John Coleman is retired from the Weather Channel, and it's already been taken over by people who disagree with his vision:

Far from being intimidated by the political backlash, Dr. Cullen and executives at the channel say they have embraced the issue of global warming. Dr. Cullen is host of the weekly show “Forecast Earth,” formerly named “The Climate Code” where she has entertained such guests as former Vice President Al Gore. She also appears on the channel’s other programming with segments on hybrid taxicabs in New York City and the development of more fuel-efficient aircraft. The network’s other programs have also directly engaged the elephant in the room — or, in this case, the polar bear on the melting ice cap: a recent anniversary roundup of “The 100 Biggest Weather Moments” listed global warming as No. 1. And the network is training its meteorologists so that they can discuss long-term trends as well as five-day forecasts. Link

What I wonder is if Coleman still ran the Weather Channel, would his employees dare to do this even if they believed in global warming themselves? Or is global warming alarmism an audience-building necessity that he would have to run no matter what?

The opinion of one scientist is quite.. inconsequential.

There have been a lot of scientists who denied the validity of Enstein's theory.

Still today, there are scientists who still say that the evolution theory is totally erroneous.


The question is, do these scientists actually say what they say because they believe it, or to gain political favor from some target audience? There are christian foundation that monatery reward scientists for trying to debuke the evolution theory.

I am sure that, in the same way, some high-polluter companies (those who have the most to loose out of some sanction) have some sort of... compensation method for scientist who support their view of things.


To end it all, I don'T think that in 20 years we will actually see the floods, droughts, etc.. I think it's more 30-40 years ahead (or so the theories claim). So it's stupid to give a deadline evaluation date so short ahead of time.

Tell me, Draginol. In theory, only in THEORY, what would happen, if, in 20 years, we really see the floods, the droughts. That the world economy is thrown in chaos, and people dies. All of this because we listened to people like you. What would you say? or think?

On the other hand, if you happen to be right, but we do something about those polluters anyway. We still end up with something better (a world greener) than we started it.

What I wonder is if Coleman still ran the Weather Channel, would his employees dare to do this even if they believed in global warming themselves? Or is global warming alarmism an audience-building necessity that he would have to run no matter what?

I doubt it.  But I think they would feel free to support OR refute the charge, something that the current weathercasters there are trying to stiffle.

The opinion of one scientist is quite.. inconsequential.

You are making the same ignorant mistake as the creationists. You think the person is important, not the subject.

You are not supposed to appeal to authority or count the scientists supporting either idea. You are supposed to read what they have to say and let them help you understand the issue.

If 20 scientists deny gravity and only one insists that gravity exists, and the one gives verifiable experiments that confirm his theory that gravity exists while the 20 merely disagree with him, you can either believe them or him, but their number must not be of consequence.

Creationism is wrong not because only a minority of scientists support it, but because it is a ridiculous concept and cannot be verified by experiment. It requires faith where evolution does not. Creationists tend to be ignorant of what evolution is about (for example, evolution does not cover how the world came into being, just how it changed since then) or how evolution works (hence their obsession with "chance" and claims that evolution is "random"*).

Notes:

*A little help for the creationists: evolution, as science understands it, is the OPPOSITE of chance. Whenever you try to make a case for your pet theory of intelligent design or whatever and you use words like "random" to describe evolution, you WILL be wrong, because you are not talking about evolution and any point you might make will not have been about evolution.

(well, there is a random factor, is you consider the minor mutation a young member of a specie can have compared to it's parents. And if the minor mutation makes the young memeber of the specie to be better adapted, then the minor mutation will become the norm in the specie within 100 generations. Randomness create the mutation, but it's the validity and the survavibility of the mutation that creates the actual process of evolution.)

sorry please tell me how life evolved out of nothing.

ev·o·lu·tion


3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.



now tell me how do you mutate the gene pool when it doesn't exist.

don't get me wrong i believe that evolution takes place. but i also believe that god started the process.

well, the firsts sparks of life came from the fusions of some proteins, enzyms and other things like that that have formed randomly.

Off course, there have been hundreds of "first sparks of life" that died out because they weren't fit to survive. Until one of them got lucky and got all the best combination possible.

If God really was behind those "first sparks of life", he sure didn't knew what he was doing..

Or you could say that over the span of millions of years, probability dictated that it was only a matter of time that luck created the first life-worty sparks. It is clearly a trait of evolution from the nonliving to the living, coming out of randomness, but tried for survavibility.

Your argument for evolution is intelligently designed.

first we can make a cell with everything but we can't make it live.


second you can't have a cell without a cell wall. the cell wall keeps everything together.

There is a book you can read, by Richard Dawkins. He proposes a few ways in which life could have started. None of the ways have anything to do with evolution, which is, again, a theory that explaing how life changes, not how it starts.

Creationists do not know much about evolution (they have heard the word, they have trouble understanding what "theory" means in the scientific sense). Evolution does not explain how the universe started or even how life started.

And whether you believe in evolution or not is inconsequential. Evolution is the best theory we have for explaining what happened. It's a tool, not a belief or philosophy.

I use gravity to explain why stuff falls off my table, but I do not "believe" in gravity. Whether gravity is the truth is immaterial, it probably isn't, but it is the best explanation I have for explaining what I see and for predicting what happens when I again observe a pen rolling to the edge of my table.

You can believe in Creationism, but you cannot use it as a tool. It is not science. And it is a belief that contradicts the facts we know and hence a stupid belief. (I can believe that my car is red, but if it is green, my belief is stupid.)

Anyone who believes that G-d created the human body with all its design flaws (the eye, singular organs that do not have internal replacements etc.) and then created thousands of diseases that are trying to kill it in the most painful ways really must believe in a weird and merciless G-d.

this is what i believe

Genesis and the big bang theory go hand in hand.

Genesis and the theory of how the solar system also go hand in hand.

Noah could not have taken 2 of every land animal on the ark.


he could however take two of every type of animal ie two elephants not two Asian and two African. two deer not two caribou and two moose.

meaning after the flood there was a whole lot of evolving going on.

Say what now? I'm quite sure that evolution is completely and utterly random. Random mutations, random selection, random catastrophic events. It's a heap of chaos. Evolution has NEVER been presented to me as an orchestrated event. Only after millenia can a definite niche be carved out by a species in which specific characteristics are clearly observed to be beneficial. Or to sum it up, from chaos there is order.

~Zoo

sorry evolution has to do with changing to survive in the environment that you are living in.


take for instance the kodiak bear. it lives just far enough north that it is half way between that of a standard grizzly(if there are any) and a polar bear.