Who is more credible - weatherman John Coleman or Bush 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

Question

I'm getting really tired of having a new question about weatherman John Coleman's paranoid conspiracy theory rant about global warming being a giant scam every 5 minutes. I've seen at least a dozen questions discussing this article over the past 2 days.

Coleman is a weatherman. He's never studied climate science. He's never written a scientific paper in his life. Yet people act as though he's the world's leading expert in climate science, and if he says that global warming is a big scam, it must be true. Who are we going to have to hear from next - Al Roker?

So my question is this:

who's more credible - weatherman John Coleman on global warming, or conspiracy theorists who claim that Bush was behind 9/11?

Personally I think both are nutty, but have roughly equal quality in the evidence supporting their conspiracy theories. What do you think?

wiserbud - how is that funny? I don't get my science from Al Roker or the Today Show. Nobody should get theirs from Coleman or the Weather Channel either.

Answer 1

Ron C - "Coleman has a great deal of credibility" I can't understand why a smart guy like you would side with someone who says:

"Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion 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."

Do you agree with those statements? Do you think the majority of climatologists are whackos? Do you think the IPCC report is a calculated scam by scientists who know it isn't true and have faked data? Are the world's leaders so stupid they're taken in by this? Or are they part of the conspiracy?

Why would any intelligent person want to jump on board with this guy? I don't understand how anyone could think this is a giant conspiracy of whackos and dastardly scientists except a conspiracy nut.

Answer 2

Weatherman John Coleman

Answer 3

I would not consider the events of 9-11 to be a 'success' - there was enough credible evidence left behind to effectively demonstrate that this might have been an "inside job". Secondly, I don't think the "Bush administration" had anything to do with the tragedy. There are soldiers, trained killers, mafia hitmen and paid mercenaries all over this cruel world who will kill other human beings without so much as the loss of a night's sleep. I do think it's possible that the Bush administration ordered the 'terrorist attack', or at least 'suggested' it to some dark and sinister entities in the bowels of our government. The 'coincidences' are just too 'coincidental' to be mere 'coincidences': * Larry Silverstein was a friend of the Bush family, and his Twin Towers were hemorrhaging millions of dollars in financial losses; * George W. Bush's younger brother was in charge of security for the building complex; * Countless experts, witnesses, observers, and theorists have come forward to claim the buildings were planned demolitions; * Demolition crews were in the building - on unoccupied floors - just days before the explosions; * An 'investigation' was hurriedly conducted and scrap from the buildings was suddenly used in the construction of a new U.S. battleship instead of being stockpiled for further studies, research and investigation. I think the Bush administration failed at this attempt to pull off a 'terrorist attack'; successful saboteurs would not have left so much damning or questionable evidence behind. This was not as 'pristine' a crime as was - perhaps - the Kennedy assassination. It was, in some circumstances, actually sloppy. Consider the events at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport at the exact time of the incidents in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I believe 'we the people' have a constitutional right - and obligation - to hold our government to a modicum of skepticism, doubt and mistrust, considering all the times it's lied to us before, especially since the Fourth Estate no longer takes its job as watchdog very seriously. -RKO- 08/20/07

Answer 4

Holy carp. We got the left saying it's big oil. We got the right saying it's the scientific/academia boondoggle, now we got the Illuminati.

I figure with the number of people involved and the availability of information, there's no way to keep a big conspiracy hidden. So, I think it's a conspiracy of the ordinary. Most people are intellectually "lazy" and take the path of least resistance. Too many ordinary (and perfectly legitimate) concerns for them to deal with. So the powers that be take advantage of that.

No need to have an elaborate ruse like blowing up the World Trade Centers. But when it did happen the neocons were ready, had all the war power verbiage and justifications in a box and meticulously prepared. The Patriot Act got whipped out in a day, like they hadn't been sitting on it for years waiting for the right moment.

It takes a special kind of person to wade upstream while dodging arrows. Most people don't have it.

I'll go with Byderule, lets party! And, um, care to elaborate?

Answer 5

I don't know the weatherman in question, but they get their information from the weather bureaus' unless he studies it as a sideline. As to the conspiracy issues, I only wish people would not bury their heads in the sand. I only you know, and you sound intelligent. www.endgame.com is a good place to start. Have studied and researched this for 30 years. Be open minded and have a look at as much as you can and then make up your mind. Above is a good place to start. :)

Answer 6

911 was typical Illuminati strategy ,scare the people to establish an enemy and gather support for aggression as well as control.
Nero used it so did Hitler and countless leaders before them.

A new much bigger and a million times more dramatic one is on the way ,but that i will keep to myself.but USA with Israel escort fighters who dropped a tactical nuclear bomb on Syria on September 6th is part of it .All masonic owned news agencies suppressed it,but it has been on various international news releases.
Why is nobody talking about that ,it can only mean all those who know, agree with this .

History will judge you guys and as a nation not as individual political parties

the weather man is confusing me
as if i could be confused more
but it seems to be too big with too many people involved and so much evidence already happening ,for this to be a conspiracy
even a snowballed one .

In Mexico more than a million people got water coming to their roof ,unprecedented in history
Northern China has incredible problems and 150.000 people die each year related to global warming .

i say lets party its the least painful.

Answer 7

Wow, the deniers of AGW are really dredging the bottom of the cess-pool to come up with a weatherman's theory. Its like trusting a mechanic to take apart your Rolex watch. HAHAHA.
Off-hand my theory is that the oil companies and car manufacturers are behind all these denials and they have everything to lose if and when all the governments in the world ban C02 emisions.

Answer 8

Funny you should mention Al Roker. From NBC's "Green Week":

"Matt Lauer was in Greenland, at the top of the planet. Literally half a world away, Ann Curry reported from Antarctica’s McMurdo Station. Joining them from a cloud forest on the equator in Ecuador was Al Roker. And putting what they were doing in perspective was Al Gore, the Nobel laureate and former vice president.

“I congratulate the TODAY Show for going to the Arctic and the Antarctic and the equator, and really going all out to tell this story,” Gore told TODAY co-anchor Meredith Vieira, who was in New York on Monday quarterbacking the unprecedented reporting from the ends of the earth on global warming and climate change."


ADDENDUM - You're right that nobody should get their science from The Today Show or The Weather Channel. I simply thought it was funny that you mentioned Al Roker, whose network is currently jetting him around the globe to promote the man-made global warming theory.

You also write: "Coleman is a weatherman. He's never studied climate science. He's never written a scientific paper in his life. Yet people act as though he's the world's leading expert in climate science, and if he says that global warming is a big scam, it must be true."

Substitute "Gore" for "Coleman", "politician" for "weatherman" and "menacing catastrophe" for "big scam" and you paraphrase us slack-jawed, unenlightened "skeptics" nicely.

Answer 9

Meteorologists are scientists too. William Gray, a very accomplished meteorologist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State, said recently that "Global warming is a theory by people who do not understand how the atmosphere works."

I think Gray has it about right. Many of the climatologists have proven themselves not to be scientists. They refuse to archive or share their data and so appear to be hiding something. It reminds me of the scene in Wizard of Oz - "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

To answer your question, Coleman has a great deal of credibility.

Answer 10

I'll go with Coleman on this considering he's much better informed on the topic of Global Warming that 99.99% of the Chicken Little's on YA crying about "man made" global warming.