Weather Channel Founder on Global Warming

[Fash]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog ... l_warming/

Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman:

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 to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko 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 extremists, 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 ridiculous 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 environmentally 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, ie 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 non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a 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 have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal 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.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Well said.

[Daboohk]

So, in summary, a meteorologist posts his opinion on some blog that global warming is a scam. He then notes that he has read articles, and papers, and has found evidence that has been manipulated, but does not reference them? Perhaps someone can show me here where the evidence has been manipulated? Is there another *scientific* (read: not blog) journal/article that has been shown to manipulate evidence?

Kudos on using a lot of colour to convince people of your opinion though. Words like bogus, scam and whacko help to get the point across.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So, in summary, a meteorologist posts his opinion on some blog that global warming is a scam. He then notes that he has read articles, and papers, and has found evidence that has been manipulated, but does not reference them? Perhaps someone can show me here where the evidence has been manipulated? Is there another *scientific* (read: not blog) journal/article that has been shown to manipulate evidence?

Kudos on using a lot of colour to convince people of your opinion though. Words like bogus, scam and whacko help to get the point across.

The climate is changing....ok. The scam is the part where they say they know it is our fault and not a natural occurence. Mnay people are getting rich off your gullability.

[Canelek]

While I am not going to drop the idea of global warming as a man-made event, I will concede that it is entirely possible that is being overblown to generate a fear; and thus a change in human habits.

By a change in human habits I mean recycling, conserving fossil fuels, reduction of airbourne chemicals, tree-planting/reduction of deforestation and the like. Much like the Bush Administration's fear campaign to garner support (or at least ignorance) to let him have his way in Iraq. The difference in this case is that the former fear-generation works at least in some part to positive changes towards the environment--awareness is the first step, no?

It is certainly not a new concept to bend the truth towards "the common good"--"good" being a very subjective term.

That said, the weather channel founder's claims really hold no water to me, as it seems he is speaking from a viewpoint far too conservative to take seriously.

[Pherr the Dorf]

Just because nature has it's cycles there is nothing that says we are not making the problem worse, in fact the science says we are. If we are making it worse then the natural balance will be thrown out of whack, yes, the climate changes from age to age, but if we push it farther than it would normally go we have fucked the pooch, nature does not bounce back well when pushed past it's normal flux. I love hearing people say it is just normal, like that should be the end of the story, to use a Shakespeare analogy, it isn't, that is only act 1, at this point we are about on act 3 with the climax coming in act 4, how act 5 looks is going to depend an awful lot on the actions the key players play in act 3.

I can't beleive I actually posted in current events!

[Animale]

Read that article in Scientific American yet Mid?

If not, you have an uninformed opinion.

Now, saying that this will be a "run-away" catastrophe is probably true. However, I think his and my definitions of catastrophe differ quite greatly. I think it's a catastrophe if the island of Majuro (highest elevation, 30 ft.) has most of it's land sunken under the waves (which would happen with a 3-6" sea rise). My guess is that this fellow doesn't consider a 3" sea rise catastrophic.

In the long run, the creation of new energy sources (solar fuel generation in particular, also solar electricity and other alternatives) needs to happen if our country is going to survive economically. WHY NOT NOW?

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Read that article in Scientific American yet Mid?

If not, you have an uninformed opinion.

Now, saying that this will be a "run-away" catastrophe is probably true. However, I think his and my definitions of catastrophe differ quite greatly. I think it's a catastrophe if the island of Majuro (highest elevation, 30 ft.) has most of it's land sunken under the waves (which would happen with a 3-6" sea rise). My guess is that this fellow doesn't consider a 3" sea rise catastrophic.

In the long run, the creation of new energy sources (solar fuel generation in particular, also solar electricity and other alternatives) needs to happen if our country is going to survive economically. WHY NOT NOW?

Animale

No, broken record, I have not read the entire article. I don't belong to that site. I have read excerpts though and it contains the same assumptions you have in your pretty little head.

[Animale]

And what assumptions are those?

[Nick]

I am a complete fucking moron

[Ashur]

It is certainly not a new concept to bend the truth towards "the common good"--"good" being a very subjective term.

Isn't that what George Bush is being accused of with Iraq? "Good" is indeed subjective!

