This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.


The Weather Channel Founder, John Coleman, Schools CNN on Climate Change

image credit: BRANCO Americans for Limited Government
Noam Mayraz's picture
Consulting Engineer Future Power, Inc.

Noam Mayraz, PE, is a senior consultant for the power generation industry.  Mr. Mayraz has over forty years of design, engineering, and field services as project manager, IPP projects director,...

  • Member since 2003
  • 217 items added with 167,239 views
  • Sep 16, 2019

The Weather Channel Founder, not “co-founder”, John Coleman (meteorologist), Schools CNN on Climate Change “Baloney”, “there is no global warming”.  

John Stewart Coleman (October 15, 1934 – January 20, 2018) was an American television weatherman.

Excerpt (out of the 3:08 to 5:08 min):

The 97% of the climatologists is a manipulated figure – the government puts up about $2.5 b USD / year directly for climate research, it gives this money only to scientists that produce scientific results that support the global warming hypostasis.  They do not have any choice, if are you going to get the money you have got to support their position.

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Hypostasis (philosophy) – noun, an underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes or to that which lacks substance.

This is a 10:24 min long educational video, but the 3:08 to 5:08 min segment has it all.

Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Sep 16, 2019

Noam, that the American Petroleum Institute is spending $millions on TV commercials to induce the public to accept the terms "oil" and "energy" as synonymous; that Coleman (RIP), Watts, and their army of energy-illiterate weathermen have taken to social media to keep the fossil fuel industry on life support, are encouraging signs.

No longer is the public convinced by API propaganda masquerading as "educational video", or the ridiculous notion "the government" is granting $billions in lucrative grants to climatologists who will say or write anything to make a buck. Though it might be the way the oil industry operates, there's a big, wide, world of people out there who won't say or write anything to make a buck. Really.

Let's accept the blessings oil has bestowed on us and let it pass peacefully into the hereafter. Then, set to work cleaning up the mess it's left behind.

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Sep 16, 2019

I do greatly appreciate Bob Meinetz comment, tail wind.  Despite recent positive critique, by others, I maintain that fixing the subject failure symptoms before positively identifying and correcting the root cause amounts to an exercise in futility.

The power industry was doing great in reliability (aka availability) and quality of the voltage, frequency and power factor. 

That is compounded with zooming subsidies (taxpayers) for installations and long term PPA’s (power purchase agreements) that tilt the playing field against base-load electrical energy generation.

Unless we eliminate the "climate change" scam - the power grids are doomed and electrical energy costs, at the end user (ratepayers) terminals will exceed expectations.  Noam.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Sep 16, 2019

"That is compounded with zooming subsidies (taxpayers) for installations and long term PPA’s (power purchase agreements) that tilt the playing field against base-load electrical energy generation."

Noam, pleasantly surprised to find common ground - couldn't agree more. I wouldn't elevate so-called "renewables" scammers above their oil-industry counterparts - in many respects, they're one and the same beast.

Not much money to be made generating baseload nuclear energy. The fuel is cheap, the plants last practically forever, and they emit no carbon - from a customer's perspective, three of its primary virtues.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Sep 16, 2019

The attempted argument that scientists are only driven by money that comes from affirming climate change science has been debunked time and again. 

Here's a good rundown of why that claim doesn't hold water:

Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

For example, at Pennsylvania State University, professors in the earth and mineral sciences department made an average salary of $157,773, which was below the universitywide average of $166,731. Professors in earth and environmental sciences earned $98,567 on average at Iowa State University, compared with the average salary of $134,039.

In the 2017 fiscal year, the federal government spent about $13.2 billion in climate change funding, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The bulk, about $9 billion, funded clean energy technology, while science funding accounted for $2.8 billion. Climate science funding represents about 2.4 percent of the $118.3 billion in total federal research funding in the 2017 fiscal year.

When that money trickles down to researchers, it is not padding their pockets. In a video, Dr. Hayhoe explained how a $1.1 million grant she received was spent: It was divided over four years, was split with her university for facilities costs, helped pay for a graduate assistant and covered the costs of conferences, laptops and publishing in scientific journals.

What really leads to more funding and a higher salary is a scientist’s ability to produce groundbreaking research, not confirming the consensus, Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist, wrote in his book “The Madhouse Effect.”

And contrary to Mr. Santorum’s suggestion, Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies do fund research. From 1977 to 2014, 83 percent of the company’s peer-reviewed studies and 80 percent of its internal communications acknowledged that climate change is real and caused by humans, according to a 2017 study that reviewed Exxon’s documents.

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Sep 18, 2019

Matt Chester - You are sooo far to the left field, it is actually funny reading your dissertation.  We are not talking about those climatologists paycheck.  We are talking about the $2.5 b USD that the Government allocates for climate research.  You obviously did not listen to John Coleman interview on CNN...

I checked the facts for true / false with Snopes.  Snopes found that the evidence was overwhelming - NASA is just two-faced, depending on their agenda. Two Excerpts:

1. "As accurately copied and pasted from NASA’s website, Milankovich cycles do indeed describe three periodic variations in the way the Earth rotates around the sun. Eccentricity describes the shape (how circular or oblong the path is) of Earth’s orbit around the sun. That shape varies over long periods of time between nearly a perfect circle and slightly oval-shaped orbit. The eccentricity cycle, from circular to oval and back to circular, lasts (in simplified terms) roughly 100,000 years."

2. "It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as “warming” (or “cooling,” depending on their agenda). In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet by driving SUVs or eating beef, in other words." 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Sep 22, 2019

Anyone who bothers to check Noam's reference will find it claims exactly the opposite of what he claims it does - Snopes found the "evidence" in his excerpts to be overwhelmingly, categorically FALSE.
 Categorically, stupendously, stupidy false 

Snopes adds:

"One of the more telling approaches for outlets that promote a specific brand of climate-change denial is to report as news their “discovery” of something that, while perhaps new to them, is fundamental to the field of climate science and in no way in conflict with the concept of anthropogenic climate change."

Let's see if Noam owns up to it!

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »