GLOBALWARMING -- NOT

[Guest]

Al Gore to Lead U.S. Into Abyss on Warming

Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:51 AM

By: Paul M. Weyrich

When I was the political reporter and weekend anchor at WISN TV, the CBS affiliate in Milwaukee, John Coleman was our weatherman. He was s strong conservative and was known for his sense of humor. One time it had rained for 30 days straight. Coleman said if it rained on the 31st day he would produce the weather forecast standing on his head.
It rained.

He did it.

Another time the camera opened on a wide shot of a blindfolded John Coleman throwing darts at a dartboard labeled Hot, Cold, Snow, Rain, Sunny, Cloudy, Fog, Drizzle, and so on.

He had had a string of days when his forecasts had been erroneous. John said, “Well, this probably is as good as my forecasts these days.” Coleman went on to be the weatherman on Good Morning America for seven years. He began the weather channel with his life savings. He subsequently has forecast the weather in New York and Chicago. Today he says his retirement job is weatherman for KUSI in San Diego.

In a remarkable speech before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Coleman was very serious about global warming as the consummate fraud. He began by saying that we should give credit where credit is due. There is, he said, an intrinsic connection between Al Gore’s campaign for global warming and $4 per gallon gasoline. “It comes down to . . . the claim that carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks of our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.”

He then recited Gore’s dire warnings: “The future of our civilization lies in the balance.” That’s the battle cry of the high priest of global warming, Al Gore and his agenda-driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. He said Gore, with a preacher’s zeal, sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here, said Coleman, is my rebuttal. There is no significant man-made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Coleman went on to say that the climate of Earth is changing. It always has changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Coleman explained that through history Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call interglacial periods. He said for the past 10,000 years Earth has been in an interglacial period.

That might be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is Earth warms up. The glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age . . . Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented out of control warming.

As with Sen. James M. (Jim) Inhofe, R-Okla., Coleman makes the case that indeed we may be in a period of global cooling. He said the data is so overwhelming that even the U.N. had to acknowledge it.

So now the best thing proponents of global warming can do is to suggest that global warming is taking a 10-year break on account of the absence of sun spots. If this weren’t so serious it would be laughable, Coleman quipped. He went on to discuss the science behind global warming.

He has dug through thousands of pages of material and examined complicated math and looked at complex theories. The bottom line is this: The entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels.

"They don’t have any other issue; carbon dioxide, that’s it. At that point he tells Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated; and may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming. From there Coleman presents the scientific data to prove his case.
It is a remarkable speech. It is posted at: www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html. Thank God Coleman is in a position to tell the truth. He says younger weathermen are afraid to speak out lest they lose their jobs. Young scientists are similarly afraid of losing research grants.

He blames the media for wanting a crisis and thus reporting pro-global warming stories. But when 31,000 scientists refuted global warming a month ago the media hardly mentioned it.

He said that compares to 2,000 pro-global warming scientists on the U.N. climate change panel who claim that the issue is settled. Coleman said when he and others made a presentation at a New York conference of climate change skeptics, the audience was limited to 600 people.

Every seat was taken.

After his remarks were posted on the Internet, he received hundreds of e-mails and calls supporting his position. No, I am not alone. And the debate is not over. Coleman concluded by saying, “If Al Gore and his warming scare dictate the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession. Drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into the abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.”

"My mission, Coleman ended, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this global warming silliness and let us all get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

Godspeed John Coleman.

[Guest]

Seems like there's enough science to satisfy both sides of this debate. I choose to accept the "global warming is happening" side. No sense going into anymore durm and strang on the subject. It wouldn't do any good. Just mark me down as one concerned about warming and it's effects.

I wonder how different how things might have been if the actual winner of the 2000 popular vote wound up in the White House? It surely couldn't have been worse.

[Guest]

Seems like there's enough science to satisfy both sides of this debate. I choose to accept the "global warming is happening" side. No sense going into anymore durm and strang on the subject. It wouldn't do any good. Just mark me down as one concerned about warming and it's effects.

I wonder how different how things might have been if the actual winner of the 2000 popular vote wound up in the White House? It surely couldn't have been worse.


Global warming (or as it has been renamed, Climate Change) has taken on the status of religion, both pro and con. For all practical purposes, it cannot be discussed and debated. Any points contrary to the accepted dogma is rejected out of hand. Rational discussion at even the most scientific level is almost impossible.

On the last point, there was no popular vote count in 2000. Never was, never is. Hundred of thousands, if not millions of votes are never counted. An exact tally is never a requirement.

An aside ~ in Oct, 2000, the DNC expected Al Gore to wine the electoral vote but quite possibly get fewer votes nationwide than George Bush. They had prepared a media onslaught stressing the validity of the electoral college and denigrating any importance of a "popular vote."