[Canelek]

It is certainly not a new concept to bend the truth towards "the common good"--"good" being a very subjective term.

Isn't that what George Bush is being accused of with Iraq? "Good" is indeed subjective!

That's why I added that comparison.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And what assumptions are those?

For a scientist studying climate change, "eureka" moments are unusually rare. Instead progress is generally made by a painstaking piecing together of evidence from every new temperature measurement, satellite sounding or climate-model experiment. Data get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over and over again. Do the observations fit the predicted changes? Could there be some alternative explanation? Good climate scientists, like all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest standards of proof apply to everything they discover.

And the evidence of change has mounted as climate records have grown longer, as our understanding of the climate system has improved and as climate models have become ever more reliable. Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future. This increased certainty is starkly reflected in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the fourth in a series of assessments of the state of knowledge on the topic, written and reviewed by hundreds of scientists worldwide.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It is certainly not a new concept to bend the truth towards "the common good"--"good" being a very subjective term.

Isn't that what George Bush is being accused of with Iraq? "Good" is indeed subjective!

One in the same, but it's okay if you agree and disgusting and deplorable if you don't. Funny stuff.

[Nick]

So what evidence do you have to suggest that your unscientific "facts pulled out of my asshole" lunatic ravings are worth listening to you fucking idiot?

Put up or shut up.

[Fash]

It is certainly not a new concept to bend the truth towards "the common good"--"good" being a very subjective term.

Isn't that what George Bush is being accused of with Iraq? "Good" is indeed subjective!

One in the same, but it's okay if you agree and disgusting and deplorable if you don't. Funny stuff.

:

[Nick]

It is certainly not a new concept to bend the truth towards "the common good"--"good" being a very subjective term.

Isn't that what George Bush is being accused of with Iraq? "Good" is indeed subjective!

One in the same, but it's okay if you agree and disgusting and deplorable if you don't. Funny stuff.

:

By what fucking moronic standards is 700,000 people being killed considered "good"?

[Animale]

So you don't agree that it's not a true scientific thing? Or that in the last 20 years we've gotten better data than before (on both present and past climate - ice cores, etc. etc.). And that in the next twenty we'll get even better at it?

Models are not perfect, but right now they are saying pretty horrible things about the mid-term future of the planet. The "fixes" for this can be started NOW, and hopefully the models will turn out to be wrong. Again, we are doing an experiment on our home... putting amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a scale not seen during humanity's time on this planet.

What is the models are right (or close to right) and we've sat on our tush doing nothing because of people like you? By then it's too late to say "oopsy daisy".

Of course, apathy is your stock in trade - "everything is a cycle, it'll just come around again" etc. etc. etc. I prefer to be pro-active about things that can drastically change the way I and everybody else on this world live. If it takes a little inconvenience, so fucking be it.

Again, the data they are working from isn't just 20 years of data, it's much longer than that. And if you'd actually read and grok'd the article we wouldn't be having this conversation you voice in the wilderness you.

Animale

[Canelek]

I am certainly not saying any sort of fear-mongering is a "good" thing. However, my comparison with Bush's war warrants a question:

How can you rally against this alleged fear tactic to promote good environmental habits while at the same time supporting the war, and the similar tactics which were used to cause it?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I am certainly not saying any sort of fear-mongering is a "good" thing. However, my comparison with Bush's war warrants a question:

How can you rally against this alleged fear tactic to promote good environmental habits while at the same time supporting the war, and the similar tactics which were used to cause it?

One is a tangible fear supported by comments and actions by the perpetrators and then filled with subjection and assumptions by politicos.....the other is soley subjective and filled with assumptions by the arrogance of man.

[Somali]

http://www.theglobalwarminghoax.com/

Dismiss it all as propaganda if you will, but some of it is an interesting read.

Some of the scientists who have retracted previous global warming thoughts/statements.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=

[Canelek]

It is not solely subjective--soley subjective is the concept of religion. To abandon any objectivity in the global warming argument is to abandon the concept in its entirety, which is what you are getting at, and that is fine.

