(M) So much for consensus... (M)

[Truman]

Interesting Web site. Funny, the docs here seem to have a slightly different opinion than that of our most recent Nobel Prize winner

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 dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion 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 extremist, 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 ridicules 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 minutes 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 suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

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. 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.

[Bennish]

Give it a rest will you. You've made your point, whatever it is.

[Jerkovich]

Give it a rest will you. You've made your point, whatever it is.

Does this mean my carbon credits are worthless?

DAMN :x

[Bennish]

I didn't write that, I posted a picture of that homo AP wearing women's underwear and said.."Yea, but this sure shook the earth to it's core."

[BSmack]

Truman,

You could post evidence that proove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Al Gore is wrong and I just wouldn't matter. Try again tomorrow when the image of AP dancing around a hotel room in granny panties has left our collective consciousness.

Oh, who am I kidding. I still won't give a fuck. You lost me right about the time you said that the earth was flat.

[Dinsdale]

Try again tomorrow when the image of AP dancing around a hotel room in granny panties has left our collective consciousness.

Dude, they could nuke Iran tomorrow, and I seriously doubt it would usurp AP's newfound(?) "hobby" as a topic on this board.

There's been some poor judgement executed on these baords, be it by directly posting, or trusting the wrong "online friends."

Guy F and the "kissing a guy."

Cinder and Perk pics.

Any Cinder pics in various states of arousal.

Raiduh James and his gay punk lover.

KFC Paul and his svelte physique.


The list goes on and on...


Yet somehow, all of those previous indescretions now seem so insignificant. In the battle to be the biggest fucking retard around here, AP just brough nukes, photon torpedoes, and the freaking Death Star to a knife fight.

[Mikey]

As soon as I saw this little tidbit of intelligent writing I knew the guy is an idiot.

create an allusion of rapid global warming

What did the rest of the piece say, anyway?

[BSmack]

As soon as I saw this little tidbit of intelligent writing I knew the guy is an idiot.

create an allusion of rapid global warming

What did the rest of the piece say, anyway?

Something about a dude PMing pics of himself wearing panties in a hotel bathroom.

[Money Shot]

Truman, here's another good one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUX ... rming_myth

Edited by 88

[Money Shot]

media (m), can a mod or admin tag this thread for me? Thanks.

[BSmack]

media (m), can a mod or admin tag this thread for me? Thanks.

Why don't you just post that bullshit in the form of a link? If I want to look at it, I sure as hell can click a link.

[Money Shot]

Why don't you just post that bullshit in the form of a link? If I want to look at it, I sure as hell can click a link.

Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

I posted another post so a mod would see it when they mouse over to update the thread title. You should of too, yet you still opened the thread. So stop bitching.

[BSmack]

Why don't you just post that bullshit in the form of a link? If I want to look at it, I sure as hell can click a link.

Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

I posted another post so a mod would see it when they mouse over to update the thread title. You should of too, yet you still opened the thread. So stop bitching.

It's not my fault you don't know how to embed a fucking You Tube video. Go fuck yourself.

[Mikey]

As soon as I saw this little tidbit of intelligent writing I knew the guy is an idiot.

create an allusion of rapid global warming

What did the rest of the piece say, anyway?

Mostly that you are a lemming. But I wouldn't worry about that. Just follow the know-nothing moron in front of you and everything will work out fine.

Because I don't give credence to a second rate weatherman at a third tier independent TV station who thinks he's a "meteorologist"?

Apparently this guy who doesn't know the difference between "allusion" and "illusion", or between "ridiculous" and "ridicules", is spewing everything you feel in your ignorant little heart of hearts. He's more of a conspiracy shouting nutcase than any of the "dastardly scientists" he's ranting about.

But...like I said, he seems to speak to everything you so fervently believe, so go ahead and RACK him. Keep your head firmly buried in the sand. I don't believe that global warming is necessarily the end of the world, but at least I don't deny the science merely because I don't want to believe it.

I guess you're a lot more of a lemming than I'll ever be.

[Kierland]

We question the "science" that pins the reason for the increase on human emissions of CO2.

How about the science of dirty fuels? You read up on that much, you oil sucking tard?

