Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, a meteorologist for over six decades, is issuing a full frontal attack on Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel” – a sequel to his original “An Inconvenient Truth” being debuted today at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, the day before President-Elect Donald Trump will be sworn in.
“Gore’s Hollywood friends are giving his blatantly unscientific scare predictions a new platform,” Coleman told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview.
“We have been horrified that Gore’s first scientific monstrosity has been shown as factual in schools throughout the world for all these years while our presentations in rebuttal have been generally ignored by educators and the liberal biased media,” Coleman told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview.
Climate Hustle Rebuts Gore’s films
Coleman continued: “For years others and I begged Hollywood to give a scientifically accurate counteract on Gore’s sci-fi film a chance. We were ready and willing to make a fun but scientifically factual rebuttal to Mr. Gore. We were totally ignored. Thank goodness CFACT was able, at last, to produce a very well done answer with an internationally released theatrical film called “Climate Hustle,” written and hosted by Marc Morano.
The critically acclaimed “Climate Hustle,” which was the #1 movie in America per screen during its national event in 400 theaters, will also be having its “Streaming Video on Demand” debut on January 19th to coincide with the release of Gore’s sequel.
“Climate Hustle” features politically left scientists who voted for Gore, but were “appalled” after viewing his film. See: Watch: Prominent Ivy League Geologist who voted for Gore ‘appalled’ after viewing his film
“It is deeply depressing to hear that a new Al Gore movie on climate change will debut at actor Robert Redford’s Sundance film festival. Thousands of scientists have debunked the horrid science fiction in his first film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Coleman explained.
“Gore keeps making billions and mis-educating millions and the media keeps spreading wild science-fiction claims on a daily basis,” Coleman added.
Coleman’s Key Climate Facts:
- 97% of scientists do NOT agree that the science of climate change is settled. Not by a long shot. That oft-quoted statistic was totally fabricated as is the claim that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power our wonderful civilization of smart phones,
The rains have returned to California, and the six-year drought appears to be largely over. We have heard countless assertions from journalists and politicians, ignorant of the weather history of California and the other western states, that the drought was a result of global warming.
In the January edition of Scientific American, there is a well-told story “California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe” by B. Lynn Ingram, a professor of earth and planetary science at the University of California, Berkley. She notes: “Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California every 100 to 200 years. The only megaflood to strike the American West in recent history occurred during the winter of 1861-62. California bore the brunt of the damage. This disaster turned enormous regions of the state into inland seas for months, and took thousands of human lives. The costs were devastating: One quarter of California’s economy was destroyed, forcing the state into bankruptcy.” The floods followed “two exceptionally dry decades.”
People are endlessly surprised by some unusual weather, geological, political or economic event, often with the erroneous assumption that such a thing has never happened before. This lack of historical knowledge is not confined to the poorly educated, but often experts in some field or another do not know the history of their own discipline. With the advent of low-cost, powerful computers, mathematical model-building has become all the rage. I am all for model-building, provided the models are tempered with historical reality. A way of testing the predictive ability of a particular model is to compare its predictions against the observed data.
For instance, there had been a pause in global warming for nearly two decades, despite the rise in carbon-dioxide emissions, which none of the major climate models had predicted. Climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute compared observed warming rates from 1950 to predictions made by 108 models. In virtually all cases, at a statistically significant level, the models projected much higher rates of warming than actually occurred. The fact that models all erred in one direction indicates that they misspecified one or more major variables or they were subject to bias.
2016 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE: THE PAUSE NEVER WENT AWAY
The Met Office yesterday confirmed that the warm record of 2016 was mainly driven by a very strong El Nino.
Not that you would have heard this fact in the news. But Peter Stott, Acting Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre said in no uncertain terms that, “a particularly strong El Nino event contributed about 0.2°C to the annual average for 2016.”
By removing this temporary El Nino contribution from the Met Office’s 2016 data, it becomes obvious that global average temperatures would be essentially identical to where they were in 2014 (see fig 1). Since the El Nino warming is fading and global temperatures are dropping rapidly, they are close of being back to where they were before the latest El Nino started.
There are two ways to look at the just released global temperature of 2016 and press releases from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office work hard to reflect only one of them.
The emphasis is on long-term warming with the press releases stressing that we are living in the warmest decade of the past 150 years (since instrumental record began) concluding that global warming is continuing unabated. This is one way of seeing the data, but it is not the main lesson which comes out of studying what 2016 adds to the picture of recent warmth.
2016 was clearly among the most warmest of years, but what distinguishes it from the previous years in this century. Everyone agrees it is the strong El Nino. But how strong was its influence?
The NASA GISS dataset has the global temperature of 2016 at 0.99 +/- 0.1°C compared to 0.87 +/- 0.1°C for 2015, a difference of 0.12°C. However, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt said that their estimate of the boost to global temperatures given by the El Nino in 2016 was 0.12°C, that is the difference between 2015 and 2016.
The press release from the Met Office says that 2016 is one of the warmest two years on record and that according to the HadCRUT4 dataset it was 0.77+/- 0.1°C above what it calls the long-term average, which is actually calculated between 1961-1990. 2015 was 0.76+/- 0.1°C making 2016 and 2015 statistically indistinguishable from one another.
However, Peter Stott, Acting Director of the Met Office Hadley Centre said, “A particularly strong El Nino …