John Coleman wins the inaugural Phyllis Schlafly Award November 8, 2007
Posted by Evil Bender in Phyllis Schlafly Wouldn't Pass Freshman Comp Awa, Science, wingnuts.trackback
Might it be for the same reasons they lie about evolution? It’s fascinating to me how these people running around screaming that they just knowevolution is impossible or global warming is a myth can never manage to get many scientists on their side, but are happy to call upon “experts” whose areas of expertise don’t give them any special qualification to make pronouncements about science. Dembski’s whining aside, engineers are not inherently qualified to claim expertise on matters of biology, and no matter what DaveScot thinks, just because someone founded a cable channel doesn’t mean they know anything about climate change.
That’s right, folks, DaveScot credulously links to the expert analysis of John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel. A meteorologist, he Coleman has a well-deserved reputation of popularizing such great terms as “thorms” for thunderstorms. To say the least, it’s less clear what insight he bringe to the topic of climate change:
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion 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. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
If you’re looking for evidence, don’t hold you breath: it’s such wild, unsubstantiated claims throughout his piece. And it gets better, because Coleman, who accuses scientists of perpetuating scams and conspiracies, can’t go three paragraphs without being caught in outright lies:
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
Does he expect us to believe that? Does he truly expect us to believe he has no political preference and no objection to either side’s politics? As I tell my composition students, the surest sign a source can’t be trusted is when it tries to hide its bias. Coleman would have us simultaneously believe that the scientific climate community is in cahoots to scam us all while he doesn’t have a political axe to grind. Right.
It’s the same argument as the Creationists make, of course: all those experts in their fields who agree are totally silencing our completely rational descent. They’re protecting their ideology! We, of course, have no ideology to protect, and it’s totally not about our far-right politics and our religious beliefs.* I don’t know if it’s complete dishonesty or mere projection, but it’s amazing how liars are eager to accuse everyone else of being a liar as well.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
It’s the politically correct police coming to silence him! OH NOES!!!1! I’m glad Coleman has read things and talked to people, but you know what would be better? Providing ANY EVIDENCE. Even a little. Even questionable evidence is better than none at all.
He ends on a strong note:
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
You might believe a pink sky unicorn causes “thorms” too, Mr. Coleman, but that don’t make it so.
For his complete lack of evidence and analysis, I present Mr. Coleman with the Phyllis Schlafly Wouldn’t Pass Freshman Composition Award for complete ineptness in argument.
I would also like to announce that I am now accepting nominations for the next Phyllis Schlafly award winner. Send links to posts that wouldn’t pass Composition to notesfromevilbender [at] gmail [dot] com.
*Speaking of which, since global warming denialism seems to correlate quite strongly with Creationism, I wonder just how old Coleman thinks the world is. I will admit the evidence for global warming is harder to interpret if you think anything older than 6,000 years was planted there by the devil to lead us astray.
“Thorms”? …*blink*… Really? That sounds like the punchline to a bad joke (à la that horrid “Thor” joke). Oy.
Also? “I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.” = bloody priceless. Way to sound scientific, dude. ;p
[...] never recover from this abuse. Obviously I should take back everything I said about John Coleman and Phyllis Schlafly, because any misspelled criticism is clearly invalid. Why, god, [...]
Where is this author’s evidence?
Not much of an arguement to claim Mr. Coleman has no evidence when the author of this article provides none of his own.
Alas, what Evil Bender doesn’t seem to grasp is this is Mr. Coleman’s synopsis of the global debate, not a thesis.
D. White: Are you serious? Did you read Coleman’s piece? Aside from pointing to the piece itself, which Evil Bender did, how exactly does one provide evidence for a lack of evidence?
An encyclopedia entry in D White’s world:
“The Earth is flat. I’ve read a lot of stuff, so you should believe me.”
[...] the silliest strawman/false dichotomy I’ve ever read. I may have to nominate Phillips for a Schlafly. That is because, to a secular society, religion is merely a form of organised superstition. Acting [...]
I still don’t understand the connection with evilgelicals and global warming denials. I can only assume that it caught them by surprise and it doesn’t fit with any of the established superstitions.??
There is no connection. It’s a mix.