[Kierland]

Yes, or what. Thanks for asking.

[Mikey]

What you ought to do to prove that I'm wrong is link me to a scientific article that explains exactly how the global climate will benefit from restrictions on CO2 emissions such as proposed in the Kyoto Treaty. Show me exactly how much benefit will be obtained. Show why that benefit is worth the cost. And, most importantly, show me the science that proves beyond debate that reductions in human CO2 emissions will achieve those benefits. That would be the proper response.

I'll wait.

You really are completely full of shit.

This will never be proven "beyond debate" either way, and you know that as well as I do.

I didn't realize that this was about the Kyoto Treaty. I thought it was about a conspiracy by dastardly scientists and self-serving environmentalists. Nice attempt at changing the subject, though.

Personally I don't completely understand, or even have access to, all of the science on the subject. I'm pretty sure that you don't either. But I'm willing to take the word of a scientist who has been studying the subject for, in all likelihood, longer than either you or I have been alive over a washed up weatherman. A scientist who was accused of being a fraud, by most of the same people who are denying global warming now, 30 years ago when he first sounded the alarm about ozone depletion. He has been pretty well vindicated on that one.

I know that the science is not nearly complete on this, and probably never will be. For example it's now coming out that methane is a big factor as well. And human activities (cattle and landfills for example) are a large part of that. But I am convinced that there is cause for concern.

Can you prove to me "beyond debate" that human CO2 emissions are not a major cause of global warming?

I'll wait.

[War Wagon]

I just wouldn't matter.

Bingo.

What did MikeNY do this time?

Pardon if I don't keep up with all the threads up in this bitch. Seems we have some new shit trolls making noises, did I miss something?

Probably not.

[Mikey]

RACK the Chargers.


They should not win this game.

[Mikey]

touche

[Mikey]

I'd like to see your raw data and whatever analysis you have that takes you from the raw data to your conclusions.

[Mikey]

I didn't see any question besides the one about proving something "beyond debate". I gave that one as much response as it deserved.

[Kierland]

I'm not asking you to spend any of your money on a kookie, politically corrupted, and absolutely stunningly stupid idea.

Why don't you suck a tailpipe and then me how clean and healthy oil burning cars are.

You really believe oil is good for you environmentally, politically, and economically? If you do you are too stupid to be opining on something as complicated as global climate change.

That goes for you too wikical.

[Kierland]

Ok so I got bored and read the rest of your post.

... vegetation (which is the source of that oil we pump out of Alaska).

Actually the science on that is not yet in.

[Jerkovich]

This will never be proven "beyond debate" either way, and you know that as well as I do.

Wait a minute, just last night I saw your Pied Piper Gore declare that,"the debate is over, global warming is a fact, and the fact is conclusive that humans are responsible".

Now get back in the lemming formation,your cliff awaits.

[Mikey]

This will never be proven "beyond debate" either way, and you know that as well as I do.

Wait a minute, just last night I saw your Pied Piper Gore declare that,"the debate is over, global warming is a fact, and the fact is conclusive that humans are responsible".

Now get back in the lemming formation,your cliff awaits.

Don't put words in my mouth. Maybe you like to let other people put things in your mouth, but that's not for me.

I never said that I agreed completely with Gore. I think he's a pompous blowhard who has done more to harm the enviromental cause with his overblown rhetoric than just about anybody on the "other" side.

[Dinsdale]

I recycle, even though I know it doesn't do jack shit.

Sure it does -- it stands in the way of a potential environmental solution to problems. Stems from the idea that every cause, every good idea, and every other issue must be adressed in an alarmist fashion.

Just think -- if the nonfunctional governments would keep their dirty paws out of it, someone might have actually found a good use for all of that old garbage. But Special Interest found yet another way to siphon money off of Johnny Q Public, so I guess real environmental solutions to the waste problem will have to wait a few decades.

This will never be proven "beyond debate" either way, and you know that as well as I do.

One of the sillier things I've read on the subject.


I take it Mikey has tried to copy the investment portfolio of one Al Gore, and stands to get rich from the Global Warming Industry?


Uhm...


Uhm...


