John Coleman, a journalist from Texas and founder (along with Frank Batten) of the Weather Channel is getting a lot of positive attention from The Right for blogging to readers they should know that “dastardly” scientists and “university-types” are in a massive conspiracy against business to broaden a “totally-slanted, bogus” claim, that he insists, is global warming.
Coleman says “like-minded PHD colleagues” review data without question and that government steered research grants keep the global warming movement going. He is absolutely certain that scientists as a whole devise, control and steer data to favor global warming in order to manipulate the public.
The closest point to scientific validation is that he says his expertise lies in meteorology, which makes perfect sense given that meteorology might not train one to understand the science of global warming. Except John Coleman doesn’t have a degree in meteorology; he has a degree in journalism.
Here is John Coleman.
|No global warming = more “dastardly” donuts|
And here is a polar bear face-palming John Coleman.
A link that allowed me to download the entire article hoping John didn’t completely embarrass himself and at least might have included some sources to reinforce his claims. I shouldn’t have been so optimistic; there are no sources whatsoever in the short-version or long-version of the post.
That’s a shocker.
|“Why is it all the scientists are in on this?” Maybe because they’re scientists, ass clown.|
Mr. Coleman uses the following “support”:
Ad-hominem attacks: Instead of focusing on evidence John used the tactic of name calling, by reminding us that scientists who collect data in support of global warming are “wacko-types,” “university types” and are “dastardly.”
Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy: According to Mr. Coleman, he assumes the most extreme scenario that scientists are collectively pushing a radical agenda and forcing people to follow it under the guise of global warming.
John’s point is that we should not trust scientists, university types or anyone with an education in general about global warming and to dismiss research and intense intellectual scrutiny required to validate said research as a mass conspiracy against consumerism.