However, to disbelieve that there is an alarming trend in resource utilization and the direct impact on the planet is a scary thing. Global Warming is only a part of the treacherous path we humans are plodding down.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It is not solely subjective--soley subjective is the concept of religion. To abandon any objectivity in the global warming argument is to abandon the concept in its entirety, which is what you are getting at, and that is fine.

However, to disbelieve that there is an alarming trend in resource utilization and the direct impact on the planet is a scary thing. Global Warming is only a part of the treacherous path we humans are plodding down.

Your saying it's alarming. You're attaching that to the trend, because of great marketing. You're no different than the senior citizens who vote for the supposed candidate who will save Social Security and Medicare every four years.

[Mak]

So you don't agree that it's not a true scientific thing? Or that in the last 20 years we've gotten better data than before (on both present and past climate - ice cores, etc. etc.). And that in the next twenty we'll get even better at it?

Models are not perfect, but right now they are saying pretty horrible things about the mid-term future of the planet. The "fixes" for this can be started NOW, and hopefully the models will turn out to be wrong. Again, we are doing an experiment on our home... putting amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a scale not seen during humanity's time on this planet.

What is the models are right (or close to right) and we've sat on our tush doing nothing because of people like you? By then it's too late to say "oopsy daisy".

Of course, apathy is your stock in trade - "everything is a cycle, it'll just come around again" etc. etc. etc. I prefer to be pro-active about things that can drastically change the way I and everybody else on this world live. If it takes a little inconvenience, so fucking be it.

Again, the data they are working from isn't just 20 years of data, it's much longer than that. And if you'd actually read and grok'd the article we wouldn't be having this conversation you voice in the wilderness you.

Animale

And I remember being bombarded with predictions that the hurricane seasons of both 2006 and 2007 would be some of the worst on record. Based on the almost non-existent activity the last two years, let's just say that I'm a little leery of scientists with an agenda.

[Lynks]

I refuse to read anything Mid posts anymore. He dismisses everything without looking into the facts. Just look at the second hand smoke remark he made in another thread. All his posts are ignorant.

[Funkmasterr]

This thread just goes to show why I haven't bothered to post here in the past two weeks or so. However the raging stupidity that most of you are so willing to display here leaves me no choice, I have been baited into the conversation.

First of all, lets set one fact straight. The guy who wrote this article is much more educated on these issues and in a much better position to make comments on the issue than anyone on this site, including myself.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's get to the matter at hand. This guy writes something the only place it can be seen, a blog, because the media has decided to adopt the bullshit that the team of scientists/liberal politicians that have been fabricating this myth, and will not let anyone who disagrees with them be heard.

Not that it matters at this point, they have so many people brainwashed that the only way this can be reversed is with time, when these things don't happen, and everyone that was so gung-ho about it makes whatever pathetic excuse for believing in it and spending so much of their time on the issue.

This thread is a shining example of how you people (yes, I did go there) react to anything that attempts to disprove something you have been brainwashed to believe. Every one of you (besides nick, who just tossed around his usual insults, surprise, surprise) that disagreed with what this article said immediately turned back to the theories of these manipulative sob scientists that he is talking about. You have no proof that they aren't completely full of shit (and unfortunately I don't have proof of the opposite, mostly because the people allegedly manipulating this data and the politicians backing them will make goddamn sure they keep their b.s. hush hush for as long as possible.)

The blind faith that some of you have in these peoples theories is disturbingly similar and just as absurd as the blind faith of religious people, and it scares me.

That being said, do I think that we need to be more environmentally conscious? Yes. Do I think that if it is possible to find a practical alternative energy source and get off of our dependency on oil, that we should do it? Yes. Do I think that we have a major issue at hand with the mind boggling population growth, that continues to get more and more out of control every year, and do I think addressing this will be a key factor in assessing how we can be better to the environment? Yes.

However, I do not believe we are having the effect on our environment that these people are trying to tell us we do. I do not believe there will be any major catastrophe or ELE if we continue on the way that we are. I don't believe it is right for politicians to assist in fabricating this because they want to drop our dependency on oil, if that is what they want to do then say it flat out, and if they get shot down, then they need to deal with the fact that they lost that battle, instead of trying to find sneaky fucking ways to get more and more of the public behind you, and making people who don't buy into your bullshit out to be evil and ignorant.

