The W
Views: 97738440
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.7.14 0332
The W - Current Events & Politics - John Coleman: Global Warming a "scam"
This thread has 25 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.99
Pages: 1 2 Next
(418 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
I already know this is a bad idea, but here I am posting anyway. Global warming, sexed up and rechristened "climate change," is one of those issues where rational discussion seems to disappear almost immediately, replaced by emotional outburst and name calling. Nonetheless, I think it's interesting that there are still folks out there willing to take (what is perceived as) such a wildly contrarian view, in such a public fashion.

Coleman is currently a meteorologist at KUSI in San Diego and founded of The Weather Channel.

I found this link from a blurb on the Star Tribune website, which linked to icecap.us, which linked to the source at http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html.


    COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

    By John Coleman

    jcoleman@kusi.com

    It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... It is a SCAM.

    Some scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko 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 environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment.

    I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

    However, Global Warming, i.e. 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 nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe 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 temperatures rise, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern will all fail to occur as predicted, and 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.
He goes on to provide a lot of links to a lot of information which he feels supports his view. I don't have time to look at it now, but I am inclined to check it out later.

Is he right? Is it a choice of either you can believe him or you can believe Gore? That seems to oversimplify things, but is it true? Would it be less sensational if we substituted for "Gore" any other name - perhaps one of the meterologists who is on the opposing side of the argument? (I can think of at least one local meterologist I could put in Gore's place; perhaps you have one in your market as well.)

I DO know that there's a Canadian group which is really pushing the "global cooling" concept to the point where THEY seem as silly as some of the people on the other extreme. I don't remember their name or have a link handy offhand (and for all I know they're included in Coleman's list of links) but somebody sent it to me a few months ago and I got about halfway through the article before I asked myself why I was bothering.

Anyway, here it is. Should we talk about it? Should we move on to the next TV show? (And don't get me wrong; I'm just as happy moving on to the next TV show.)



Promote this thread!
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 52 min.
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.60
The Global Warming warnings have been out there for many years and, to the shock of many, were out there long before Al Gore became the movement's poster child. If anything, I'm more than slightly annoyed that showing concern for potential climate change automatically associates a person as a Gore supporter. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" may be one of the most overrated documentaries ever. It's not that some of the facts aren't all there or missing; most, if not all, documentaries suffer from that. But there are so many better documentaries looking at the subject from guys who didn't used to be Vice President, but their film just gets tossed by the wayside. But I digress.

At this point, it'll take a lot for me to be convinced that Global Warming ISN'T happening. I think a big part of it is the unusually high number of natural disasters the world has experienced over the past few years. It's not so much that we've had Hurricane Katrina, the San Diego fires (caused by unusually high Santa Ana winds, natch), the Asian tsunami, and several other disasters, but that they've all occurred within such a short span with no sign of slowing down. Perhaps it's just me looking for any kind of explanation for my own personal comfort, but recent years have turned me into a "Global Warming" believer. How else can I explain being in Los Angeles and about to experience a second consecutive 30-degree winter?




"Wocka Wocka...who wants to hear a funny-ass joke?"
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.66
In a general sense, not relegated to just this issue, I don't believe anybody. I have to review the research/evidence and attempt to make an informed decision. Although people think it is nitpicking, I never say "believe" in regards to scientific evidence. Both sides of this and most hot button issues resort to belief as facts often contradict what they want to be true. If we wuld stick to facts most issues could be calmly discussed.



Perception is reality
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
I guess my issue with this is the tone of his argument seems to be that there is absolutely no truth to anything at all that anyone has said that even suggests that human behavior could possibly be having an impact on the planet's climatology and environment. The conspiratorial tone of the first few paragraphs make it hard to take seriously his more conciliatory statements later on.

It seems to me, just from my obviously not as schooled in meteorological sciences perspective, that there's way too much out there and way too many smart people saying that something is happening for me to believe that there isn't something going on.

What exactly is the point of the conspiracy? As a student of politics exactly my first thought is who is benefitting from this, and who would need to be fighting against this? This seems to be an issue that would be in opposition to many of the strongest business and political interests in the world, yet somehow we are supposed to believe that a conspiracy of environmental wackos (his term) and liberal entertainment executives have somehow been able to shoehorn this fear into the public consciousness in an unquestioned manner. And I guess I just find it hard to believe that an issue that could potentially disrupt the biggest economic interests in the country, some of whom own those organs that are apparently being used to pull the wool over peoples eyes, are willing to just sit back and let this go on.

