In honor of this frosty morning, and in case you missed it on the news, recent comments on the topic by the founding father of The Weather Channel:
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ?Greatest Scam in History?
By John Coleman
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 an illusion 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.
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 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie 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.
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 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.
Replies
69Beach Fanatic
Thanks, savvyt! I appreciate the support, gull. 
Did you sign up for the ornament xchange yet?
Did you sign up for the ornament xchange yet?Edited
Beach Fanatic
Here's a link.
Uh, it's one of Newton's Laws~http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html ;-) You may remember this from science class.
BTW, I'm a person with my own ideas and feelings. I am not related to Hillary by blood. I just find myself defending her when what I hear doesn't jive, when it is totally f627in' horse hockey. Why is she being drug in on my little ole comment on this thread? I find it pathetic that you would be mean to me because you know I like Hillary. Its just really sad and hurtful, but that's another thread again. :sick: Do your homework before you put me down in public, mister fisher.
Yes, I took science class and Mr. Newton was talking about the laws of motion and force, not about the type of actions you refer to in your post.
I have seen your posts on Hillary and was not putting you down or being mean. Just making a little fun of Hillary (which will happening to all the candidates for the next 12 months or so). I apologize if I offended you.
Beach Lover
We are all in this together! If the environmentalists are wrong, what do you loose? Some greenbacks in your oil stock? IF they are right? WE ALL LOOSE! Here is a link to a few words by Deepak Chopra who is far better than I at an explanation....
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184
Beach Fanatic
We are all in this together! If the environmentalists are wrong, what do you loose? Some greenbacks in your oil stock? IF they are right? WE ALL LOOSE! Here is a link to a few words by Deepak Chopra who is far better than I at an explanation....
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184
If they are wrong and we sign the Kyoto protocol or take some other drastic measures in this country that the rest of the world doesn't, we lose our competitive advantage and potentially suffer the meltdown Shelly is predicting.
Beach Fanatic
Thanks for sharing the link jack!
SkunkyAuthor
We are all in this together! If the environmentalists are wrong, what do you loose? Some greenbacks in your oil stock? IF they are right? WE ALL LOOSE! Here is a link to a few words by Deepak Chopra who is far better than I at an explanation....
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1127733584/bclid267040/bctid842184
I wonder if there was a similar conversation in Spain circa 1490
Beach Fanatic
I wonder if there was a similar conversation in Spain circa 1490
LOL
SoWal Insider
You know, your comment got me to thinking about a grand rounds I attended my last year at Tulane. A nephrologist (kidney specialist) gave a lecture on table salt's role in leading to essential hypertension. He had a powerpoint full of graphs, data, etc. When he was finished the audience had a chance to ask questions as is the tradition. A cardiologist who specialized in congestive heart failure questioned the entire premise that salt does anything other than create a temporary rise in blood pressure and proceeded to shred the nephrologist's data and facts. They debated (vigorously), and finally the nephrologist was sick of debating and said to the cardiologist "It is obvious that you have read the propaganda put out by 'big salt'!". He actually said it, 'big salt'. So, a few points I would like to apply to the global warming debate: First-How is it that there is no 'consensus' on salt's effect on hypertension in a microsphere like the human body, yet there is 'consensus' that human activity is leading to global warming on the macro scale? Second, why is it that when there is legitimate debate, some people are so tempted to intellectually cash out and blame the big corporations for producing bad data that clouds the water, so to speak.Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.
Beach Fanatic
Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.
Most people debating the human induced global warming hysteria aren't saying don't conserve, don't recycle, don't buy hybrids, etc. We just don't buy the hype or believe the very questionable "science" behind this theory.
Buying into the hype and doing something drastic on a countrywide basis could be very, very detrimental to the USA in the global community. We live in a world totally transformed by our new way of life compared to 100, 200 or 300 years ago. In addition, there are now over 6 BILLION people on the planet that must be fed, clothed, housed, etc. It takes big industry and unfortunately, some not so nice environmental damage to keep these 6 billion people going day in and day out.
Most of us Global warming "bashers" do conserve as much as most of the global warming crowd. I dare say that 99% or more of us contrarians certainly conserve more energy than Al Gore and his mansion in Tennessee, his SUV's, his trips on private jet aircraft, etc. If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk in a much bigger way than the rest of us.
