John Coleman is flush with the (ahem) success of his open letter to science deniers and the fame that's brought him, and is now "firing back" at the IPCC.
Never mind that almost no-one who writes for the IPCC would have ever heard of this weather comedian from the USA. Maybe some of the US-based climate scientists have heard of him, in the way one hears about creationists and flat earthers from time to time.
John Coleman isn't ready to hang up his boots just yet. He's still doing his comedy routines, it's just that he does them at WUWT now (archived here). And on CNN if he's ever invited back. And as one of the few remaining deniers who might be recognised in the USA, he will probably get a few spots on Fox television - the denier channel in the USA.
It's a fizzer not a fire!
Today's comedy routine is called:
John Coleman fires back on the IPCC Synthesis ReportIt's really a bit of a fizzer. It didn't get the acclaim from WUWT-ers that he probably hoped for. For one thing, John Coleman has given no indication that he's actually read the IPCC Synthesis Report. His article is about an article by Associated Press, which I found here. And he probably wouldn't have even come across that except that it was featured on the Fox News website. I expect that news report is the extent of his "scientific" reading. That and WUWT.
John reels off one jaded denier meme after another:
"The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years." He says. Well, woopy doo. How does he know that? Because climate scientists and geologists have figured that out! John acts as if we humans were around for some of the most extreme changes in geological history, and talks about 4.5 billion years. Doesn't he know that we've only been around for 200,000 years or so? Civilisation only began around 10,000 years ago. We didn't see those dramatic changes in the long ago. John poo-poos the idea that since human civilisation the climate has been fairly stable. Perhaps he's not aware of that. Maybe he doesn't know that one of the main reasons human civilisations have flourished is because of the relatively stable climate of the Holocene.
He writes that "people think there is a "normal" climate". Well, there used to be. It's only now that we're causing it to change so much and so quickly:
|Adapted from Jos Hagelaars|
He claims that global temperatures have "plateaued" for 18 years - Oh yeah? Look at this. He has a weird definition of "plateau" doesn't he.
|Data Source: NASA GISS|
John confuses Antarctic sea ice with ice on the continent, wrongly claiming that the polar ice caps aren't melting. They are. He wrongly asserts that Arctic ice is "within its normal range", by which I think he probably means Arctic sea ice. Here's what's been happening in the Arctic, courtesy of Andy Lee Robinson:
John Coleman reckons the oceans aren't rising significantly. They are rising quickly enough, but just wait till later this century when the melt from WAIS kicks in. (John's 80, so he probably won't be around to see it.)
|From U Colorado|
John Coleman is no different to a sky dragon slayer - rejecting the greenhouse effect
What really gets on his goat though, is the knowledge that it's we who are causing global warming. John just wants to deny, deny, deny. John comes right out and says that the greenhouse effect has been "debunked". He reckons he's:
"read several papers by Ph.D. Climate Skeptics that totally debunk the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory".
John doesn't go so far as to confessing which "papers" he's read. He might be stupid but he's not that stupid.
Now one might ask why Anthony Watts, who professes to accept climate science to a point, or at least that the greenhouse effect is real. Why, when he bans people from WUWT who write nonsense like that; why does he give a platform to utter nutter notions like John Coleman is putting forth.
And why aren't WUWT readers clamouring for these PhD Climate Skeptics' papers? I guess they know it's not real.
Climate science is a hoax because Al Gore is fat
Would you believe that John Coleman mentioned Al Gore's name seven times in his article? How quaint. He's really showing his age, isn't he.
From the WUWT commentsJohn's article got a mixed reception at WUWT. Some people didn't understand it but thought it was brilliant :) Some were a mite concerned that it was a bit too, too "fake sceptic". A few of the regular fake sceptics picked some nits, thinking he went overboard in his denial. There were a also one or two climate hawks who slipped through the moderator net.
This is good. One commenter, icouldnthelpit , wrote:
November 4, 2014 at 12:37 am
He’s claiming that co2 is not a greenhouse gas. No further comment is required.
Only to have Non Nomen get all caught up in knots denying John Coleman's denial while admitting his denial (extract only) (Non Nomen's bold italics):
...He did NOT claim that CO² is not a greenhouse gas.
He correctly states that the theory, that CO² is responsible for global warming has proven wrong: 18 years of increasing CO²-level without increasing temperature.Lots of people rush to defend John Coleman, trying to make out that he didn't really say that the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory has been debunked. They are twisting themselves into a real tangled knot.