Like previously stated, this is just the OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE theory of this generation. They always come along, they always gain a large following of gullible people, and they always end up being a complete farce. This is not going to be any different.

Edit: And please don't turn this into a "well you're claiming they are doing what Bush and his brigade are doing with the Iraq situation" pissing match, the two are completely unrelated and doing so will only make you look like a moron.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I refuse to read anything Mid posts anymore. He dismisses everything without looking into the facts. Just look at the second hand smoke remark he made in another thread. All his posts are ignorant.

XOXOXO

[Abelard]

Funk,

Stop hiding behind a wall of ignorance.

That blog has absolutely no scientific basis to it. I'm not going to deny that the man is a good entrepreneur, and could be well educated. That doesn't mean you should accept what he says blindly when he presents no proof to the contrary. All that blog contained was rhetoric.

Claiming that the media is censoring him is a little bit ridiculous. If he had any real proof that countered the global warming theory then you can believe it would be plastered all over. The idea of a liberal conspiracy on global warming is laughable.

By brainwashed you do mean convincing a lot of people with scientific proof that human technology is having a large negative impact on the environment, right? It really doesn't take a degree in earth sciences to deduce that, mate. What worries me is that so many people still have this belief that we can continue to rape the earth for resources blindly with increasingly powerful technology without seeing irreversible consequences.

[Canelek]

It is not solely subjective--soley subjective is the concept of religion. To abandon any objectivity in the global warming argument is to abandon the concept in its entirety, which is what you are getting at, and that is fine.

However, to disbelieve that there is an alarming trend in resource utilization and the direct impact on the planet is a scary thing. Global Warming is only a part of the treacherous path we humans are plodding down.

Your saying it's alarming. You're attaching that to the trend, because of great marketing. You're no different than the senior citizens who vote for the supposed candidate who will save Social Security and Medicare every four years.

Not at all. I just see fact buried in the propaganda. Fuck Al gore--that guy is a clown and I have never supported him, nor his PMRC wife/running mate.

Dismissal of the detrimental effects we have on the environment through irresonsibility is outright ignorance. Blindly following authority figures/government/teachers/clergy is another matter entirely.

[Funkmasterr]

Funk,

Stop hiding behind a wall of ignorance.

That blog has absolutely no scientific basis to it. I'm not going to deny that the man is a good entrepreneur, and could be well educated. That doesn't mean you should accept what he says blindly when he presents no proof to the contrary. All that blog contained was rhetoric.

Claiming that the media is censoring him is a little bit ridiculous. If he had any real proof that countered the global warming theory then you can believe it would be plastered all over. The idea of a liberal conspiracy on global warming is laughable.

By brainwashed you do mean convincing a lot of people with scientific proof that human technology is having a large negative impact on the environment, right? It really doesn't take a degree in earth sciences to deduce that, mate. What worries me is that so many people still have this belief that we can continue to rape the earth for resources blindly with increasingly powerful technology without seeing irreversible consequences.

I did not say I accept what he said blindly, he basically summed up what I believed well before I read this post.

And claiming the media is being extremely biased on this issue is abso-fucking-lutely accurate. I'm not saying there has been NO attention to people like this guy, but the flood of global-warmers in the media has been so overwhelming that it's hard to sift through it.

Again, I said that I completely agree that we do need to be more environmentally conscious, and now is as good of a time as any to take those steps. However, there is not a single minute shred of evidence that these effects we have on any aspect of the environment are going to make temperatures rise, glaciers melt, or the world end.

Call it whatever you want, but find ways to get people to care about the environment that don't include lying, and blowing things way out of proportion.

What's ridiculous is us having accurate environmental measurements from maybe the last 150 years at best, and thinking that we can come to a conclusion on weather trends and long term issues based on those measurements. We would have to study this over hundreds of thousands of years to be confident about the theories that these scientists are pushing.

And saying that they could be wrong, but they could be right, so we should spend unthinkable amounts of time and money to rectify an issue that may or may not exist is absurd.

[Abelard]

I understand that, but my problem is that he and you aren't offering any proof to the contrary besides voicing your doubts loudly.