If a strong cooling trend starts next year, and continues for a couple of decades, I guess we could call that "beyond debate," eh?

There is that.

Which is why we must act NOW, and start paying third-world countries to produce our CO2 for us -- Because the Global Warming Industry might not be around in 10-20 years, so we need to work the scam to its maximum potential NOW.

NOW NOW NOW!!!!!

Give us or your money, or we all die... NOW!!!!

[Jerkovich]

NOW NOW NOW!!!!!

Give us or your money, or we all die... NOW!!!!

The would be the bottom line right there.

Always is, always will be. In the '70s some PHds were beating the "Global Cooling" drum for research grants. Then it was the "Global over population" thang. Then it was the "Global Otter collapse". SO, it's one catastrophe after another, especially when millions in research grants are at stake. Junk science be damned.

[Kierland]

I recycle, even though I know it doesn't do jack shit.

Sure it does -- it stands in the way of a potential environmental solution to problems. Stems from the idea that every cause, every good idea, and every other issue must be adressed in an alarmist fashion.

Melting and Al can to make another Al can is alarmist? You are dumber than a bag of wet mice.

[Mikey]

Better just to throw shit away and bury it.

sin
That beautiful landfill coming soon to your neighborhood.

[Mikey]

If a strong cooling trend starts next year, and continues for a couple of decades, I guess we could call that "beyond debate," eh?

No more "beyond debate" than a consistent warming trend proves the opposite, you ignorant fucking moron.

[Dinsdale]

Melting and Al can to make another Al can is alarmist? You are dumber than a bag of wet mice.

Melting a milk jug to make another milk jug is an environmental problem, not an environmental solution.

Matter of fact, it hampers the quest for a real environmental solution.

But the Alarmists make money off the "NOW!" thing, so that's what we have.


FACT -- Plastic milk jugs are made from petroleum.

Once the tooling is in place to crank out plastic milk jugs, labor and other costs-of-operation becomes cheap. It's the raw materials that are the expense when you're making millions upon millions of something per day.

Petroleum costs are skyrocketing. And here we are, throwing hundreds of millions of milk jugs into the trash every single day.

Yet these milk jugs are made out of petroleum, which can be had free for the taking.

And Big Government has to subsidize milk jug recycling to make it viable.

Why is that?

Because it costs more in petroleum/energy to recy6cle a milk jug than it does to make a new one.

Welcome to the world of free-market economics.

If it resulted in less energy/petroleum expenditures, someone would be paying YOU for old milk jugs. But that's not the case, is it? No, the Big Government pays someone else to come get them from you, and they pay yet someone else to melt them down and waste petroleum resources in the name of "feel-good-policy."


Common fucking sense. If you make 50,000,000 milk jugs a day, and if you could save so much as one half-penny per milk jug by using recycled materials, rather than buying "new" petroleum products, wouldn't it be absolutely fucking crazy to assume the milk jug manufacturer would be all over it?


Yet Big Government has to put a gun/checkbook to that milk jug company's head to get them to do it. There's only one logical conclusion that anyone with any brains could possibly draw from that (OK, there's two -- "government corruption" being the other).


Of course, if Big Government didn't see its chance to siphon off money to their brother-in-law's government-subsidized recycling business, some enterprising soul might actually find a realistic use for all of that waste petroleum. In the current Big Government Corporate Welfare System, this will never happen, and the current policy will continue to consume more petroleum than throwing the milk jugs into the trash would.

But hey -- at least some politicians have people fooled into actually thinking they're doing something positive for the environment, and they'll even have their vast minions publicly ridicule anyone who suggests anything to the contrary.


Example #28,978,457 of Big Government trying to keep the world back in the Stone Age, so long as their pork-barrels get their cut.


And if a very disingenuous government blackmailing wasn't fucking up the waste milk jug market, it would likely become profitable for someone to actually figure out a use for them that didn't involve using more petroleum to process them than is actually saved. But instead, we'll continue having a tax/public service price increase, to mask Big Government's further interference with the free markeys that would eventually provide a realistic solution to the "problem," and someone would actually want all of those spent milk jugs, and the consumer wouldn't have to ultimately pay for the organized wasting of petroleum.