That said the deification of Al Gore seems a bit odd to me as well.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 24 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.37
I read this op-ed, and my first reaction as a Chicagoan is "Oh yeah, I always wondered what the hell became of John Coleman." He was part of the classic ABC affiliate "Eyewitness News" lineup that brought the 'happy talk' gimmick newscast to America, a good 10 years before CNN and 24-hour Cable News was around. After leaving to start Weather Channel, he dropped off the radar.

Back to the subject, I think there is something to environmental issues, although that's more of a general impression I've gained over the years. And it's true that media is going to influence that impression to some degree, unless you're really into a subject. Personally, I think that energy shortages are going to be a bigger pain in the ass before climate comes to crisis. Malthus may be proved right yet, only it's energy, not food that will fail the planet. With so little done to develop feasible alternatives, we'll be forced to turn to nuclear power to maintain the standard of living.

And if you think $4.00 a gallon is bad now, wait until China and India really get going. Between them, they have three times the population of the U.S. and European Union combined.

The thing with 'global warming' is that you're talking about climate changes that scientists used to tell us came in cycles that lasted thousands of years, i.e. an "Ice Age". Now people are taking 100 years of data and claiming they have "facts". Katrina was bad, but didn't we have a fairly mild hurricane season last year? California wildfires aren't exactly a new phenomena either. And by the way, it's not Al Gore's film, he was the narrator. Putting such a polarizing political face on such an important issue in today's society was great for getting attention - maybe not so great for getting something done about it?




It's the Big "W", I tell ya! The Big "W"!
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.17
The Weather Channel has distanced themselves from Coleman. Andrew Freedman does a fairly decent job of critiquing the Coleman rant.


    In claiming to understand climate change, Coleman blatantly ignores the differences between meteorology (and TV meteorology at that) and the numerous climate science disciplines, which encompass multiple complex fields from atmospheric physics to oceanography. Considerably more complex than Mr. Coleman is used to in his current position as a TV weather forecaster in sunny San Diego.

    Far more troubling than Coleman's rant is the composition of ICECAP itself and its endorsement by some in the TV weather community.

    The listing of ICECAP content contributors reads like a who's who list of climate change experts who were quoted in climate stories ten years ago, before the science solidified around a dominant human role in climate change, and before their fossil fuel industry funding was fully revealed. These contributors include such contrarian stalwarts as Sallie Baliunas and Fred Singer.


I don't find Coleman's point entirely clear - aside from "global warming is a scam" worked in with "I do not oppose environmentalism." The disservice he really does to his argument is declare the science behind the global warming movement as "the science of meteorology" when its really climatology that deals with long term predictions.






Save Net Radio!

"No, I actually do understand what you are saying. And a lot of it doesn't matter."
Josh to Amanda
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
I'm no expert but here's what my limited research has shown me thus far...

1. I think they are saying that because us humans are increasing CO2 levels, it's causing this global warming.

2. The data to back that up is that CO2 levels are rising and so is the tempurature. That's it though. Nothing showing one definitely has an impact on the other. Just that both are going up lately.

3. There are very prominant scientists who think it's more coincidence than fact that we are having an impact, or that if we are it's very, very neglible. Some seem to think it's temp that makes CO2 levels rise, not the other way around and base this on historical data.

4. Neither side really has solid 100% proof of our impact.

Leaving it at number four, again this is just my impression based on what I've read, I would have to say it's been more than just a slight exagerration to scare everyone into thinking we must act now. I don't think it's a conspiracy so much as too many people wanting to make a name for themselves or jump on the bandwagon at this point.

Course it's not like I've spent a ton of time on this so I could be way off, plus I'm always skeptical of this kinda stuff so yeah.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.57
John Coleman was the first guy I ever saw use a Blue Screen (or Green Scree), so I admire him. Plus, his news show (with Fahey Flynn, John Daly, and Bill Frink) was the first one I ever really watched.

I agree with Coleman on this. I have also looked at the figures and soe of the spokesmen for and against and think that certainly the data is inconclusive at best and manipulated at worst. I am also en environmentalist - I recycle, I plant trees, I used to ride public transportation (it's not possible now), I don't water my grass in the summer, I put food out for the birdies.

My lookover and non-scientific opinion is that is it coincidence that people appear to be part of the slight Temp and CO2 levels.