Beach Comber
I desecrate my body whenever convenient. Not to mention extensions of the body.
In my humble opinion, the "science", at a minimum, is economic stimulation and leeching. mo' problems mo' money.
In my humble opinion, the "science", at a minimum, is economic stimulation and leeching. mo' problems mo' money.
Beach Fanatic
The expert who wrote the article in the op lost me at "I know I am correct". I guess the nephrologist quoted later by Skunkape also knew he was correct. It's seems readily apparent to me that we humans affect everything around us, I don't need an expert to confirm or deny that. As for the 6 billion people on the Earth what happens when they all start consuming, combusting, and farting as much as we Americans are at present. If it turns out we actually have a problem right now how much harder is it to fix in 2050 when the whole world is industrialized? I was flipping channels the other day and stopped on Children of the Corn 2..I think I must've burped or something and set the remote down...a Native American character commented that "we don't inherit the earth from our forefathers we borrow it from our children".
SkunkyAuthor
Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.
I agree 100% that we should increase funding for research in alternative energy and do our best to keep the environment clean. I guess I am trying to voice my concern that injecting politics into science in an effort to achieve an end gain is a slippery slope.
Beach Fanatic
I agree 100% that we should increase funding for research in alternative energy and do our best to keep the environment clean. I guess I am trying to voice my concern that injecting politics into science in an effort to achieve an end gain is a slippery slope.No issue with that.
Beach Fanatic
Even if Global Warming is completely false, the ancillary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions would, by it's nature, eliminate oil supply as a major driver of foreign supply and cause measurable improvement in health related quality of life. It is telling that sides are taken by party line. This is much more than a "prove it" issue. It's a matter of the well being of our nation.
Amen, Bob A Rino! UR A smart'un
I agree 100% that we should increase funding for research in alternative energy and do our best to keep the environment clean. I guess I am trying to voice my concern that injecting politics into science in an effort to achieve an end gain is a slippery slope.
OMG, I agree! Dang that feels good. 
Beach Fanatic
I am kinda wondering how all these scientist from all over the world got together and pulled this "scam" off. Do they have a secret cave they meet in? Maybe like a bat cave? It sounds as far fetched as.... Global Warming. Both sides to this debate puzzle me.
Both sides to this debate puzzle me.Edited
SoWal Insider
Most people debating the human induced global warming hysteria aren't saying don't conserve, don't recycle, don't buy hybrids, etc. We just don't buy the hype or believe the very questionable "science" behind this theory.Tell me you have ever seen a GW sticker on the back of a Prius.
Buying into the hype and doing something drastic on a countrywide basis could be very, very detrimental to the USA in the global community. We live in a world totally transformed by our new way of life compared to 100, 200 or 300 years ago. In addition, there are now over 6 BILLION people on the planet that must be fed, clothed, housed, etc. It takes big industry and unfortunately, some not so nice environmental damage to keep these 6 billion people going day in and day out.
Most of us Global warming "bashers" do conserve as much as most of the global warming crowd. I dare say that 99% or more of us contrarians certainly conserve more energy than Al Gore and his mansion in Tennessee, his SUV's, his trips on private jet aircraft, etc. If you are going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk in a much bigger way than the rest of us.
Beach Fanatic
Tell me you have ever seen a GW sticker on the back of a Prius.
I haven't been looking, but there weren't many prius' on the road when W stickers were popular.
However, I DID SEE Al "hypocrite" Gore driving an Escalade and flying in a private jet in the movie An Incovenient Truth. I've also seen pics of his energy gobbling house. Got to walk the walk if you are going to talk the talk.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
I had the "joy?" of interacting with a scientist that was asking for questions that the public would like to have answered by a "consortium" of scientists but when told the concerns of most people (what is being done about lowering the costs of green energy for the average person, why are we still subsidizing big oil,etc?) they called us arrogant in thinking we had all the answers to a "very complicated problem that no one had the answers to". I got the very distinct impression that they didnt really want to know that the average joe knows ways to help but is hindered by the start up costs of implementing the methods. And the scientists had no intention of examining ways to lower costs for consumers. They just wanted more questions so that they could keep getting their grant money and saying "the public" wants answers to this. I still have access to this little debate word for word and often read it just to make sure I didnt miss something. Not sure if I can post some of the exchanges due to legalities, KNOW I cant post some of it due to language, dont want to post some of it due to me being a smart*** at one point.. (who me? naahhh:roll
But I still to this day think the scientific community just wants to keep their grants/jobs so they will keep on arguing this until they die.
