“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... 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 non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it... There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril... 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. —John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

And from an actual scientist that builds climate models rather than PowerPoints for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

John Christy of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize) responds to questions by CNN anchor Miles O'Brien:

O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You going to renounce it in some way?

CHRISTY: Well, as a scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I always thought that -- I may sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas here -- that prizes were given for performance, and not for promotional activities.

And, when I look at the world, I see that the carbon dioxide rate is increasing, and energy demand, of course, is increasing. And that's because, without energy, life is brutal and short. So, I don't see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy, when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society.

O'BRIEN: So, what about the movie ["An Inconvenient Truth"]; do you take issue with, then, Dr. Christy?

CHRISTY: Well, there's any number of things.

I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is -- well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.

O'BRIEN: But you just got through saying that the carbon dioxide levels are up. Temperatures are going up. There is a certain degree of certainty that goes along with that, right?

CHRISTY: Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So, we're fortunate it's not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing. And when we build -- and I'm one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets -- we don't see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place.

For example, I suppose CNN did not announce two weeks ago when the Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all-time maximum, even though, in the Arctic in the North Pole, it reached its all-time minimum.

Del.icio.us

Add to Fark Reddit

Technorati Furl

Furl

Stumble Upon

← Prev | Tinnitus's Blog Home | Next →

Tinnitus's Messages

Comments (11)

by stfu on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 at 10:05 PM

So, wait.. is there a Global Warming? Sure felt like it last winter! But cold like in a freezer now www.ablenet.org/datas/icons/crazy.gif

We gots snow!

(Reply)

by Tinnitus on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 at 10:17 PM

So you've experienced Global Warming and Global Cooling locally?� www.ablenet.org/datas/icons/tongue.gif

�Thus the challenging logic of those who extrapolate local climes globally!

(Reply)

by stfu on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 at 10:36 PM

Hehe, well.. Global Cooling is rather what we usually have here at this time of a year....
But there was Global Warming last year!!! I saw it!!! www.ablenet.org/datas/icons/biggrin.gif

(Reply)

by Tinnitus on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 at 02:49 PM

A statistically irrelevant data sampling. www.ablenet.org/datas/icons/tongue.gif

(Reply)

by stfu on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 at 10:47 PM

Oh come on! The whole country was warm like a spring, no one could snowboard or winter fish, and we even had greens starting and it is irrelevant??? I have pictures as a proof!!!

(Reply)

by Anthony on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 at 06:26 PM

So you're completely discounting geologists and weather experts that claim to the contrary and even going so far as saying CO2 is not bad because it is naturally created? CO2 is still harmful to organisms that breath Oxygen. With less plant life in a sprawling world, where is this CO2 to go beyond trapping heat to the environment?

Also, Antarctica may be larger than in the past while the north pole is shrinking but can we truly call this balance? Perhaps it is an over compensation in nature considering the level of industrialism in the northern hemisphere and the natural air currents? I suppose Free Markets will protect the indigenous creatures of the North Pole and the Rain Forest, etc? :)

Free Markets still stay behind the curve in areas where immediate margins are desired more over long term gains. The same applies to nature... we're looking for short answers to avoid the hassle necessary for long term gains.

(Reply)

by Tinnitus on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 at 08:24 PM

1. No, I'm not discounting any data. I'm relaying information from informed and expert sources that indicate absolutism is not science.

2. CO2 is not a pollutant or toxic gas. In fact, your respiration process isn't 100% and you inhale it with every breath without harm. Plants take in CO2 and express O2.

3. Is there less plant life, including aquatic varieties? I haven't seen a data point on this. Do you have one?

4. Earth's climate is a global system, so it needs to viewed holistically. Why isn't the fact that Antarctic ice is at record levels reported? That's not to say regional species should not be taken into account. But the polar bear population is increasing. Regarding the Rain Forest, I agree we are losing species and habitat. But isn't that due to deforestation rather than Global Climate Change? It seems you're conflating topics.

5. Free markets respond with technology and innovation to solve problems; democratic governments are to represent their populations and set priorities, not the other way around. And I disagree with your premise; in the real world (not Al Gore's) markets lead and governments lag. Example: Government regulation of technology, i.e. applying telecom regulation to IP traffic. That model trails by decades.

(Reply)

by Anthony on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 at 09:40 PM

There's some really cool information on this site. Non-partisan:

http://www.globalforestscience.org/

An interesting UN Address

*edited note... I think it somehow replaced the URL. fixed now.

(Reply)

by Tinnitus on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 at 10:40 PM

Can you recheck your "An interesting UN Address" link?

Results:

Not Found

The requested URL /94/newsroom/gf_news/2007-10.23__Award-Winning_Tree_Scientist_to_Address_United_Nations;_Says_New_York_Is_Already_Fighting_Global_Warming.html was not found on this server.

(Reply)

by Anthony on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 at 11:37 PM

fixed it. I think the link was changed.

(Reply)

by Tinnitus on Sun, 04 May 2008 at 12:26 AM

In October 2007, NASA announced the results of an in-depth study of Arctic sea-ice melting and found that what has caused the unusually large melting seen in the last eight years was not greenhouse gas-induced global warming. In the press release describing the study, team leader Son Nghiem explained that the warming of recent years was, in fact, caused by a change in wind patterns. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.[21]

In January 2008, another study, published in the journal Nature, also cast doubt on whether greenhouse gas-induced heating is melting the Arctic. In a study looking at the vertical distribution of atmospheric heating, Nordic researchers found that, although models of greenhouse gas-induced warming predict that increased heat will show up close to the surface of the earth, the data show the opposite: Arctic heating has actually been happening too high in the atmosphere to reflect greenhouse gas causation. What the data seem to indicate is that heat from the tropics is being transported to the Arctic by wind patterns that are not well understood.[22]

Thus, at present, we cannot assume the IPCC's future predictions for Arctic ice melt trends are meaningful. Recently observed Arctic melting could well be a shorter-term phenomenon unrelated to man-made global warming.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27918/pub_detail.asp

(Reply)

Would you like to comment?

→ Join AbleNET Community for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.

For Channel Owners: Register a Channel | Your Channels | Java Chat

For Users: AbleNET Quotables | Pictures | Join Groups