November 08, 2007
"It is the Greatest Scam in History"
So says John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, as he discusses global warming. He is not kind to global warming advocates, some of which preached the horrors of the impending ice ages of global cooling just several decades ago with the same cocksure fanaticism.
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.
"Friends in government?"
Gee, I wonder which former vice president and political party he could be referring to...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:40 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A blinding statement of the obvious, but nice to see nonetheless.
I hope it gets some coverage.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 08, 2007 09:39 AM (0pZel)
2
This, to me, is the best part of that article:
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.
The lefties made a real bonehead mistake... they created a "crisis" out of something that simply will not happen, and that people have day-to-day experience with. It's not like the fate of the purple-beaked whoozis, whom most people will never see. We live with weather every day, so the High Priests of Global Warming won't be able to hide that their predictions never come true.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 08, 2007 10:03 AM (PGjzz)
3
Au contrair...that is why we are now seeing the emphasis on "climate change" and not "global warming."
Tempatures could take a nose dive worldwide tomorrow, and the zealots will associate it (by whatever scatter-brained means) like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Posted by: JR at November 08, 2007 10:38 AM (/Uhbl)
4
To quote Glenn Reynolds, "I'll regard this as a crisis when Global Warming advocates start behaving as if it's a crisis." Presently, the UN officials have jetted off to a conference in Bali.
Posted by: Doc at November 08, 2007 11:04 AM (4Tk6Z)
5
Very good, what Mr. Goodman stated.
How dare those scientists who took the "green" grant money come out with phony predictions! How dare them!
Posted by: mockinbird at November 08, 2007 05:10 PM (15scE)
6
Global warming is the meterological equivilent of Cold Reading. It cannot predict anything except that at some point somehwere on the planet someone is going to have some sort of bad weather. The rest of the details can only be fillled in after the event has occured. Yes, this also means that ManBearPig is a close runner to being the Biggest Douche In The Universe.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 09, 2007 08:14 AM (oC8nQ)
7
Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but it wouldn't surprise me if they really don't expect their catastrophic predictions to come true. They just want the "solutions" implemented now so that when the predictions don't come about they can claim the solutions worked and therefore we need more of the same.
Posted by: Bilby at November 09, 2007 06:57 PM (pEt4I)
8
They just want the "solutions" implemented now so that when the predictions don't come about they can claim the solutions worked and therefore we need more of the same.
Entirely possible, Bilby.
That would also explain why they insist that we must implement their solutions now, rather than later... before it becomes clear that their predictions have no chance of ever coming true.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 09, 2007 08:31 PM (bEQr6)
9
I am a son of a meteorologist and was a physics/math major in college. I generally refrain from posting anything related to global warming. As a scientist and, therefore very big fan of the scientific method, I am highly skeptical of any hypothesis that lacks repeatable observational proof. In the case of GW, the earth has warmed and cooled many times over the 4+ billion years of its existence. The vast majority of the episodes had no ‘human’ involvement. To state humans are the main cause of what is generally accepted as a current global warming trend is the height of arrogance.
Mr. Coleman is so very correct in his characterization of GW supporters. Be they scientist or laymen, they are scam artists - confidence men – carpetbaggers - outright scientific frauds.
Posted by: Mark at November 09, 2007 10:56 PM (P8ylB)
10
So, the fouunder of the Weather Channel is a Climate Troofer. Who knew?
Posted by: Boris at November 10, 2007 12:53 PM (diZGy)
11
No, the founder of the Weather Channel is a trained meteorologist with many years' experience, unlike the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming, Algore.
Mr. Coleman knows that computer models are useless if they cannot successfully retroactively predict... that is, if you input the data from a year ago, can it accurately predict the outcome? And the current models used to predict global warming cannot.
Sling your mud all you want, you can't get past that basic fact.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 10, 2007 01:40 PM (bEQr6)
12
Bilby and CCG
I've tried to write something like that two or three times but it gets too big (soapboxes are hell). The "problem" is cover for implementing the "solution". The solution would be the same no matter which problem is selected.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at November 11, 2007 10:45 AM (r9DD+)
13
This post really shows the difference between progressives and the right. You see, progressives know what an expert is. They look to people, like I don't know, climatologists, to understand the climate.
Right-wingers just find someone who shares their view and then publicizes it as if it was equal to actual experts.
Posted by: Erik at November 13, 2007 08:26 PM (A7nOw)
14
Erik, your comment really shows the difference, you're right.
See, we're talking about an expert on weather, but you immediately dismiss his expertise because he does not say what you want.
It's typical of the left to just ignore and denigrate those who don't toe the party line.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 13, 2007 08:55 PM (/fQMn)
15
Um, no, I'm saying he's not an expert on the subject. A meterologist is an expert on weather? Possibly, although the training for such things is not always the most stringent. But is weather the same thing as climate? No. And what about the fact that not a single article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal refuting climate change. Or that literally every climatologist (and this is different from a meterologist, who are often in effect, usually weather reporters) in the nation says that climate change is happening. Or what if I were to find another meterologist saying climate change was happening? According to your logic, that would totally prove my point because that would person would be an expert on weather.
You say I am wrong, that my meterologist wouldn't prove anything. And you would be exactly right, because a meterologist is not a climatologist. Weathermen are not climatologists. They are two entirely different things.
Posted by: Erik at November 13, 2007 09:07 PM (A7nOw)
16
I have no trouble looking to meteorologists for insight into climate change. Also, since television sports reporters watch a lot of sports and think about sports all the time, I don't see any reason to ask sociologists, psychologists or historians about other ways that sports might be meaningful. Also, the guy who plays House on House would probably be able to cure cancer if only the liberals would stop pretending that he's just a TV character.
Posted by: goober grape at November 13, 2007 09:52 PM (9I+0q)
17
Who says the climate isn't changing? It always has and always will. So, what is the point of Grand Schemes to do what has never been done, that is, control the climate? And, even if we could, how do we know what the optimum climate is?
Do you know of a government that really takes "climate change" seriously? They talk. They throw money at studies. They sign treaties. No first world country will meet even the requirements of Kyoto (Sweden says they will, but only because of nuclear power that was envisioned well be fore Kyoto). They won't meet the goals because it is a stupid thing to do.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at November 13, 2007 10:05 PM (r9DD+)
18
I'm half expecting the next comment to claim that climate change must not be happening because America's Weatherman Willard Scott says so!
Posted by: Erik at November 13, 2007 10:06 PM (A7nOw)
19
I'm sure that scientists are amused to be told that they harbor "cocksure fanatacism."
Posted by: Xanthippas at November 14, 2007 01:51 PM (018Z+)
20
Scientists are humans, Xanthippas, not an alien species. Cocksure fanaticism is nothing new to scientists, (i.e. Nikola Tesla) and I am sure others can provide examples of other scientists acting highly unscientific due to a bee in their bonnet.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at November 14, 2007 02:30 PM (O9Cc8)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
23kb generated in CPU 0.0193, elapsed 0.091 seconds.
52 queries taking 0.0817 seconds, 139 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
52 queries taking 0.0817 seconds, 139 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
