Btw - you messed up the quotes in your post.
Man, I'm so good. Where is the smart guys in this forum? I only see quacks. Quoting: glauco
If you hadn't an american flag one could think you are the Corean moontard (forgot his screen name).
I agree with HD regarding his professorschip.
Nevertheless you are right in pointing out, that he did not use the title "Professor" in any of his publications or on web pages. On the other hand he never rejected to be named so - at the best this is dishonest (in Germany it would be a criminal offence).
Also there remains the question, who brought it up?
His first papers in Cornell were peer-reviewed. Not sure about other ones published out of Cornell by American Geophysical Union, but I guess so. Quoting: glauco
As far as I could research he published onle two papers at Cornell, the two you mentioned (at least a search didn't bring up more results).
Thereafter Cornell (in the early 80s) refused to publish any more papers of McCanny because of his woo-woo theories (translation: bullshit theories) and fired him.
I'm not familiar with his theories, e.g. his Plasma Discharge Comet Model, (not yet) but what I read so far is utter bullshit.
What brings us to C/2012 S1 (ISON)."i am currently analyzing the orbit of this comet. It appears to have a significant planet sized nucleus ..." Jim McCanney, September 24, 2012
Thus, according to McCanny, the nucleus of C/2012 S1 is at least 2,440 km, the size of the smalles planet in our solar syste - Mercury.
There is a well established empirical formula, established since centuries, to estimate the size of a comet nucleus according to his distance and brightness - verified by several close flybys and visits of space probes to comets.
This formula gives the nucleus of C/2012 S1 as 20 km (source: Remanzacco Observatory).
So what do you think is more likely? A calculation, that works since centuries or the statement of McC?
Keep in mind, that - when the comet approaches - it is possible to distinguish the nucleus from the coma by measurement in different wavelength.
But lets go on."there are some really interesting alignments including a new collision with the planet Mars" Jim McCanney, September 28, 2012
Sorry, McC, at that time the orbital elements were already out - indicating, that the distance to Mars would be around 10 million kilometers."this could certainly cause some significant weather effects on mars which could include electrical discharges between the comet and mars" Jim McCanney, September 28, 2012
What did he expect? A 10 million kilometer electric arc?"there are a number of scenarios depending on the mass of this comet which could rival little mars and could cause changes in both comet and mars orbit" Jim McCanney, September 30, 2012
There is no way a comet can come even close to the mass of mars. There is no way a comet can change the orbit of a planet.
That's pure fearmongering to sell his crap."i originally stated on my show that this would not be visible in the morning sky but i revisited my information and in fact we will have a superb night time early morning view of the comet approaching mars" Jim McCanney, October 13, 2012
The closest approach to Mars occures at 2013 Oct. 1.
Brighness of Mars at that day: 1.8 mag
Estimated brighness of C/2012 S1 at that day: 10.4 mag
That means, Mars is about 2000 times brighter than the comet.
And that we can see, according to McC, with the naked eye?
What is he expecting? A firework pointing from the comet to Mars?
I tell you as an amateur astronomer: Even in a decent sized telescope it will be difficult to spot the comet at mag 10.4 - especially not if Mars is also in the field of view and outshines all around it.
And this man taught orbital mechanics at Cornell. What did he teach his students? That Mercury and Venus need longer to orbit the sun as Earth?
Will you back away from McCanneys crap when you can not see sparks between Mars and C/2012 S1 around the 1st of October.
Will you back away from McCanneys crap when you even can't see the comet itself with the naked eye?