If John Coleman was an accredited meteorologist he would hold a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist from the American Meteorological Society, but he doesn't appear on their list: http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofcbm.cfm

He would be better described as a retired weather presenter.

Leo,

Your lot bounds in chappies who call themselves meteorologists or are merely weather presenters.

I mean, how is this statement from you relating in any way that Coleman has the requisite expertise?

"He certainly knows his subject:
“Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming are a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. “

I mean whoopee-doo!

That's telling me!

Here's the blurb from your link:

"According to an article in Columbia Journalism Review, “Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism.”

"John Coleman has not published peer-reviewed research on climate change."

Next....

That’s the way, Poirot. You have no science to support your position and no rational comment on the substance of what Coleman says, so you talk irrelevant nonsense.

Coleman is right, and you cannot put forward any scientific basis to say otherwise.

Leo Lane,

"That’s the way, Poirot. You have no science to support your position and no rational comment on the substance of what Coleman says, so you talk irrelevant nonsense."

Lol!....so it's "irrelevant nonsense" to point our that you fella graduated in media and has never published peer-reviewed research on climate change?

And the best "you" can throw up is that he thinks it's a scam...a SCAM I tells ya!

"Coleman is right, and you cannot put forward any scientific basis to say otherwise."

No mate, you're the one who can't put forward any scietific evidence to say he's right....(and obviously, judging by your sample, nor can he)

Leo give up. Poirot has passed the Turing test !
There is a list of files and you have only skimmed the top layer.
Try DIR, it may surprise you.

Poirot, I have posted the science on numerous threads where you have participated. As I have reminded you, time and again, you ignore the science, and feign stupidity, because you have no answer but persist in being a fraud-backer.

Here is a summary by an excellent climate scientist, Robert Carter, which you have seen before:
“"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.
Bob Carter”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

Based on the science, Coleman is right.
If you have any science to support your assertions, Poirot, let us have the reference, or stop wasting our time reading your unsubstantiated rubbish.