[Guest]

I rarely discuss political issues b/c I believe that thoughtful people can disagree.
Ruth Boorstin, an American author and editor once said, "Be bold in what you stand for and careful what you fall for," I believe she is a wise woman.
Md Blondie

[Guest]

An aside ~ in Oct, 2000, the DNC expected Al Gore to wine the electoral vote but quite possibly get fewer votes nationwide than George Bush. They had prepared a media onslaught stressing the validity of the electoral college and denigrating any importance of a "popular vote."

Personally, I find the electoral college appropriate. The USA is still a confederation of 50 separate countries (states) bound by mutual treaty into federal republic. The Founding Fathers argued long and hard for this concept of government which provides for local independence and national unity simultaneously. We should be that smart!

As far as global warming is concerned, if the proponents of natural climatic shift are right, then the planet is simply recovering from the traumatic effects of its ice age (still believed by many due to meteor strike) and will eventually revert to its "natural" state. Have to admit there is logic to that argument....

There is also logical rebuttal from those who say mankind's pollution of the atmosphere is "warming" the planet.

So, perhaps the real question is - what should the actual climate/temp of this planet be ? ? ? and why ? ? ?

[Guest]

I hate to pester on this one, but I will not pretend to be a climatologist and I get a little skeptical when anyone who is not one claims to have 'proof' one way or another. I have heard people site meteorologists (people who study how weather patterns develop over a 7 day to two week period), biologists (people who study life..cellular, etc.), environmentalists (people who study the ecosystem and biodiversity), and a whole bunch more. Climatologists are the ones who study the climate over thousands (heck, millions) of years, and can identify trends, both short term and long term. I have yet to hear a single one of these people (if you disagree, please find one to prove me wrong) say that the 'Global Warming Theory' is flawed. Taking any other testimony would be like asking a car salesman how a long term mutual fund is going to preform. They may have little snapshots of reality, but they lack the expertise of the big picture. I learned long ago to reserve my opinions about these matters to the people who have the time and energy to learn the 10 years of sceince it takes to make valid inferences. Of course if someone disagrees with me and can show me someone, I would be more than willing to look at them, evaluate their science (with the help of friends) and change my opinion if necessary (like I said, I am not expert and therefore not married to this view).

[Guest]

jeckyl: If you are seriously searching, here is a link to an open letter to Secretary-General of the United Nations. The second link is the long list of signatories to that letter, which should satisfy the biggest skeptic of credentials. This is just the tip of a very large iceberg of people in the field who are starting to speak up.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=164002

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

[Guest]

jeckyl: If you are seriously searching, here is a link to an open letter to Secretary-General of the United Nations. The second link is the long list of signatories to that letter, which should satisfy the biggest skeptic of credentials. This is just the tip of a very large iceberg of people in the field who are starting to speak up.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=164002

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004


This will take some time (it is a new one for me) so please don't think I am ignoring it. I will need to do the research, which may take a week or two. Please keep these coming.... Thank You!!!

[Guest]

Seems like there's enough science to satisfy both sides of this debate. I choose to accept the "global warming is happening" side. No sense going into anymore durm and strang on the subject. It wouldn't do any good. Just mark me down as one concerned about warming and it's effects.

I wonder how different how things might have been if the actual winner of the 2000 popular vote wound up in the White House? It surely couldn't have been worse.


:agree:

If anyone out there hasn't noticed a dramatic change in our weather patterns over the past 30 years, they've been living in a cave.

***By the way, is this the same John Coleman that barely made it as a weather man in Chicago? If it is, he's been around for years, but that certainly doesn't make him good. I remember him as being somewhat of the "joke" of the weatherman in the Chicago area where I grew up. ***

[Guest]

The first step in that letter / list is eliminating the names that are obviously 'out of their expertise' and therefore, does not have the expertise to claim anything with this argument. By looking at their titles (Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.) we know a lot of them are no more of an authority in this than I am, and can be easily eliminated. With names that remain, I will then look up their CV and publishing work in peer reviewed journals to verify that this is an area that they have done research and actually have an expertise in. Finally, I will look at major funding sources to make sure (and this does happen) that they are not being hired to promote a position (i.e. well paid lobbyist for Exxon Mobile). If anyone is still left after that, I will present their research in here.

This list had 100 people sign it, after the first step of eliminating people who were clearly not qualified to make such a statement, 14 people remain that 'may' be qualified. I am now going on to the next step to look at their area of expertise. For example, one of them says, "Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA" I will look him up now.....

