Did you know the founder of the Weather Channel, calls global warming the greatest scam in world history?

Question

Since retiring from the Weather Channel, John Coleman, an internationally recognized meteorologist, has made it his mission to bring sanity back into the global warming debate. He says the foundation upon which these theories have been built are based on flawed science driven by scientists who owe their personal livelihood to grant money that MUST support global warming...or get pulled.

If you would like to see the most recent article, you can find it at: http://icecap.us.

How many more such testimonials do you need to see before you begin to at least consider the possibility that global warming, if it exists, is nothing more than a natural climate change process?

<> Of course I'm not surprised by many of the responses, but it does astound me how many people won't even consider the possibility that much of the hysteria over global warming is just that...hysteria. And it is MUCH MORE than 10 scientists who do not fall into lock step with the hype. Their only response is he (John Coleman...or those like them) are working for Big Oil or the like...with absolutely no proof of that claim at all.

And yet, there is all the evidence in the world that pro-global warming zealots have had to make sure their findings support the agendas of those who are funding their research.

Ah, well, the fight is not over...yet.

Re: "10 scientists" Darlin', read my earlier comment...It's much MORE than 10 scientists.

Answer 1

I have heard other people talking about Global Warming being a natural climate change and not a product of human pollution. Its really hard to know what to believe because Global Warming has become a huge issue in the media and there seems to be scientific evidence supporting both sides.

My boss recently loaned me a book called "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery which supports what you are saying. I haven't read it yet but plan to soon. I defintely think there's a possiblity that the evidence supporting Global Warming could be the product of these research grants, but what about the other side? Are people like Coleman, Singer and Avery motivated by pressure from oil companies? How do we know who to believe?

Answer 2

There are a few skeptics. But why should anyone believe one of them as opposed to the overwhelming majority of scientists, backed by a mountain of data? And especially a weatherman, compared to thousands of Ph.D. climatologists? It makes no sense.

The scientific fact is that long term climate is much easier to predict than short term weather. Another fact not at all surprising to scientists. Short term data is often overwhelmed by "noise", while long term averages are not. This graph of temperature shows it clearly:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

For some reason weathermen have a hard time grasping the fact that climatology is a very different thing.

Answer 3

Please do not be swayed by the "flat-earthers". If you do some research you'll find a handful (less than 10) scientists (real ones) that believe global warming is not real or not caused by our activities. Of that handful, if you research them carefully, you'll find that they were given a lot of money by front-organizations for coal and gas producers, to spread their doubt.

You need to realize that it's 99.9% of climate scientists vs. .1%. Because the media needs to create some sort of faux balance to make them seem journalistic, they give those .1%ers equal time in the discussion.

There is MUCH more grant money in denying global warming, than there is by claiming it. There is no big money machines that thrive on global warming, however there is BIG financial gain in denying it. If you look at the accepted (by all but a handful of demented or industry funded scientists) causes of global warming, you'll notice they ALL have something in common. $$$$ The biggest offenders, oil and coal producers, car producers, dirty manufacturing, etc., have a huge stake in denying this.

You don't need an advanced degree to grasp the concept of pollution by the tons destroying the atmosphere, and that a compromised atmosphere will change our weather and warm the Earth.

Someone that started a tv channel doesn't really hold any particular sway imho. Real scientists who are on the cutting edge of this research, do. And don't you find it at all curious that every time global warming is mentioned, people come out of the woodwork to attack Al Gore? The corporations and the current administration in D.C. doesn't want you to believe we're causing this catastrophe, otherwise they can't continue to get rich.

Educate yourself with real science. Do some research.. google the connections of some of these flat-earthers and find out who they're aligned with and where they get their money. Don't just repeat talking points meant to keep Al Gore from running for President again. Cuz.. that's what that's about.. discrediting him. It's so obvious.

Answer 4

10 scientists believe it! It's obviously true! How do the people saying it's real know that the scientists that claim global warming aren't being paid by al-Qaeda? "First, we make the Americans think bad things are happening, then when they make electric planes that can't stay in the air for 10 minutes we detonate uranium bomb in Manhattan. Allah will reward us!" UG! Me iceage Al Gore. Earth are cooling down. Must make heat or no have babies-babies. Also, must make warmer burning fire to stop cooling.
Sound familiar?

Answer 5

How many more testimonials do you need to believe AGW? You believe a guy who can't tell you what the weather is going to be in 5 days, but dismiss scientists all over the globe. It's not the weather climatologists are trying to forecast, it's the future climate. If you didn't know, there is a difference.

But I suspect that won't make a difference what you believe to be true. Your mind is already made up and nothing will change it. No one on this blog is qualified to answer the climate question, so all this is futile. You can thumb me down all you want, but the truth hurts.

Answer 6

IF, and that's a big IF, all scientists who question the validity of MMGW are bought and paid for by the oil companies, then the supporters of MMGW must be bought and paid for by environmental groups, the u.n. and the democrat party?

Follow the money, it's all on the man made side.

Answer 7

Yes. I saw him and other early leaders of the green movement, including the founder of GREEN PEACE saying the movement has never been free of exaggeration AND has now become a tool of certain special interests, including a political party who wll go nameless.

It's like Darwin's Thorey (and many disproven "scientific proofs" in history), some believe GLOBAL WARMING will be disproved eventually.

Personaly I can see past this one ecological issue, and even the possibility that special interests may be "using" the issue for selfish reasons.

To me, none of that matters!!!

We are pillaging the non-renewable resources like oil, and losing the battle on depleted fish stocks, disappearing bee colonies, and shrinking forests (the "lungs of the planet").

The growing industrialization of China and India is adding to the fouling of our air, land and water.

It is like sharing a leaky life boat!

This world is all we have!!

Let's bind together for the common good, to save the planet!!!

Answer 8

I know how he feels,

Sigh....

I have the same eye rolling waves of disgust, pulse through my being every time I hear about a natural weather event being blamed on humanity by some Prima Donna egghead posing as a climatologists.

Answer 9

Now more scientist agree with SGW (Solar Global Warming) than man made global warming.

It's clear that the Earth's temps have gone down since 1998 even though ghg's have increased many times since then.

Answer 10

That is just like the global warming people here, they discredit anything that doesn't fit with their beliefs.
I'm glad someone came out and said the truth.