The media is giving it a lot of attention because of the substantial amount of proof that is backing up the global warming theory. In terms of bias, I would say that there has been bias the other way for decades and decades. Its one of the main reasons a lot of energy conserving technology (electric cars etc) have been shelved for so long. People are reporting on it out of genuine concern for the human species well being.

I'm glad you agree that we should be more self concious environmentally. Theres lots of evidence that the ice caps are melting. I understand that you believe we need to have a better understanding of the heat cycles that the Earth goes through, but the entire point of this is the effect MAN is having over the Earth's heat cycles. So far I've seen more than enough evidence to convince me that we are having a large effect over the planets climate.

Whats absurd is not spending large amounts of money on a problem that could irrevocably change, or end life on Earth as we know it.

[Animale]

The funny thing about all this is that you couldn't even mention global warming in government policy documents for 10+ years without it being removed by the powers that be. Now that you CAN talk about it, people are screaming that the contrarian viewpoint is being "suppressed" by that same all powerful political force. Bullshit.

Again, the point I'm trying to make it that we should listen to the best scientific systems (models, etc.) out there to help drive our policy decisions. Sometimes they will not be correct, but the history of science shows us that more often than not scientists get the basics right, even if the details are wrong. The basics of this argument are that mankind is causing a historically unprecedented level of carbon dioxide into the environment that WILL cause changes in said environment. The details are to question exactly what level and types of changes will occur due to this. Will they be small? Some models suggest so (although as data continues to come in models with those conclusions are fewer between). Will they be big? Again, some models suggest monumental climate change. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, as so much is still unknown oceans poorly understood, plant feedback loops not measured worldwide, etc.).

However, some out there take this normal, everyday scientific uncertainty - and turn it into some giant conspiracy by environmentalists to somehow dictate our views on others? No, that's how big industry operates, not by consensus but by scare. The folks on the environmental side are just takin a page from the well-worn book. Do I agree with it all? Of course not. But the fact remains something needs to be done to alter our usage of the planet. I want to do it now, instead of waiting until its undeniable by all but our most blind compatriots on this globe. Also, I want the western world to lead in this, since we are the only ones with the resources to change things on the scale needed.

This isn't a problem you can throw money at and hope to go away in five years, it will take a LONG time to come up with a reasonable technical solution for carbon neutral or negative fuel generation (solar in particular, perhaps fusion as well). Now is a great time to really start, instead of the half-assed way we've been doing it until now.

Of course, if you want to continue living in your small views - not looking at the big picture. You are welcome to. Just don't be busy trying to hold us back.

Animale

[Arborealus]

So you don't agree that it's not a true scientific thing? Or that in the last 20 years we've gotten better data than before (on both present and past climate - ice cores, etc. etc.). And that in the next twenty we'll get even better at it?

Models are not perfect, but right now they are saying pretty horrible things about the mid-term future of the planet. The "fixes" for this can be started NOW, and hopefully the models will turn out to be wrong. Again, we are doing an experiment on our home... putting amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a scale not seen during humanity's time on this planet.

What is the models are right (or close to right) and we've sat on our tush doing nothing because of people like you? By then it's too late to say "oopsy daisy".

Of course, apathy is your stock in trade - "everything is a cycle, it'll just come around again" etc. etc. etc. I prefer to be pro-active about things that can drastically change the way I and everybody else on this world live. If it takes a little inconvenience, so fucking be it.

Again, the data they are working from isn't just 20 years of data, it's much longer than that. And if you'd actually read and grok'd the article we wouldn't be having this conversation you voice in the wilderness you.

Animale

And I remember being bombarded with predictions that the hurricane seasons of both 2006 and 2007 would be some of the worst on record. Based on the almost non-existent activity the last two years, let's just say that I'm a little leery of scientists with an agenda.

Ermmmm 2006 set a record for named storms...this year was above average...How the hell does that equal non-existent?

[Boogahz]

So you don't agree that it's not a true scientific thing? Or that in the last 20 years we've gotten better data than before (on both present and past climate - ice cores, etc. etc.). And that in the next twenty we'll get even better at it?

Models are not perfect, but right now they are saying pretty horrible things about the mid-term future of the planet. The "fixes" for this can be started NOW, and hopefully the models will turn out to be wrong. Again, we are doing an experiment on our home... putting amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a scale not seen during humanity's time on this planet.

