone else has.



          • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 4:27 PM

            Comical derp of carbon cycle aside,

            Human emissions are nothing compared to emissions in nature.

            And yet we’ve raised atmospheric concentration of CO2 by ~40%, other GHGs similar.

            Golly whillikers.



  2. cshorey November 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM

    So John Cook, who got kicked out of the Weather Channel after only a year from helping start it, and who thinks climate science has all and everything to do with Al Gore, has something to say about climate. Who cares?

  3. Ronald Navidad November 24, 2015 at 2:20 PM

    According to Al Gore, we only have 63 days, and 9 hours left to total annihilation.

  4. Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 8:58 AM

    Poor Coleman. He doesn’t fib very well – simply not believable.



    • MV November 25, 2015 at 10:07 AM

      But look deeper… (and stop drinking the kool-aide as well…) The computer models are bad….and the data used has been shown to be deliberately corrupted/distorted to help ‘persuade’ people that the sky is falling. The below link is only 1 of MANY articles that DOCUMENT the distortions and lies by Global Warming Alarmists. (And the e-mail data dump from Hadley/CRU revealed discussions on ‘how to hide the decline’ …and how to distort the record that shows COOLING…not warming, over the past 18 years.)

      The models DON’T WORK. The models can’t explain the warm periods (Roman Warm Period, Medieval warm Period when Greenland was settled by Vikings as an agricultural community) – or the cold periods in between..the Dark Ages and mini-Ice age of the 1600’s 0 1700’s – when areas in northern Europe had crop failures due to too short a growing season. If the climate models CAN’T explain those temperature variations…how do we know that they can explain the climate change due to just CO2 addition?

      • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 10:31 AM

        Climategate comedy making us LOLz and using a disinformation site as evidence being comical aside,

        You cannot show one scrap of legitimate, credible evidence for:

        o The computer models are bad

        o the data used has been shown to be deliberately corrupted/distorted

        o the record that shows COOLING…not warming, over the past 18 years

        o The models can’t explain the warm periods …- or the cold periods in between

        You were duped. These statements are false.




        • MV November 30, 2015 at 8:31 PM

          I don’t know if I should be scared – either you are totally ignorant of the duplicity of the Global Warming Alarmists – their lies, distortions, etc…..or you have ‘drunk the kool-aid.’ Either way – when a large majority of people are ignorant of the facts, they do stupid things… (like voting for an empty-suited narcissist who promises to fix the Bush excess spending and large deficits…with even LARGER deficits.)

          My statements are DEMONSTRABLY true. You just said they are false without any rebuttal. Look at the record of warming/cooling periods. It is there. Not refutable.

          Look at the inability of the climate models to explain things. Very true. (And then the Global Warming Alarmists try to explain why it isn’t relevant…and people without any science understanding drink the koolaid and believe them.)

          Check out these – as a starter…

 (Plenty more that suggests the GWA have been ‘cooking the books’ and distorting the real data, because it doesn’t fit their curves.

          A new film will provide more information…

          If you want to come across as intelligent – try to check BOTH sides before you post.

          • Dano2 December 1, 2015 at 6:50 AM

            Swift Boat propagandist!




          • Dano2 December 1, 2015 at 10:25 AM

            Swift Boat propagandist! Drink!

            And you cannot show one scrap of legitimate, credible evidence for:

            o The computer models are bad

            o the data used has been shown to be deliberately corrupted/distorted

            o the record that shows COOLING…not warming, over the past 18 years

            o The models can’t explain the warm periods …- or the cold periods in between

            These statements are false.



  5. Al November 25, 2015 at 12:04 PM

    Listen to what this book author predicted. He was 100% on the money! Everything scientist have predicted so far is total bullshit!

    • Dano2 November 25, 2015 at 4:23 PM

      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux “News” faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

      o but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?



  6. Al December 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM

Comments are closed.