"Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history"

John Coleman’s assertion on global warming fiercely dismisses the scientific consensus on climate change, labeling the phenomenon as a “hoax” and a result of “bad science.” His language implies an orchestrated deception, suggesting not only skepticism about the validity of climate change but also casting aspersions on both the scientific methodologies and the motives of the researchers involved. By describing global warming as “bad science,” Coleman is critiquing the research methods, data interpretation, and outcomes supporting the reality of anthropogenic climate change, implying that the field is riddled with methodological flaws, bias, or misrepresentation of facts rather than a bona fide scientific undertaking.

Moving beyond scientific critique, Coleman contends that the influence of global warming advocacy has extended into the realm of governance and societal direction, claiming it is “high-jacking public policy.” The choice of the word “high-jacking” paints policymakers as victims of a forceful takeover, hinting at a loss of rational or independent judgment, wherein environmental agendas have overshadowed balanced policy-making. This portrays legislative and regulatory efforts to curb carbon emissions or promote alternative energies as not just misguided, but manipulated or coerced by those perpetuating the climate change narrative.

The description of global warming as “the greatest scam in history” elevates the critique to its most severe level, outright likening climate change discourse and action to a fraudulent scheme of unprecedented scale. Here, the implication is that the ramifications are global and deeply consequential, affecting not only scientific communities and policies but also economies, liberties, and the daily lives of individuals worldwide. Coleman’s words convey profound distrust in those advocating for climate change intervention, warning of widespread consequences arising from what he perceives as misinformation or even deliberate deception.

Coleman’s stance remains highly controversial, standing in stark opposition to the established scientific consensus and serving as a rallying point both for climate skeptics and for broader debates about science, politics, and public trust.