What is the models are right (or close to right) and we've sat on our tush doing nothing because of people like you? By then it's too late to say "oopsy daisy".

Of course, apathy is your stock in trade - "everything is a cycle, it'll just come around again" etc. etc. etc. I prefer to be pro-active about things that can drastically change the way I and everybody else on this world live. If it takes a little inconvenience, so fucking be it.

Again, the data they are working from isn't just 20 years of data, it's much longer than that. And if you'd actually read and grok'd the article we wouldn't be having this conversation you voice in the wilderness you.

Animale

And I remember being bombarded with predictions that the hurricane seasons of both 2006 and 2007 would be some of the worst on record. Based on the almost non-existent activity the last two years, let's just say that I'm a little leery of scientists with an agenda.

Ermmmm 2006 set a record for named storms...this year was above average...How the hell does that equal non-existent?

Because New Orleans didn't get wiped out again?

[Daboohk]

So, in summary, a meteorologist posts his opinion on some blog that global warming is a scam. He then notes that he has read articles, and papers, and has found evidence that has been manipulated, but does not reference them? Perhaps someone can show me here where the evidence has been manipulated? Is there another *scientific* (read: not blog) journal/article that has been shown to manipulate evidence?

Kudos on using a lot of colour to convince people of your opinion though. Words like bogus, scam and whacko help to get the point across.

The climate is changing....ok. The scam is the part where they say they know it is our fault and not a natural occurence. Mnay people are getting rich off your gullability.

I did not ask which part was the scam, I asked which evidence has been manipulated.

Interesting that you refer to my gullability [sic] when my post did not mention anything professing a belief in human-induced global warming.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So, in summary, a meteorologist posts his opinion on some blog that global warming is a scam. He then notes that he has read articles, and papers, and has found evidence that has been manipulated, but does not reference them? Perhaps someone can show me here where the evidence has been manipulated? Is there another *scientific* (read: not blog) journal/article that has been shown to manipulate evidence?

Kudos on using a lot of colour to convince people of your opinion though. Words like bogus, scam and whacko help to get the point across.

The climate is changing....ok. The scam is the part where they say they know it is our fault and not a natural occurence. Mnay people are getting rich off your gullability.

I did not ask which part was the scam, I asked which evidence has been manipulated.

Interesting that you refer to my gullability [sic] when my post did not mention anything professing a belief in human-induced global warming.

What evidence? I've seen assumptions, but there is no evidence.

[Bagar-]

While there is no evidence that humans are affecting climate change, there is also no evidence that humans aren't affecting climate change. In the 1940's there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer. This is a topic in which only time will expose the truth, but i'd rather be preventative than be fucked.

[Animale]

That's because you won't read the articles that describe the evidence (and the means that it is created) to you Mid. It's your fault you only see assumptions, because you are assuming that is all they have.

If ignorance is bliss, you are one happy dude.

Animale

[Niffoni]

I like this thread because no matter what happens, it's going to be very, very funny very, very soon.

[Xyun]

Conservatives love to throw ignorant false propaganda in your face in order to save their wallet, then gullible idiots eat it up and regurgitate it on forums like this and pat each other on the back for lacking the ability to use their fucking brains, as if it is admirable or desirable.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Conservatives love to throw ignorant false propaganda in your face in order to save their wallet, then gullible idiots eat it up and regurgitate it on forums like this and pat each other on the back for lacking the ability to use their fucking brains, as if it is admirable or desirable.

Yes. It's only a one way street.

[Canelek]

Conservatives love to throw ignorant false propaganda in your face in order to save their wallet, then gullible idiots eat it up and regurgitate it on forums like this and pat each other on the back for lacking the ability to use their fucking brains, as if it is admirable or desirable.

Yes. It's only a one way street.

In the case of this article, Xyun's comment isn't that far off. Failing to meet in the middle, or thereabouts is why our country is often so divided. Things are rarely black and white.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Conservatives love to throw ignorant false propaganda in your face in order to save their wallet, then gullible idiots eat it up and regurgitate it on forums like this and pat each other on the back for lacking the ability to use their fucking brains, as if it is admirable or desirable.

Yes. It's only a one way street.

