Science & Tech Quote by John Coleman

Coleman’s line isn’t trying to win a scientific argument; it’s trying to collapse the argument’s authority. The move is classic: pair a flat denial (“no significant man-made Global Warming”) with a broader attack on the machinery of expertise (“computer projections,” “badly flawed”). The phrasing is engineered to feel sturdy and common-sense, like a straightening of the record, but its real work is rhetorical judo: if the models are corrupt, then every alarming conclusion can be dismissed without engaging the data behind it.

“Weather chaos” is doing extra cultural labor. It frames mainstream climate communication as melodrama, implying that scientists and media are selling panic. That one phrase turns a complex field into a vibe - hysterical futurism - and invites the audience to see themselves as the sober adults in the room. It’s less a claim about temperature trends than an identity offer: join the skeptics, resist the scolds, refuse the lecture.

The subtext reads as a defense of normalcy against enforced change. If warming isn’t “significant” and the science is “flawed,” then regulation, carbon pricing, and corporate accountability become not just costly, but illegitimate. Coming from a businessman, the incentive structure is hard to ignore: uncertainty is a market asset when the alternative is policy intervention.

Context matters, too: climate modeling has always been an easy target because it’s probabilistic, technical, and communicated in ranges. Coleman weaponizes that complexity, translating “uncertainty” into “untrustworthy,” and “projection” into “fantasy.” It’s persuasion by delegitimization, not evidence.