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: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../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.

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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."

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

Originally Posted by Muncle

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 ? ? ?

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).

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-pr...html?id=164002

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

Originally Posted by golfpro

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-pr...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!!!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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. ***

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.

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 ).

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

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?

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.

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.