In the case of this article, Xyun's comment isn't that far off. Failing to meet in the middle, or thereabouts is why our country is often so divided. Things are rarely black and white.

My entire stance is the fucking middle. I'm all for finding alternative sources of energy and taking care of the earth, but I will not pretend to think the climate changes have been caused by man or could be changed by man nor will I acknowledge this as a CRISIS. I don't need there to be a CRISIS to do the right things. Many of you do. So no, Xyun, is not right in his elitist...."it's always the other guy"......statement.

[Animale]

but I will not pretend to think the climate changes have been caused by man or could be changed by man nor will I acknowledge this as a CRISIS.

That is about as far to the side of the opposite as you can get Mid. That is NOT a "middle stance" as you call it, it is basically saying that all the work of the scientists (who you refuse to read) is bubkis - purely because you don't "believe" it can be true.

Just because your little world ends at your front door doesn't mean that the work of all these people is incorrect or somehow guided by some global conspiracy to gain more funding for their work. Most of these people hope they are wrong, but as more evidence comes in are more convinced they are correct. Scientists (myself included) are pretty abysmal at explaining to people how and why things are truly at a tipping point. Is it a CRISIS now? No, but it will soon be and if we don't start working on it in a real and meaningful way - it will become a crisis in 20-30 years. Now, this probably won't directly effect us personally, we'll be too far along for that to be the case unless the worst possible models are true, but for godsakes think of somebody besides yourself for a minute.

In 50 years, if we want to be releasing CO2 at the rate we release it today, we will have to have as much non-CO2 releasing energy as our ENTIRE PLANET USES NOW. That is a big fucking problem that we have no idea how to solve. The amount of wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal energy is insignificant compared to this (if you want to see a version of a talk that describes this situation, go here http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html.

Even if global warming and/or our energy usage situations are not in crisis mode now we are facing a situation where the future energy security of the U.S. and the world is depending on technologies that nobody knows the basic science of. Also, we are not focusing anywhere NEAR enough of our national resources or energies into trying to find these scientific solutions - the priorities are elsewhere. The reason for these alternate priorities are absolutely the result of people like you Mid, who refuse to read and/or understand problems larger than they are willing to comprehend. With people like you as a support base, the status quo (read - big oil and their friends) in research and our national priorities are being upheld - when the status quo is so horribly distant from where we need to be that is almost criminal.

YOU ARE PART OF A PROBLEM. YOU ARE NOT IN THE "MIDDLE," YOU ARE ON THE FRINGE, HOPING THINGS WILL GET BETTER WHILE ACTIVELY ATTACKING THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THEM FOR THE BETTER.

Hopefully people like you will begin to understand the magnitude of the energy problem. It is a problem larger than any faced by mankind before, and if we don't start putting intellectual capital in the bank of knowledge now, it will soon be too late to make meaningful change on the time scales needed. This is not a 5 or 10 year problem/fix, it is a 50-100 year problem/fix, and unfortunately such a situation does not rise to the level of crisis in most people's minds since it is too immense.

Broaden your scope, see the big picture. Or we'll be in trouble.
Animale

[Acies]

Fact: We do not know (can only theorize at this point) that global warming is caused by man.
Fact: By switching to cleaner energy, the oil companies will be fucked.
Fact: Oil and Power lobbyists pay more than any other lobby to our government elected officals.
Fact: By switching to cleaner energy, we would have an economic crisis.
Fact: We can completely overt said economic crisis by spending a pie slice of our war machine money on cleaner energy programs.
Fact: If we do the above, we will have less to spend on war over oil and making the rich richer.
Fact?: America is a capatalist society. Greed is good. Helping your neighbor and community is socialism and all pinko commies deserve death or at the very least should be booted out of America by good upstanding people who feel money is more important than life. At least, their money is more important than strangers lives.

You know, the bottom line is that war = mass murder. The nessecity of it exists, but should be a very last resort. It should never be a tool for socio-economic advancement (like it is right now, perhaps. That our society will benefit economically from this war at all remains to be seen). If you disagree, you had better not subscribe to Christian, Buddist, Muslim or Judism faith doctrines, lest you be total hypocrates. Like our present President. Frankly, I am half convinced he is a Thuggie cultist paying worship to the hindu goddess of murder Kali, but that is another issue entirely.