But I still to this day think the scientific community just wants to keep their grants/jobs so they will keep on arguing this until they die.Beach Fanatic
Tell me you have ever seen a GW sticker on the back of a Prius.
I'm not sure if any of the attached story is correct, but if true, you might want to consider ditching the Prius Bob.
By Chris Demorro
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ?green car? is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius?s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn?t be writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ?dead zone? around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius? battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist?s nightmare.
?The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,? said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn?t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ?nickel foam.? From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven?t even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius?s arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called ?Dust to Dust,? the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Beach Fanatic
I have read that over and over. A vegetarian in a Hummer puts less stress on the environment/has a smaller carbon footprint than a meat eater in a Prius
Beach Fanatic
Let's stir this thing up here a little ibt.
One of the best ways to sharply reduce global warming is to stop burning fossil fuels. The alternative sources are conservation, wind, solar, tide, geothermal and the old stand by:Nuclear.
Yes, there are dangers in nuclear, but there a dangers in continuing to burn fossil fuels, not the least of which is global warming. Others include economic meltdown (Do I hear a Shelly on this one?), inflation like we have never seen before as we print $ to pay the folks in the Middle East for the crude oil, spills, etc.
We have what it takes to get something done, but sit on our lobbyist butts and let the folks in Dubai buy $360 million planes, build 365 day/year indoor sky slopes, etc:All with out money.
One of the best ways to sharply reduce global warming is to stop burning fossil fuels. The alternative sources are conservation, wind, solar, tide, geothermal and the old stand by:Nuclear.
Yes, there are dangers in nuclear, but there a dangers in continuing to burn fossil fuels, not the least of which is global warming. Others include economic meltdown (Do I hear a Shelly on this one?), inflation like we have never seen before as we print $ to pay the folks in the Middle East for the crude oil, spills, etc.
We have what it takes to get something done, but sit on our lobbyist butts and let the folks in Dubai buy $360 million planes, build 365 day/year indoor sky slopes, etc:All with out money.
Beach Fanatic
Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies? Imagine the wind off the gulf sometimes.
Imagine the wind off the gulf sometimes. Beach Fanatic
Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies?
Not that I think that it would help with global warming and it sure would be ugly, but on this one I agree with SCK. Let's put up some big old wind farms around the country. In addition, lets add a small windmill to each new house built in the US. Again, ugly, but it sure would put a dent in our reliance on foreign oil and keep us away from adding any more nuclear waste to the planet. I also think we need to think seriously about adding solar panels to most homes in very sunny climes of the US. In addition, I think we need to put major dollars into researching fuel cells for vehicles. Right now fuel cell technology is cost prohibitive, but who would have thought 30 years ago that a very powerful computer would be sitting in the laps of most Americans on a cost effective basis. Doing all of those things would put a real hurt on all the Islamo fascists that are funding terrorism with oil money and be good for the environment.
See, Bob, I do believe in conservation. I'm just not buying the whole man, carbon dioxide, global warming hype.
Beach Fanatic
Anobody know much about these? You Texans and Okies?
These suckers work. They are in Califirnia and lots of other places.
Fisher is saying the same thing I am, I am probably just more aggressive about the whle thing. Just think how much we could get done if we divert all of the NASA money and manpower to doing something about this.
The most stable and costs efective fuel cells depend on dissociating water into Hyrdogen and Oxygen. Best way is electricity made with, you guessed it, nuclear power.
Beach Fanatic
Wonder if they would work as well in Tennessee? the windmills, that is?
How is energy obtained from tides? Seems like a lot of power would be in the ocean?
the windmills, that is?How is energy obtained from tides? Seems like a lot of power would be in the ocean?
Edited
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.