I recall when Mt St Helen's blew that we were told it would take a long time to fix the atmosphere. And the same for the "ozone hole" of that time. Both seem fixed, not such a long time, cosmetology wise, later. I expect that the same thing applies here.



http://myspace.com/awarulz
Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 247 days
Last activity: 240 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.41

John Coleman was originally a big time TV guy here in central Illinois.

One of the big problems I have with the global warming extremeists comes when they ignore their own predictions when they don't come true: i.e. because of warming we would have a record-setting number of devastating hurricanes. Where were they? When you ask them now, that remark either didn't exist, or warming has actually caused a SMALLER number of hurricanes, which is even worse than having them. Comma, comma, comma, long sentence there by me.

I am not of the mind that humans DON'T affect climate. I would rather see people concentrate on saving rain forests and such.





As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds

As of 10/31/07: Still 217 down!
Now announcing for the NBWA!
www.wdws.com home of DWS Sportsnight and downstate radio home of thecubsfan!
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 589 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
Al Gore is on to bigger and better things

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In a career marked by second acts, Al Gore, the former vice president of the United States and co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is becoming a partner at Silicon Valley's most storied venture capital firm.

Gore said that as part of the agreement between the two firms, 100 percent of his salary as a partner at Kleiner Perkins will be donated directly to the Alliance for Climate Protection -- the nonpartisan foundation he chairs.

Click Here (news.yahoo.com)

I've always thought Coleman was full of sour grapes. Especially when the WC made their bones on the 04 Florida Hurricane Season, which hasn't happened again, much to Coleman's delight. He calls his baby "alarmists" and "extremists", when all they want is attention. Besides, the weather is always a nice thing to talk about. The people that take it seriously are only in it for the money, just like everything else.

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
GodEatGod
Boudin rouge








Since: 28.2.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.75
I've always been pretty conflicted on this subject. Much as I tend to be a liberal in most things, most environmentalists I've met and read have come off as far too reliant on emotion. The entire "it's for the children" thing being a sort of cure-all to avoid any criticism of their way of thinking. I tend to believe that it is happening, we should do something about it, but, at the same time, it's not happening tomorrow and let's not run around panicking about it. Global warming, whatever its scientific merit, has become a political scare tactic, Milennial Dispensationalism for the non-religious. In the same way that it bothers me when Republicans start waving terrorism at me, demanding that I vote for them or be killed by extremist bombs, it bothers me when Democrats essentially tell me to vote for them or watch the earth flood.

In short, I think there's something to it, but I'm tired of the strident tone. You're scientists (or, in the case of politicians, talking about science). Stop trying to scare me with the Boogeyman.



"Never piss off a hawk with a blowgun" - Conan O'Brien
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.93
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"All because he got over seven years ago forcing rimjobs on people against their will?" (Hogan's My Dad)


From a practical reason, I'm pretty much in GodEatGod's boat, although my stance's more of a "well, it couldn't hurt to take some of these measures". That said, this guy (rollingstone.com) REALLY doesn't help matters at all.

    Originally posted by Rolling Stone
    In Lovelock's view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. "The Chinese have nowhere to go but up into Siberia," Lovelock says. "How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia and China is probably inevitable." With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.


Trying to get people to pay attention to your cause is one thing, but screaming about how it's already too late and Earth is going to look like the 2300 AD scenario in Chrono Trigger, with people eating cultured... stuff and living in domes... not gonna win over many people there, Jim.



DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.66
The trouble with an issue like global warming is pretty simple. If Al Gore and company are correct, we must act now and to not act would be catastrophic. So we have to decide if we want to play Russian Roulette with the planet.

The upside is that to act to reduce greenhouse gases, etc. is a good thing for our quality of life and if we get serious, would solve our dependence on oil which is a very good thing.



Perception is reality
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by RYDER FAKIN
    Besides, the weather is always a nice thing to talk about.

So does this thread, and the underlying idea behind it, mean that we have lost the one safe topic you could always discuss at dinner parties, or use for forced small talk?
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.94
The national science academies of most of the major nations of the world issued a joint statement affirming the scientific reality of global warming and the human causes thereof: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

In light of what is as close to consensus in the scientific community as there can be, why should there be any interest at all in what one person from a somewhat related field says? (Must be that "liberal media" in action again.)

Global warming is, simply, scientific fact.

And if the forecasted consequences do not happen, that's probably not a sign that the warnings were wrong; it's a sign that they were heeded.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    The national science academies of most of the major nations of the world issued a joint statement affirming the scientific reality of global warming and the human causes thereof: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    In light of what is as close to consensus in the scientific community as there can be, why should there be any interest at all in what one person from a somewhat related field says? (Must be that "liberal media" in action again.)