Anyway, we do not know that global warming is man-made. However, by helping our world (god forbid, at the expense of going to exotic locations in the world, meeting exciting new people, and killing them) as a whole seems to be the best investment we could make in the future. I do not care if you subscribe to global warming. As long as you subscribe to cleaner energy and a healthier enviornment for us and our children.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

but I will not pretend to think the climate changes have been caused by man or could be changed by man nor will I acknowledge this as a CRISIS.

That is about as far to the side of the opposite as you can get Mid. That is NOT a "middle stance" as you call it, it is basically saying that all the work of the scientists (who you refuse to read) is bubkis - purely because you don't "believe" it can be true.

Just because your little world ends at your front door doesn't mean that the work of all these people is incorrect or somehow guided by some global conspiracy to gain more funding for their work. Most of these people hope they are wrong, but as more evidence comes in are more convinced they are correct. Scientists (myself included) are pretty abysmal at explaining to people how and why things are truly at a tipping point. Is it a CRISIS now? No, but it will soon be and if we don't start working on it in a real and meaningful way - it will become a crisis in 20-30 years. Now, this probably won't directly effect us personally, we'll be too far along for that to be the case unless the worst possible models are true, but for godsakes think of somebody besides yourself for a minute.

In 50 years, if we want to be releasing CO2 at the rate we release it today, we will have to have as much non-CO2 releasing energy as our ENTIRE PLANET USES NOW. That is a big fucking problem that we have no idea how to solve. The amount of wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal energy is insignificant compared to this (if you want to see a version of a talk that describes this situation, go here http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html.

Even if global warming and/or our energy usage situations are not in crisis mode now we are facing a situation where the future energy security of the U.S. and the world is depending on technologies that nobody knows the basic science of. Also, we are not focusing anywhere NEAR enough of our national resources or energies into trying to find these scientific solutions - the priorities are elsewhere. The reason for these alternate priorities are absolutely the result of people like you Mid, who refuse to read and/or understand problems larger than they are willing to comprehend. With people like you as a support base, the status quo (read - big oil and their friends) in research and our national priorities are being upheld - when the status quo is so horribly distant from where we need to be that is almost criminal.

YOU ARE PART OF A PROBLEM. YOU ARE NOT IN THE "MIDDLE," YOU ARE ON THE FRINGE, HOPING THINGS WILL GET BETTER WHILE ACTIVELY ATTACKING THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THEM FOR THE BETTER.

Hopefully people like you will begin to understand the magnitude of the energy problem. It is a problem larger than any faced by mankind before, and if we don't start putting intellectual capital in the bank of knowledge now, it will soon be too late to make meaningful change on the time scales needed. This is not a 5 or 10 year problem/fix, it is a 50-100 year problem/fix, and unfortunately such a situation does not rise to the level of crisis in most people's minds since it is too immense.

Broaden your scope, see the big picture. Or we'll be in trouble.
Animale

Okay fanatic. To me, you come off no different than a religious wack job. You have faith in global warming and anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

[Vetiria]

anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

On what basis do you have to disagree? Can you post a scientific study that shows man-made emissions will in no way cause harm to the planet in the near or distant future? I've read plenty from Animale alone that show man-made emissions will be catastrophic in the very near future. Can you provide opposing view points, or are you limited to your ignorant one-line responses?

[Zaelath]

Okay fanatic. To me, you come off no different than a religious wack job. You have faith in global warming and anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

How can one asshole be so self-righteous and such a flaming hypocrite in one paragraph without being a complete waste of oxygen? Die in a car fire.

[Nick]

Okay fanatic. To me, you come off no different than a religious wack job. You have faith in global warming and anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

On what basis do you have to disagree? Can you post a scientific study that shows man-made emissions will in no way cause harm to the planet in the near or distant future? I've read plenty from Animale alone that show man-made emissions will be catastrophic in the very near future. Can you provide opposing view points, or are you limited to your ignorant one-line responses?

You really don't see what you're doing here? You've created an imaginary, unproveable creature and now are taunting me to show my proof he doesn't exist. Are you fucking serious? Oh my god.