Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Global Warming a scam?

The founder of the Weather Channel has an interesting perspective:
COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman
jcoleman@kusi.com
it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment. I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, 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 is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty. Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else. And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way. So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question. There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside. I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science. I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

5 comments:

Cathy said...

Did you happen to hear this report yesterday on WBOI, Morning Edition, about the teenager who would agree with Mr. Colman?

Tarun Kumar said...

IF President Bush had unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the beginning of his administration instead of in its waning months, he might have actually played a role in linking the United States to global efforts to curb climate change. But the proposals he made yesterday, which in 2001 could have been a starting point for negotiations with advocates of stronger action in Congress, are now too belated and too weak to be more than a historical footnote. All three remaining presidential candidates are committed to much more stringent, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide.

Bob G. said...

Greg:
I've always believed that global warming is misplaced.
The earth goes through CYCLES...and to capitalize on what the Earth does all by itself to invoke panic, fear, or whatever else is ludicrous.

Mother Earth has been doing OK for ALL these millenia (way before mankind put his fingers in the pie)...and I think "she" knows best when it comes to taking care of "herself".
We can help by not increasing the risks of potential harm to the planet, but to turn every bit of resources to "global warming" is insane.
We can all do better than that.

Now, back to my spring planting...

;)

B.G.

Tim Hallman said...

Thanks for the posts on the Global Warming issue. It's hard to know what to think when there seems to be so much info promoting it, and so little evidence made public that counters it.

I suppose, for myself, I'm more concerned about pollution, which is an obvious issue and something that we can tangibly do something about.

WARNING VIRUSES ON THIS BLOG said...

Mr. Hallman writes "It's hard to know what to think when there seems to be so much info promoting it, and so little evidence made public that counters it."

That's the crux in a nutshell.

There is so little evidence made public that counters anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (APG) because there is SO LITTLE EVIDENCE against it.

What's too public is the hue and cry and disinformation put out by Hannity and Limbaugh, all supported by few other cranks who truly don't understand the science of global warming. The media gives too much voice to crazies and cranks who doubt something and politicize the issue for personal, political, profit-motivated and other purposes.

Go to wwww.realclimate.org for the real deal. This clearly written and persuasive site--although often highly technical--counters all the myths and disinformation about APG--many of which are being recycled to this day.

What's clear about real climate science is that trained scientists understand, question and review the methods used by climate scientists to understand if humans are causing global warming. Consensus: we are causing it, to a high degree of certainty.

The very word "consensus" on this issue has been criticized and attacked as somehow pejorative or diluting the severity of the global warming problem.

It's important to understand the proper sense of the word "consensus." This is not a consensus in that some scientists are pushed against their will to support it, like some kind of group-think exercise in a corporate meeting with a bullying manager actually forcing nominal agreement on an issue or topic.

This is consensus as in, most scientists well trained enough to comprehend the data and the methods used to gather and analyze it believe it is valid. That large group of trained scientists forms a "consensus."

So-called evidence against APG (that is, disinformation) is promoted not only by business with vested interests in disinformation on it--which they've backed all along--but also mainly by pseudo-scientists (including TV meteorology professionals--a job you can get with no science degree) with poor credentials for investigating such matters.

There's also the expanding, continuing problem of pollution, which only greedy rich companies support because they should bear the burden of cleaning it up--and it's usually NOT PROFITABLE to do so!

In the absence of intelligent debate in public about the issue and the disinformation surrounding it,it has sadly come down to this choice:

Believe and support those who want to:

- protect the earth
- reduce pollution
- help mankind and other species from our overpopulation and environmental devastation.

or those who want to:

- profit at anyone and everything's health and sustainability

- care for profits over people and the environment

- have poor credentials for scientific investigation

- have vested interests in pollution

Whatever you do, don't decide on the issue without fully informing yourself as I've done. It takes research to ferret out clear from crazy. Most aren't willing to go that far, and believe simply along political lines--the absolute wrong way to understand such a complex and comprehensive issue.

Working against global warming can only HELP, not hurt. The world economy will suffer as a result of delaying, and floods, disasters, etc. will and ARE increasing exponentially due to climate changes mostly due to human activity.

Be an ostrich and bury your head in the sand--in which case I will hunt you down and eat you and your eggs.

Or do something constructive to save our planet from ourselves and the rich greedhogs and idiots who simply don't care or are too stupid to do the independent research needed to counter the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney and John Coleman.

Just because you can't see ALL of it, it's still happening. To you and all of us.