Gareth Phillips isn't too happy with John Coleman either. He pulls him up over his statement about accurate temperature measurements:
November 4, 2014 at 12:45 amThis time I'm with John Coleman, assuming he was referring to putting together records around the globe. Instrumental records were sparse 200 years ago. We rely on proxies to figure out what temperature was doing at the global level.
” First of all, 200 years ago we could hardly measure temperature accurately” Perhaps this article published on WUWT will help Mr.Coleman realise that we certainly could, and did, measure temperature surprising well in the UK over the last 200 years. The resultant CETs datasets are an invaluable asset in climate science.
cesium62 didn't get as far as I did. He gave up when John started on about "4.5 billion years" of climate change. And I can't say I blame him.
November 4, 2014 at 1:01 am
“The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years. Earth has been frozen into a sort of ice ball at least four times in its history (the Ice Ages) and has been as warm or warmer than it is today at least three times (Interglacial Periods) during its history.”
How many of those ice ages and interglacial periods occurred in the last 8,000 years which pretty much covers the rise of human civilization?
If that’s where you’re going to start, I see no reason to continue reading.
Robin Hewitt says how much he likes "prol" fake sceptics, because they say all the things he wishes he could remember - like "climate is always changing" I suppose :)
November 4, 2014 at 1:21 am
Speaking as a prol this is my kind of scepticism. There are four kinds of sceptic and here they are in reverse order of prol appeal. 1: The scientist who comes on TV but is incapable of coming down to prol level. He can’t even understand what he is being asked by the prol interviewer, comes across as distinctly nutty. 2: The celebrity sceptic who confesses he is not convinced so as to forward his cool rebel persona. He probably also believes in the healing power of crystals and raspberry ketones so all prol credibility could collapse at any moment. 3: The political sceptic who concedes too much to the other side, Always on the verge of saying something controversial with prol appeal, but never quite making it. 4: The TV scientist sceptic, as seen here. This is the man who can speak prol and says all the stuff sceptic prols wish they could remember when the conversation turns to global warming. This is a new kind of sceptic because up until recently such behaviour would result in “doing a Bellamy”.
Nylo says John's denialist rave is all a bit much for his taste. Too "skeptical".
November 4, 2014 at 1:25 am
Jon Coleman is too skeptical for me. Denies too much. We should be focussing on climate sensitivity. There’s no point on debating who caused what in the past, when everything that we have seen in the past was, regarding the warming, much smaller than what it should have been if the alarmists’ estimates of the climate sensitivity were corrrect, and its consequences, if anything, positive so far.
Peter Miller makes up a whole heap of stuff just so he can reject it. One strawman after another:
November 4, 2014 at 1:37 am
There are a great number of inaccuracies and stupidities in alarmist theory, but none in my opinion beats these:
Natural climate cycles which have been around many hundreds of years suddenly ceased in the 1950s – I always find that one so amazing that anyone could be so stupid as to actually believe this.I find it amazing that Peter Miller could be so stupid as to think that anyone could believe that there were people who believed this. Then again, people at WUWT will believe practically anything.
The current global temperatures are unprecedented – well, we are circa 10,000 years into the Holocene, the current inter-glacial period, which has mostly been warmer than today and previous inter-glacial periods have been warmer than this one.I find it amazing that Peter Miller could be so stupid to not understand the context in which "unprecedented" may be used. For example, only yesterday WUWT had an article about the earliest snowfall ever recorded in parts of the USA. Unprecedented!
The idea that 1952, or 1937, or 1944 is the year of natural, normal temperatures at which we should fix the Earth for all eternity is so laughable, if it was not so sad and ludicrous.Poor Peter's got that all twisted about. Thing is it's just not considered safe to let the global temperature rise more than two degrees above the pre-industrial temperature in a very very short space of time. It's probably not safe to get to one degree above for a lot of people. But we will, and soon.
CO2 is an evil gas, when in reality it is essential for life on Earth.Peter is anthropomorphising CO2. Deniers have a habit of doing that sort of thing. It's as if they think that the reputation of CO2 needs to be protected. He won't accept that you can have too much of a good thing. If he wants to anthropomorphise, why doesn't he stick up for buried hydrocarbons. They must be in agony with all that burning. What have they done to deserve the treatment we're dishing out to them? And what about poor little oxygen? Doesn't he care that we're burning it out of the sky? No sense of equity and fair play, has Peter.
I don't know why the mods are asleep at WUWT. Here's another person who scoffs at John's denialism. Siberian Husky wrote:
November 4, 2014 at 2:47 am
No degree in meteorology. No degree in climatology. No credibility. Quick get him on Fox News to get his “expert” opinion.