Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."

Please point out where anything I have said shows I care whether it is natural or man made? Well, we start by mandating higher fuel economy for all new vehicles.We actually cut down on driving where we can.We oppose truly stupid ideas like alcohol from corn.And guess what. I actually do and have done such things for long, long time. It means reduce driving and make transportation more efficient.No, little need to stop using plastics.Using your own grocery bags is a nice thing to do.No it does not mean boycotting fossil fuels but it wouldn't hurt to add about 100% to the current taxes.Start recycling? Sheesh.Shut down factories? No. Make them more efficient, sure.You mention we need to move towards a substitute for fossil fuels.While making that transition, it also seems reasonable to extend the life of the existing supplies by using what we have more efficiently. We could start by increasing the average fuel economy figure of new cars to 50MPG.Another step we should be taking is to endorse Kyoto.We should begin setting aside funds for amelioration.We need to consider how we will relocate much of the population living within five miles of the US coast.Water is already becoming a crisis issue in the US. We need to be creating plans to deal with the coming water crisis.We need to be ready for the international problems, what will happen when India and Bangladesh are faced with many millions of folk streaming to the mainland from the Maldives and Indonesia?Shall I continue?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was going to stay out of this, until this statement. Barren??!! By "Arctic Muskrat" I assume you mean caribou? The porcupine caribou herd is the largest in the world and is the primary source of food for at least two tribes of the arctic of the US and Canada. I hear these kind of arguments from our homegrown idiots, based completely in misinformation.ANWR is huge. If the oil drilling were to be random, the impact would be small. However it is not. The exact place where the oil is is also the calving ground of the porcupine caribou herd. They cannot move because the calving ground is, for about 3 weeks each spring, the only region that is mosquito free. Calves born on the fringe of the grounds have nearly 100% mortality from blood loss. This region changes over time, and the herd moves accordingly. The proposed drilling sites would absolutely guarantee the extinction of that herd as happened in the past with others. They will not calve near predators, so the herds move elsewhere to calve and the mosquitoes take them out. Even if we as US citizens lose our collective minds and go for it anyhow we have to face that the herd also 'belongs' to Canada, and their Natives.

---

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder

quote:

---

Meteorologist, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, reportedly stated that Global Warming is the biggest scam in history

---

Yes, but he contends, 1. That human introduced emissions aren't causing it, and 2. That the assertion that it will cause the earth in to a cataclysmic, downward spiral is hysteria. Who says he hasn't? This is from a news source, however, they did provide a link to ICECAP which details the dissent in a dissertation-styled format. He has meteorological experience to start with. Secondly, he's backed by a panel of other eminent climatologists.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I say he hasn't cited any evidence, NJ. He offered no evidence.A link to a right-wing, "individual investor" (just try to find out who those folks are) funded web site is not evidence."I read dozens of scientific papers" is a pathetic citation, don't you think? Of course, maybe I missed the evidence he cited--could you point some out?He's a TV weatherman, specializing in describing local weather patterns (in San Diego!) on the scale of a few days to a week. He founded The Weather Channel in 1983 and ran it for one year before the investors took it away.Being a weatherman is a fine profession, I'm sure--but depending on one for climate science is like having eye surgery performed by an optometrist.Sadly, his primary claim to fame will now be as a nut job. Did you read his rant?Dastardly scientists are on the take?A TV weatherman says we can ignore the consensus of thousands of scientists because they're all being paid off, and you think that is a rational, scientific refutation of global warming?Hoo boy. Get out the foil caps, folks.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

What jet are you talking about? Gore flies commercial airlines. Everybody knows that. The funny thing about this bit of misinformation is, nobody wants to drill there. There's not a single oil company who thinks there's more than 6 months worth of petroleum in ANWR, which is certainly not worth the ten years of construction it would take to start drilling operations.And, of course, even if they did, since you can't run a pipeline to ANWR, you can only drive the oil out in trucks. But you can only drive to and from ANWR while the ground is frozen, and hilariously, as global warming proceeds, that becomes less and less of the year.So ANWR really isn't any kind of solution. Nevertheless, oil drilling has been legal there for several years now so it's not quite clear who you think is stopping anything at all. It's just - nobody's interested in doing it, which makes reasonable people wonder why there was such a rush to open up an area of drilling that nobody wants to drill in. But then Republicans don't generally let facts get in the way of a good argument, do they?

