Another damn alarmist
Jennifer Marohasy has come up with another damn alarmist, one John Coleman, a weather guy in San Diego. Now at Jen's place, John is trying the tell the two sides gambit, as in
And, the connection between fossil fuel exhaust emissions of carbon dioxide has been presented over and over again as accepted science without the slightest bow to the growing throng of scientists protesting the entire silly foray of bad science and resulting public policy.but this guy is extra special as a bit of google informs, writing
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.Of course others had done that part of the work, but our boy John sees black helicopters everywhere. It goes on in this vein, stirring in a bit of Al Gore, the Singer article that Revelle got roped into, the IPCC and more. This stuff is catnip for the John Birchers, and it is "highly likely" that Coleman is associated with them.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Coleman hates, just hates, those climate alarmists. He much prefers weather alarmism.
On leaving Chicago to go to Nebraska, not a good career move,
Urgent observations across the television-radio desk: If you ever get the feeling that WMAQ-Channel 5 weatherman John Coleman tends to be an alarmist, you're not alone.
Two of his top competitors and a suburban newspaper critic have taken Coleman to task for his nasty habit of issuing unnecessarily dire winter weather warnings.
No one took his forecasts seriously, including readers:
John Coleman, whose gleefully alarmist weather predictions earned him more than $400,000 a year, is on his way out at WMAQ-Channel 5.
By mutual agreement, Coleman will leave next month after six years as Channel 5's principal weatherman.
His contract expires at the end of August, sources said.
Coleman has told friends he hopes to establish a regional weather cable service similar to the Weather Channel, which he launched in 1982.
Reached at home on Tuesday, Coleman refused to answer any questions about his plans because he said he had been "offended" by previous columns questioning his record of accuracy."I take my job very seriously," he said.
We here at Rabett Run tend to be, well, sober. Sometimes. . .
Frances Debevec, Chicago: Regarding your column on the alarmist forecasts of WMAQ-Channel 5 weatherman John Coleman, I agree that he frightens people because it's never as cold as he reports it. That's why I no longer watch him. I don't see other weathermen acting as he does.
Mrs. R. Murphy: John Coleman delights in predicting the next "doomsday" forecast. I'm glad to know his competitors are questioning his tactics. How can he "try to be accurate" and almost always be so wrong?
Have at it.