[Cuda]

RACK!

[Jerkovich]

If a strong cooling trend starts next year, and continues for a couple of decades, I guess we could call that "beyond debate," eh?

No more "beyond debate" than a consistent warming trend proves the opposite, you ignorant fucking moron.

I just love it when 'intelligent' liberal elites resort to name calling and character assassination.


It just proves our point. :wink:

[trev]

Mikey, you should do your research on John Coleman before you go smacking him.

KUSI is his retirement job.

[Mikey]

If a strong cooling trend starts next year, and continues for a couple of decades, I guess we could call that "beyond debate," eh?

No more "beyond debate" than a consistent warming trend proves the opposite, you ignorant fucking moron.

I just love it when 'intelligent' liberal elites resort to name calling and character assassination.


It just proves our point. :wink:

Sort of like your earlier characterization of me as a "lemming" and claiming that Algore is my "Pied Piper"?

I just love it when "intelligent" conservative knuckle-draggers smack themselves without even realizing it.

[Dinsdale]

No more "beyond debate" than a consistent warming trend proves the opposite, you ignorant fucking moron.

Wow.

Uhm... no.


Sorry bud, but there's something you Alarmists just don't grasp... it's almost like an SEC Fan sort of thing...


The Alarmist Theory is that the added CO2 that Mankind produces is causing a clear warming trend.

Up until recently, we used to have this thing called "science." In "science," when someone proposes a theory, the onus is on the person who proposed it, and the rest of the scientific community to confirm or deny it.


It doesn't magically become a factual baseline because "we" said so.

Since the theory is that manmade CO2 emissions are causing a clearly definable/measurable warming trend, and is responsible for the warming trend we're currently seeing, the onus is on those proposing the theory to prove it.

A continued warming trend does no such thing. It merely confirms that "we're not sure, since there isn't the fraction of the neccessary data available to determine that conclusively."

BUT... if the whole basis of the manmade-warming theory is that increased atmosperic CO2 is causing the current warming trend, then a reversal of that trend during a period when atmosperic CO2 levels continue to rise, it's a pretty strong indication that the CO2 isn't driving the warming, nor is methane, or anything else that has similar/rising levels.


That would CLEARLY tend to disprove the theory, whereas the continued warming would prove nothing.


Sorry, bud -- you don't get to change the very basic premises of the scientific process when it comes to one politically-charged area of science, and apply a whole different set of scientific procedures to every other aspect of science. That would be fucking retarded.


Alarmist: The increased CO2 is making it warmer!

Scientist: But while the CO2 continued to increase, the temperature went down.

Alarmist: Well, that proves it, then.

Scientist: You GO, BOYEEEE!!!!!!

[Kierland]

So my milk costs 349.5 cents not 349? That is alarmist? And leaving everything up to the free market isn't? I don't mind spending that .5 cents for the rewards I get. I like the dump outside of town being 40 acres not 150.

BTW- The free market isn't free.

[Jerkovich]

No more "beyond debate" than a consistent warming trend proves the opposite, you ignorant fucking moron.

I just love it when 'intelligent' liberal elites resort to name calling and character assassination.


It just proves our point. :wink:

Sort of like your earlier characterization of me as a "lemming" and claiming that Algore is my "Pied Piper"?

I just love it when "intelligent" conservative knuckle-draggers smack themselves without even realizing it.

Ah Mikey, you're not going to dribble the "Media Matters" punch lines and think that they're fresh, are you?

I was just pointing out the fact that the church of global warming and your clergy of scam artist are not out for your best interest. All they want is to fleece the sheeple and profit from their declaration of doom.

Let me clear something up for you, I don't think that ANYONE in Washington is interested in the welfare of the people and they have ALL sold out to the all mighty buck. Even the folks I use to support. We are in dire times my friend, and this isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is an issue of where our children are going to be in twenty years.

[Kierland]

The Alarmist Theory is that the added CO2 that Mankind produces is causing a clear warming trend.

And my theory that oil is dirty and should be replaced is what? I really don't get why you global climate change deniers are so afraid to admit this obvious fact. And if you really believe that oil is clean how can you be trusted to opine on a subject as complicated as global climate change?