Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Weird News Stories => Topic started by: CheezeFlixz on March 14, 2008, 11:26:09 PM



Title: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Post by: CheezeFlixz on March 14, 2008, 11:26:09 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html)

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing." John Coleman said.


Title: Re: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Post by: indianasmith on March 15, 2008, 07:55:28 AM
I saw a story the other day that the global cooling trend across the last 18 months had actually erased most of the alleged warming that took place in the last decade!


Title: Re: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Post by: Rev. Powell on March 15, 2008, 11:32:30 AM
There's room for debate on global warming, but founding the weather channel doesn't give John Coleman any special expertise on the subject, any more than the Vice Presidency gave Al Gore credibility.


Title: Re: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Post by: CheezeFlixz on March 15, 2008, 11:37:53 AM
There's room for debate on global warming, but founding the weather channel doesn't give John Coleman any special expertise on the subject, any more than the Vice Presidency gave Al Gore credibility.

True, but I'd say that a meteorologist has a little more climate credibility than Al Gore.


Title: Re: Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Post by: ulthar on March 15, 2008, 12:03:23 PM
Interestingly, there's an article in the March '08 issue of Physics Today called "Is climate sensitive to solar variabilty."  The article was written Nicola Scafetta (Physics, Duke University) and Bruce West (a chief scientist at the Army Research Lab).

The article includes real data, real analysis of the data, graphs and 5 references to publications in refereed journal articles.

Physics Today labeled it an opinion piece.

Now, what were we saying about bucking the political flow in modern science over in the other thread?