    Global warming is, simply, scientific fact.

    And if the forecasted consequences do not happen, that's probably not a sign that the warnings were wrong; it's a sign that they were heeded.


It seems in reading that and some followup materials, they aren't showing proof of how much impact in terms of "human causes" we have. They say we need further study to determine the full impact and what changes if any we can make. The consensus seems to only be that yes the temp is getting warmer and they are sure it's due to greenhouse gases. Not that we are the main cause of this increase or even capable of stopping it.

So yeah, same stuff I've already read. Still not convinced us humans can have much impact, and it seems they aren't either.

btw, personal pet peeve, even if it's accepted theory it wouldn't be called "scientific fact". It's not even a "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun really to scientists. A solid theory with plenty of evidence. But they wouldn't refer to it as a "fact".

(edited by wmatistic on 13.11.07 1400)

(edited by wmatistic on 13.11.07 1404)
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.17
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    The consensus seems to only be that yes the temp is getting warmer and they are sure it's due to greenhouse gases. Not that we are the main cause of this increase or even capable of stopping it.


From the National Academies article:


    The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide to rise well above pre-industrial levels.


That's pretty clear as to what they think is causing the increase in greenhouse gases.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    btw, personal pet peeve, even if it's accepted theory it wouldn't be called "scientific fact". It's not even a "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun really to scientists. A solid theory with plenty of evidence. But they wouldn't refer to it as a "fact".


Yes, it is, and yes, they would.

I'll grant you - sometimes the line gets a bit muddled depending on the scientist, the topic, the field and institution in which they conduct their research - but I know of no scientist (and I know a few) who would even consider entering a debate on whether heliocentrism is a fact. They might use different terminology for academic purposes - but, for all intents and purposes, you would end your scientific career to challenge heliocentrism.





Save Net Radio!

"No, I actually do understand what you are saying. And a lot of it doesn't matter."
Josh to Amanda
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by wmatistic
      The consensus seems to only be that yes the temp is getting warmer and they are sure it's due to greenhouse gases. Not that we are the main cause of this increase or even capable of stopping it.


    From the National Academies article:


      The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide to rise well above pre-industrial levels.


    That's pretty clear as to what they think is causing the increase in greenhouse gases.

      Originally posted by wmatistic
      btw, personal pet peeve, even if it's accepted theory it wouldn't be called "scientific fact". It's not even a "fact" that the Earth revolves around the sun really to scientists. A solid theory with plenty of evidence. But they wouldn't refer to it as a "fact".


    Yes, it is, and yes, they would.

    I'll grant you - sometimes the line gets a bit muddled depending on the scientist, the topic, the field and institution in which they conduct their research - but I know of no scientist (and I know a few) who would even consider entering a debate on whether heliocentrism is a fact. They might use different terminology for academic purposes - but, for all intents and purposes, you would end your scientific career to challenge heliocentrism.



I know, it was a simple point that most diehard scientists hate the overuse of the word "fact". I wasn't trying to challenge anything other than his use of the word in that regard. I would be suprised if all in that organization who released the statement would go so far as to use the term "fact".

And I read more than just that article and found that the "human activities" contribution is largly unknown. If you read just that whole article they recommend study to determine extent of human impact, as if to say yes we are sure we have some impact but don't know how much. Could be, as some scientists I read from have suggested, that our human impact is less than 1% of the total greenhouse gases(I'll try to dig up the articles tonight).

There's far too many intelligent people on both sides disagreeing right now for anyone to be so sure in my view. That's all I'm trying to say.

edit: This isn't one I read before but looks like a good starting point from a quick look:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


Edit 2: On second thought now that I'm home for the day I think I'm gonna just bow out of this conversation now. It just seems far too likely to head down that evil Internet argument path and I need to save my energy along those lines for college football threads. I'll just admit I don't know everything about Global Warming and keep an open mind.

(edited by wmatistic on 13.11.07 1538)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1228 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
I think it is tough to rely on pronouncements from some scientific collectives, especially when you consider the sudden political witch hunt that begins whenever someone comes out against human-caused global warming. Are scientists losing their funding (or getting less) when they come out against global warming hysteria? Maybe - I honestly don't know. But it is worth considering when you consider the source.