Okay, he is a U.S. marine biologist, again, not a climatologist:

Bachelor of Science, Zoology (1967); San Diego State Univ.
Master of Science, Biology (1968), San Diego State Univ.
Doctor of Philosophy, Marine Biology (1972), Univ. of Calif.

So, he is off the list, and our number is down to 13...

I don't have the time to do this for each one right now, but the list is much shorter than I first believed. This should come as no surprise since there was another letter a couple years earlier that was signed by 400 amateurs and lobbyists. Maybe we have couple here that will be qualified enough to listen to.

[Guest]

Here's some information on John Coleman the weatherman. He looks more like an entertainer than a scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)

You will have to copy and paste this link as TOTV seems to have a problem with links that end with a ).

[Guest]

Call him names if you like, that's your right to free speech. Don't let the facts get in your way.

[Guest]

Thanks Tal. Oh yes that's him. He was considered an a** in Chicago and was ultimately fired. He tried to make it in the big city, but didn't do well. I would totally disregard anything this man has to say. Ah yes, he used to call thunderstorms, thorms. Cute -- NOT! Believe me, Wikipedia is being very kind to him. He was pushed out of the Chicago market.

As for the facts, Golfpro, I think you have a whole slew of American and International scientists that would fight you on your stance. But then, some people still believe we staged putting a man on the moon. Might you be one of them? :o

[Guest]

What I HAVE noticed on a few of these topics is that the same people are the insulting, unfamiliar with debate, Bush haters. That makes any further replies or discussion useless. I'm sorry for you all.

I also noticed some folks who just plain stay away from the political topic altogether. I'll bet they found what I have and have identified who I have.

So I will join them for the same reasons they gave. Too bad. TOTV is a nice blog with exceptions of course. I'm not into angry. Grew out of that long ago.

[Guest]

It always comes back to this. Anyone that disagrees is being insulting. (sigh) Takes their toys and goes home. It's an old song, played once too often. So, I personally will say goodbye and good luck to you in your new retirement community. wav

p.s I was on the debating team at Northwestern University. But you did nail me on the "Bush" thing. I don't hate, I just dislike.

[Guest]

Again, don't let facts confuse you. Just continue to bash any messenger, anyone at all. Yes, we will be very happy. We purchased in two locations. Thank you for your concern.

[Guest]

What I HAVE noticed on a few of these topics is that the same people are the insulting, unfamiliar with debate, Bush haters. That makes any further replies or discussion useless. I'm sorry for you all.

I also noticed some folks who just plain stay away from the political topic altogether. I'll bet they found what I have and have identified who I have.

So I will join them for the same reasons they gave. Too bad. TOTV is a nice blog with exceptions of course. I'm not into angry. Grew out of that long ago.


I still have not completed my task yet (will over the weekend). I do what to say something in regards to this real quick. I am new here, but I have already posted a lot. Look at them. I do not insult or name call, nor do I tolerate that. With that said, I do believe that Bush, and his neo-con administration is wrong, they have violated national and international laws, as well as crimes against humanity. I think it is a real shame that he was not impeached, and handed over to the international criminal courts to stand trial for what he has done. I think that would qualify me as a Bush hater.

But before you make any assumptions about my political standing, I think Bill Clinton should be next to him given that his sanctions on Iraq targeted children's medication for children who had diarrhea because Bush Sr blew up the water treatment plants in Iraq War I. Under Clinton the tools and parts to fix the plants were sanctioned, and since the children's medicine was also sanctioned, approximately 3,000 children died each month from preventable illness there.

I also think Reagan had problems (and McCain is part of this one) for violating international and national law when he went into Nicaragua and and funded and trained the Contra Terrorists who targeted churches for attacks and murder countless priests, nuns, farmers, police officers, and other innocent civilians. Matter in fact, the Nicaraguan government took their case to the International Court, who ordered the United States to stop their attacks on Nicaragua, in which we promptly responded with increased bombing.

I guess my point here is that you are trying to categorize people into these simple categories (bush hater = insulting, unfamiliar with debate). I for example (as I am trying to point out above) am not married to a political party nor do I take the right or left side. I believe in ideals like truth, justice, human rights, the spirit of the law, and the survival of the human race. I critically analyze all positions (including my own) and will be the first one willing to change my position in the cases where I discover I am wrong. To me it is these ideals with the desire to hold correct views/positions/beliefs that are more important than anything else. And to be honest, I think that is what makes me a liberal.

Now, I think we should get back to this thread....