Doubtless he can explain how a cooling sun results in a warming Earth, and where all those megatons of CO2 are going after being produced by humans.Funny that he doesn't do so. I don't understand who you think is making that assertion. Cataclysms? It's not like warming is going to make the Earth explode. It's just going to result in the deaths a billion human beings, plus mass extinctions of other organisms, is all. Meteorology isn't climatology. This is like a urologist talking about neuroscience. Backed in what? I still don't understand what his position is. Human CO2 is simply spirited away by elves?

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?

Sure, in his sanctimonious flick he presents the meek face of philanthropy. Problem is, Gore, among other global warming touters, unfortunately have not practiced what they preach.Can't respond to the rest now. I'll be gone for about a week. I'm taking a commercial jet to visit my family in a few hours.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

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.

So, a blurry white guy gets out of a jet and we're supposed to believe that it's Gore?Why? Hannity said so? Did you question this claim at all, or did you assume that, because Hannity said it on tv, it must be true?And how come Hannity doesn't mention that Gore buys carbon offsets when he travels, regardless of whether it's by charter jet or commercial airline?Could it be because... Sean Hannity is a lying gasbag?At any rate - I don't understand the relevance. How Gore decides to fly around doesn't change the scientific evidence. Gore could be a closet pedophile, but what would that matter? The scientific evidence for global warming doesn't have anything to do with Al Gore's personal characteristics.Is it just that conservatives have only one way to argue - set someone up as a surrogate for the actual issue, and then attack them personally in every possible way? I guess when all you have is personal attacks, that's the only thing you can do. You can't very wll character-assassinate the Planet Earth.

What if they're not wrong, which is a lot more likely?Why is it that the best scientific models are always taken with the caveat that "hey, they might all be wrong", but the dire predictions of some economists that dealing with global warming will "destroy the economy" are always taken without question?Economics isn't even a science. Those guys can't even predict next week's stock market. How could they predict the results of a campaign to reduce carbon emissions? It seems like there's as much money to be made fighting global warming as lost. I still don't understand. What's the hoax? Conservation of mass? Matter actually just disappears when its convenient to do so? Why would it? Where's all the human-produced CO2 going to go? Space? Magic gas fairies?

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?

Don't forget, Lithodid-Man, the amount of oil in ANWR is a piddling amount...about six month's worth of US consumption that will take a decade to start extracting and will probably be sold to China.The idea that drilling in ANWR will help the situation is disingenuous at best.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

He has meteorological experience to start with.

---

Irrelevant. Meteorology is not climatology. By your logic, we can ask a paramedic about the details regarding open heart surgery and expect to get valid results.I should point out: He got fired from the Weather Channel. That's right...he was fired from his own network.

quote:

---

Secondly, he's backed by a panel of other eminent climatologists.

---

Incorrect. ICECAP is the climatological equivalent of ICR. The executive director of ICECAP is Joseph D’Aleo, formerly of "Frontiers of Freedom" which bills itself as, "an educational institute (or think tank) whose mission is to promote conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."In short, not an actual science group but one who thinks that politics trumps evidence.It doesn't matter how many other people say, "I agree." The question is: Have they managed to get their views past peer review?In a survey of all papers regarding climate change of the last decade, not one concluded that global warming wasn't happening or that man-made processes weren't the primary driver.In short, we've got the same situation with regard to evolution: Not a single piece of countervailing evidence and yet people seem to think that we're supposed to fall all over ourselves whenever somebody with the letters P, H, and D after the name says, "But I disagree!" as if that were a sufficient counter.It's not enough to disagree. You have to show why. So far, nobody has been able to show why.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.