Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

That they were wrong.What are you getting at?Also, assuming that it is perfectly natural, aren't we still in danger and should do something about it?Doing nothing and continuing in our current state is still going to worsen the natural phenomonon, no?What do you think it means if it is natural and not man-caused?Do you think we should just sit back and let it happen? Or are you not worried that it could be devistating?Personally, I'm not convinced that global warming is man-caused. But it seems that unless we change some things, that we are only helping it get even hotter.That, or we have no effect on it whatsoever but I find that hard to believe.

---

ABE:Coleman's argument is that Global Warming is not going to be devistating.That's different from it being just a natural process (because those can be devistating too).Are your question meant to be asked 'what if' it isn't devistating?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Right.But what if this statement is true:

quote:

---

"The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."

---

from the link in the OP

I think that NJ made a mistake by equating "not catastrophic" with "natural process".Coleman's argument was that it won't be catastrophic and our planet is not in peril.Assuming he is correct, what does that do to the Global Warming movement?

What's the point in putting all the limitations on ourselves (especially if we're the only ones doing it) when it is a fruitless cause? If Global Warming doesn't matter and its not going to hurt anything then why "minimize the economic, logistic, cultural and personal effects"?

No offense, but that wasn't obvious from your OP. If the average temp is getting hotter at a harmful rate , then we can do what we can, our best even, to mitigate that which is harmful. Well, that's the debate, for me at least. How bad is it, really? You can do what you can do. You can do your best. Go down fighting in the least. With enough intellegence, yes.Can we defeat Global Warming?I have no idea. Word. The biggest affectors need to make the biggest effect. Wait a minute. That doesn't seem necessary. Then again, no reason to discuss that here and now. Holy shit. Seriously!?Hrm. I ain't doin' that. I don't see that happening, either... Fuck them.Don't you think that we could be doing something better?It seems that you do.Is Global Warming over exaggerated to the point that it is a "scam"?I don't think so.The average global temperature is rising though, right?The issue, for me at least, is how much of an effect man can have on the natural fluctuation. If we are not having an effect, then the unnecessary limitations do become a hindrance. But if we have an effect, then I think we should try to not be helping cause the problem, at the least.But...Even if the entire U.S. goes green, is that a big enough postive effect to outdue the negative effects that countries like China and India are having?Don't they out-weigh us? Can we convince them to go green too?

By "planet in peril", I meant, an am assuming Coleman meant, perilous "for us".No doubt the planet would extinguish us before we destroyed it. That would be the "catastrophe" that is assumed to not be the case for the purpose of this thread.What if those results are wrong? Then you don't have any reason to participate in this thread seriously. Yes, those are the hoaxes assumed in the thread.Or, at least, that the effects of those facts are not catastrophic. Right. The whole thread is , really, a hypothetical situation. What if those results are erroneous, and Global Warming is just going to flutter out. No catastrophe. No problem. Whatever floats your boat...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

That's really not within the scope of this thread.If they're right, its obvious what we need to do. Isn't that the caveat that all scientific models should be taken with? Fuck economists. Who mentioned them? The "hoax", for the purpose of this thread, is that Global Warming is going to be catastrophic. The scope of this thread is not the why but the what if.If you can't take it seriously then piss off. Well actually, Crash, its going to be intro-farted back into the magic gas fairies that, coincidentally, live in space. Isn't his the kind of shit you accuse Holmes of doing?

Then, for one possibility, we are unnecessarily hindering our technological advancements in the effort to mitigate an effect that is negligible. One point is that the people who are benefiting for the Global Warming "hoax" are using the scare as a tactic to make money off the green scene. None of those things are bad things.The point is that if nothing that we do matters WRT Global Warming, then those things are the "hoax" that others are getting rich off off. Plus,. if it is a hoax (and we are the only one "doing anything" about and thus the only ones "falling for it" then we will be putting ourselves in the back of the pack. One good reason is that China and India are going to make negligible the effects that the U.S. has on the global ecology, and then by limiting our technological advancements, we are going to put ourselves behind them. Among others things. That's just one interpretation.

Okay then, even with out any reason to think so, what if “Global Warming” is wrong?
That’s the question of this thread. And by “wrong”, the question means “not catastrophic”. You need to check your saying-seemer.
That thought never crossed my mind when writing what you replied too. Or, we could just discuss it as a hypothetical situation. No, I’m not. Strike two.
I didn’t really know why Crash bitched about you so much but its starting to make sense.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice efficacy for efficiency. Or projects get delayed in an attempt to “green” them up a bit.
But this is what this thread should be about and I don’t know all the answers. I think it’d be a decent discussion. It’s too bad that the die-hard Global Warming advocates are incapable of even considering the possibility that it is wrong. Some things won’t be problems. Others could.
Which one will and which ones won’t is one thing that I thought should be discussed in this thread. Well, we’d have to get into specific policies to find the problems.Some things won’t be problems. Others could.
Which one will and which ones won’t is one thing that I thought should be discussed in this thread. Well, we’d have to get into specific policies to find the problems.

It wouldn’t. That, for example, doesn’t sound like a hindrance to me. Companies like Green Seal charge shit-tons of money (and they are “non-profit” :laugh. Are they really necessary? Are they helping at all?
What other companies are just scams?
If Global Warming is wrong, how many more of them become scams? What else becomes a scam? Those are questions for this thread.
Not “ZOMG! Where’s all the CO2 gonna go!”.
That’s for a different thread. Sure. It’s not only about oil. Everyone is allowed to get rich.
It is kinda annoying that, like alternative medicine, companies can parade as trying to help out when they are really just a scam to make money. And if there isn’t even a problem to begin with, then its just worse. And then we have people that believe everything on a label just because the product claims to be green. That would be cool. If it is an advancement then it isn’t limiting. But not everything green is an advancement. That wasn’t my interpretation. Are you trying to make me sound stupid?

Actually, it assumes he’s right and is to discuss the ramifications of it. Oh, I see what your saying. It does seem like a double standard. I guess people form it from their perceived lack of immediate effect combined with a feeling of getting screwed by green scene. But that is just a guess. I don’t know how it would work. It’s an assumption. You can’t fathom the possibility that humans are not affecting the climate and that there is nothing wrong with it? That’s what the discussion is supposed to be.
Do we really all need to get into a hissy-fit about the environment? I think people are lazy and really don’t want to do anything much and that it is going to take a lot of work to fix the problems if they are real. Why make everyone get off their ass if there really isn’t a problem? You don’t have to be so disingenuous. That humans are affecting the environment in a way that is going to be catastrophic to them.

It really is that simple, huh? Yeah, and it could just be a waste of money. You could have been had.
Maybe not, but we can still discuss the consequences of it you had.