And for the record, John Coleman is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. He simply lacks the expertise in this area. He went to school to learn weather patterns to make 14 day predictions. His 'findings' (if you can call them that as there isn't any real science behind them) has been largely discredited in the scientific community and he is not taken seriously outside the circle of right wing talk radio hosts. Simply put, he makes for good ratings but not good science. Not a personal attack, it is simply a factual one. That was kind of the point before, when looking at something like this issue, you need to go to the expert. Listening to a meteorologist on this is like letting a podiatrist preform open heart surgery. They may both be great doctors in their own fields, but if you haven't studied the inter workings of the heart, you are not going to operate on me. ;D

[Guest]

jeckyl, i am a conservative who does not buy into global warming but i truly admire your tenaciousness in ferreting out the truth of this matter. i will be interested to see what else you come up with. you can educate all of us. my only qualm with this issue is that while it is still hotly debated in the scientific community, we are proceeding as if it is gospel truth, issuing carbon credits and legislating corporate sanctions which cause a nightmare bureaucracy, seriously affecting our economy, before all the facts are in. as you said, climate changes over a very long period so how can we know what is really happening in such a short time? keep us informed...and golf pro thanks for the topic...

[Guest]

jeckyl, i am a conservative who does not buy into global warming but i truly admire your tenaciousness in ferreting out the truth of this matter. i will be interested to see what else you come up with. you can educate all of us. my only qualm with this issue is that while it is still hotly debated in the scientific community, we are proceeding as if it is gospel truth, issuing carbon credits and legislating corporate sanctions which cause a nightmare bureaucracy, seriously affecting our economy, before all the facts are in. as you said, climate changes over a very long period so how can we know what is really happening in such a short time? keep us informed...and golf pro thanks for the topic...


I am still looking into this one, but from what I have seen, there is very little debate in the scientific community anymore. It surely is not a 'hotly debated' issue. I tend to go to them for direction, and it is very difficult to find the people who say that GW may be false. When my wife was in school (one of her majors was biology), there was still a lot of debate and skepticism, but now it is very well paid lobbying interests that will fund media campaigns and pay off people with credentials to muddy the waters because a lot of people will lose money if we stop buying gas. The big scientist that first went public to congress against global warming was the head of a major science journal. He was fired when he testified that cigarette smoke was not linked to cancer (this was late 90s early 00s). He went on to say he had evidence against global warming, but hid his study from the scientific community (usually studies are published in peer reviewed journals so other scientists can duplicate them, thus confirming the findings). Nonetheless, every conservative talk radio and news show put him up there as their evidence that the scientific community still debates this issue. The people are being duped, and I fear it is my son who is going to bear the brunt of this.

But like I said, this study is a new one, so, for now, I will stay focused on just this one.

[Guest]

jeckyl,

While I applaud your attempt to get beyond the hype and PR machines of both sides, I think you have too narrowly constrained the debate to one of "climatology" and thereby exclude scientists who hold other educational backgrounds. First, it is not uncommon at all in the realm of research for someone who has a PhD in a particular field to branch off and gain considerable expertise in other areas. Hence, to exclude people solely based upon their interests of 20 or 30 years ago is far too restrictive of a filter.

Secondly, and most importantly, the issue of climate change is MUCH more than just the study of climates. It is far too simplistic and potentially economically devastating to say, "well, things are getting warmer, so let's shackle our economy in an effort to stop CO2 emissions." This, unfortunately, seems to be the mantra of many. For us to make that radical step, it is grossly insufficient to just cite 30 years of temperature change as a rationale. To warrant the type of approach that Al Gore is suggesting ALL of the following need to be true:


The Earth actually is warming
The major cause of the warming is CO2 emissions
We can stop and/or reverse the warming by cutting back on CO2 emissions
The net effect of climate change is sufficiently catastrophic in nature that action is mandatory
Competing economies like China and India will also be willing to take such steps to curb their emissions.
Dealing with climate change by adapting to it is less economically feasible than trying to stop it

As you can see from this list of issues that impact the entire debate, climatology is just one of many sciences that must be involved in the study and proposed solutions. We need biologists, botanists, zoologists, physicists, engineers, geologists, oceanographers, economists and even international relations experts to weigh in on this subject. After all, even if climatological science could tell us with 100 percent certainty that the earth is warming because of CO2 emissions (which they can't), that is insufficient information to make any sort of public policy decision.

[Guest]

I just wonder how anyone can say that this period of 4.5 billion years of weather history is the way it is supposed to be. It is arrogant to me that anyone alive is smart enough to know how the weather is just right since the globe is in constant state of change. Remember the great lakes? they are there because of global warming. Chicago and New york city were under a mile of ice not long ago, good thing things warmed up. In the 70's the same people where telling us that global cooling was upon us.

[Guest]

thanks, njblue, for a very insightful perspective...that is what i was trying to say in my former feeble attempt...and i agree with benj, too.