The "Global Cooling" argument bears examining as well. In the 50s, the consensus was that man was causing the Earth to cool because of industry. The exact same arguments used today, but with the opposite "calamity." They were wrong then. Why should we believe them now?

We are not experiencing an unusually high number of natural disasters. Katrina was an extremely powerful hurricane, but hardly the first one we have ever seen. It just hit a very bad place where people were unprepared. If it was a Global Warming Disaster, the last two hurricane seasons wouldn't be among the calmest on record. Katrina was an example of poor planning mixed with bad luck.

The Asian Tsunami had nothing to do with Global Warming - an earthquake caused that.

The San Diego fires had nothing to do with Global Warming. Southern California burns every year, and every 3-4 years we have a particularly bad fire season. 2 winters ago we had record rainfall which resulted in TONS of vegetation. Last winter was extremely dry. So you have a region with a whole bunch of dead and dry plant life - of course you are going to get extreme fires when the Santa Anas start-up. They were strong this year, but some years, they are strong. It should be noted that the worse fires on record were in the 30s. One bad fire season does not equal proof of global warming.

When it comes down to it - I just don't believe the hype. Oh, the Earth is warming, I actually believe that. But the Earth's climate always changes. It has been warmer in the past, and it will be warmer and cooler in the future. The thing is - no scientist has provided any actual proof that man is behind the temperature increase. They don't even understand fully how the oxygen cycle works. They never account for the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, and how it handles the varying amounts that is produced by life on this planet every year. They have no idea how it works - but I am supposed to believe them when they say that we are causing the Earth to warm up? The last two years they have predicted cataclysmic hurricane seasons, and both years they were exactly wrong. If they can't even tell us what the hurricane season is supposed to be like next year, how can we trust them about the climate as a whole?

A recent story about farming in Greenland is an excellent example of the way the environment changes naturally. Farming is returning to Greenland thanks to recent warming. Returning, as in, it was there before. In other words - 400+ years ago, the climate was warmer than it is now. And there wasn't industry to cause that warming.

This really is Chicken Little to me - a lot of hysteria with very little proof. With the increased solar activity, and signs that Mars, too, is warming, the simplest explanation is that the Earth is warming, and that it is a natural, cyclical function of our environment.

But hey - I am all for people who want to "Be Green." Don't poop where you sleep, and all that. But to declare at this point that man is responsible for it is arrogant and quite simply bad science. If "Saving the Earth" was harmless, it would be one thing. But there are some Global Warming extremists who say that we would have to literally destroy our way of life in order to save the planet. When the simpler explanation doesn't involve such drastic measures - I tend towards that.

But hey - if people want to be Eco-friendly, power to them. I just don't want that choice imposed on me when the reasons behind it are so suspect.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 13.11.07 1556)


Stillonthe Shelf.com
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 332 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.26
The world has warming and cooling trends. There have been times when glaciers covered a huge portion North America. There have been times when as far north as Southern Canada had sub-tropical flora. There is also evidence that Earth's CO2 levels may have been highest in the Jurassic. (I think I've got that right...)

The theory of Global Warming is NOT that the earth is warming up, that is happening (I mean we're still on the very tail end of an Ice Age in geological terms), the theory is that humans are causing the rate of warming to be increased over its previous rate throughout geological history.

Now, due to bad planning I ended up taking a few Geology classes in college (technically Geography would have been more useful for my major) and geology as a field has a very interesting view of global warming due to the sheer scale of how they look at time. Sadly I can't find a source on the internet to quote what one of my Geology professors explained due to so much over saturation of Global Warming debates on the internet. The actual theory of Global Warming if you get down to the nuts and bolts is that humans are causing a .1% of 1% increase in the rate of planetary climate change. Which is going to be the difference in only a handful of years on a geological time frame.

Personally though, I kind of like that everyone is freaking out about it. If it gets people to think about how they impact the planet and people around them, hopefully the world will be a better place because of it. I mean none of the things they are suggesting people do are going to hurt things. We've cleaned things up a great deal since the start of the Industrial Age, and I'd like to see things keep improving over my lifetime.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.99
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Ric Flair (hearts) Huckabee
Next thread: Nick "Hogan" Turns Himself In
Previous thread: Too sexy to pose?
(418 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
We've got troops on the ground in that region now. Resistance, I believe, is rather low. Here's some more info on Ansar-al-Islam, the terror group in northern Iraq.
The W - Current Events & Politics - John Coleman: Global Warming a "scam"Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.187 seconds.