When you issued your threat to sue Al Gore The Inactivist Journal issued a call for you to Sue Us, a call most recently echoed by Jeremy Jacquot at DeSmogBlog in “John Coleman: Still Waiting for that Lawsuit ‘.
Your most recent screed leads me to use this opportunity to add my voice to the call, and to ask other climate realists to do the same using whatever media is appropriate.
Many in the Denialosphere believe that you actually have sued Mr Gore, or at least have begun the process.
You have not done either despite your repetition of the threat. As Frankbi notes, you are as big a charlatan as Christopher Monckton in this respect.
One can only speculate that it is probably because you are well aware that the nonsense you spout may play well on Fox, but in court it would be immediately seen for the blithering stupidity that it is.
You see Mr Coleman, we want you to go to court and be exposed as a fraud. Even more, if there is any justice in the world, you will be required to pay all court costs and significant damages for bringing frivolous litigation.
Hopefully this would so completely destroy you professionally and privately that we will never hear from you again.
Once again you have polluted the climate discussion with your drivel, and it is time for you to put up or shut up. As you can see I am being, and will be just as blunt as you have been. However, in sharp contrast to you I am going to be factual and accurate and give credible sources.
Much is made of your being the founder of the Weather Channel as if this lent your uninformed opinions some weight. Apparently the hope is that people will mistake you for a meteorologist, which as discussed previously is not the same as a climatologist, but is at least a related profession.
It is not generally known that you trained a journalist. No doubt members of that profession are deeply grateful that this is scarcely known as you are discrediting them with your flagrant disregard for facts or accuracy, never mind your bias.
You went on to be a weathercaster (in effect, a performer) and a business person. None of which discredits anything you may say as such, but it is not the credential you pretend.
If your implied credential is bogus, your supposed ‘facts’ are worse. They have been repeatedly and competently exposed as nonsense here and here as have all of the fables you spout, so I will touch on only some particulars.
You say you want a “debate”, but what you really want is to use the Gish Gallop to win a version of “American Idiot Idol.”
It would be a chance to sell your snake oil sham direct to the public without fear of intelligent, informed comment. I have discussed why liars and frauds prefer the public debate format here and here.
The real debate goes on constantly in the scientific literature and scientific forums. Of course participating there requires facts, evidence, logic, and rationality; so small wonder you have shown little enthusiasm for getting involved.
In your Red Eye interview you actually cited the fraudulent Oregon Petition as a source of credibility. The Petition was such an obvious and laughable hoax that I suppose it is consistent with the rest of your case.
In your most recent travesty you choose to try and defame good and worthy scientists, to your shame.
Of Revelle you say of his work “It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies.“
Gee, a scientist working on something that may be of huge importance would like to keep doing the research? How very unusual. Do you suppose he worried about his appearance as a teenager too? Any other news flashes of the obvious?
Of course you try to paint it as unusual and somehow sinister, which is disingenuous and patently absurd. You go further in your statements of the obvious and note that Revelle, as Director of the Scripps Institute seemed to worry about funding all of the time.
Have you ever directed anything? Is there a head of any department, business, or enterprise of any kind who does not worry constantly about funding? Far from demonstrating that Revelle was an empire builder you reveal yourself as a slanderer.
In your interview you said say of the history of climate change science “It started off with some environmentalists, some one world politicians…”, while more recently “The story begins …” and so on. Basically you are trying to have it all begin with the 1957 Revelle and Seus paper.
Right, that would sure explain:
- Carbon Dioxide and Climate Scientific American July 1959
- 1958 Newsreel about global warming
- 1953 Popular Mechanics article about global warming
The facts are easily available and a 12 year old with a search engine could have gotten them right. If this were a grade six assignment it would deserve an F-.
Your ignorance of CO2 science does not even grasp the basics already well understood in the 19th century. Please try to drag your understanding up to at least the year 1900, preferably beyond.
- What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
- The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
- Yet more CO2
- A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing
- Calculating the greenhouse effect
You say “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.” Gee, could that be because it had already been shown over a century before? They didn’t prove gravity or that the earth was round either … you forgot to mention that.
The absurdity of your argument just gets worse and worse.
You suggest that environmentalism’s only issue was car exhaust and industrial pollution (bullshit), that it had pretty much triumphed by the 1970s (bullshit) due to technological innovations when only one of the ones you cite had actually been introduced by 1975.
According to you, these fictional events created a crisis of purpose for the environmental movement in the 1970s, so the now 20 year old “research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment.” Twenty years earlier being “just at the right moment.”
You then try to portray the late 1970s as a period of global warming frenzy particularly within the scientific research community. The fact of course is that it was a focus of research by only a handful of scientists (easily verifiable, which is why you provide no source).
Do you even believe this drivel yourself? or is it just for the gullible people you are scamming?
The rest of your piece is such a mix of complete fiction (more so than the earlier part, if that were possible), paranoid delusion and nonsensical speculation that it’s almost impossible to decipher what it is you are pretending happened, much less how it is supposed to correspond to reality.
Naturally you provide no sources – how could you provide sources for fantasy?
Your explicit and implicit allegations about climate scientists, the science profession in general, and specific individuals are deeply insulting. If this challenge has been insulting as well then I guess it proves the axiom that ‘what goes around, comes around.’
For all I know you are a nice person, but with respect to climate change your behaviour is a disgrace, both professionally and as basic civil discourse.
So please sue! Sue Al Gore, sue James Hansen, sue the IPCC. Please learn first hand how judges feel about having their intelligence insulted and their court’s time wasted.
We don’t need the frivolous circus of a climate debate, but would love the spectacle of you being held accountable for your lies and slanders.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 111 … still no evidence.