Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Hot potato this one.
Lets see if we can talk about it in a civil manner without going 'off on one'. By the very nature of who the comments come from make this valid for conversation on here.
We will be watching closely
John Coleman (link at bottom of this post) allegedly says....
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 [sic] 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.
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 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.
http://newsbusters.o...ode/16955/print
Weather Channel Founder says...Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
#4
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 16861
- Joined: 31-May 06
- LocationTonbridge, Kent. 44m asl.
Posted --
Quote
John Mason - 9/11/2007 11:35
I hope he's right ;)
Cheers - John
I hope he's right too, but it's just another opinion/diatribe...so what's new? Some supporting evidence would be too much to ask for I suppose...
#5
Posted --
More dubious polemics from the US far right. Nothing new and certainly insufficient to justify another dozen pages of "debate" on here.
#6 Guest_Convective North_*
Posted --
Like I said Dave...the very nature of who the guy is makes it valid for conversation here. If the founder of Microsoft or Birdseye said said it...I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at it, let alone post it here. This is 'climate chat' which is a bit more flexible than the 'Climatic Discussion and Analysis' section.
I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already.
Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already.
Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
#7
Posted --
So, is he really saying the climate of the planet isn't a warmer one over the past few years? Is he saying the data records have all been manipulated to give this impression? As most of you may know, I'm certainly not an AGW proponent, but surely we 'know' the climate has warmed recently....and the debate is whether it is man made or a natural cycle that is the cause?
#8
- Group: Executive
- Posts: 23774
- Joined: 15-October 02
- LocationEvesham, Worcs
Posted --
What he seems to be saying is that scientists have been working for decades to set up a scam so that govts can raise taxes ......
Now, if only the govts had realised the scam earlier, they could have started raising taxes back in the 80s instead of waiting until now o|
(Actually, looks to me like this guy thinks the hyped up stuff he reads in tabloids is what the scientists think ;) He ought to be a bit more research before making foolish comments about being right)
Now, if only the govts had realised the scam earlier, they could have started raising taxes back in the 80s instead of waiting until now o|
(Actually, looks to me like this guy thinks the hyped up stuff he reads in tabloids is what the scientists think ;) He ought to be a bit more research before making foolish comments about being right)
#9
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 16861
- Joined: 31-May 06
- LocationTonbridge, Kent. 44m asl.
Posted --
Quote
Martin North - 9/11/2007 11:56
Like I said Dave...the very nature of who the guy is makes it valid for conversation here. If the founder of Microsoft or Birdseye said said it...I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at it, let alone post it here. This is 'climate chat' which is a bit more flexible than the 'Climatic Discussion and Analysis' section.
I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already.
Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
Like I said Dave...the very nature of who the guy is makes it valid for conversation here. If the founder of Microsoft or Birdseye said said it...I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at it, let alone post it here. This is 'climate chat' which is a bit more flexible than the 'Climatic Discussion and Analysis' section.
I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already.
Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
Well, use of the word "whacko" to describe people with an opposing view doesn't suggest levelheadedness. ;)
Not sure why these overheated rants which insist on employing words like "scam" and "bogus" i.e. accusations of malpractice seem to be so popular for dredging up and posting here..whoever says them. He may be right for all I care but this kind of sledging is just likely to make people more entrenched in their views and doesn't help the debate at all.
#10 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted --
Quote
Martin North - 9/11/2007 11:56 Like I said Dave...the very nature of who the guy is makes it valid for conversation here. If the founder of Microsoft or Birdseye said said it...I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at it, let alone post it here. This is 'climate chat' which is a bit more flexible than the 'Climatic Discussion and Analysis' section. I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already. Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
Or battered an eye lid even if it was the Birdseye man (groan) ;)
#11 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted --
Quote
Big Dave's Gusset - 9/11/2007 12:15 Well, use of the word "whacko" to describe people with an opposing view doesn't suggest levelheadedness. ;) Not sure why these overheated rants which insist on employing words like "scam" and "bogus" i.e. accusations of malpractice seem to be so popular for dredging up and posting here..whoever says them. He may be right for all I care but this kind of sledging is just likely to make people more entrenched in their views and doesn't help the debate at all.
Quote
Martin North - 9/11/2007 11:56 Like I said Dave...the very nature of who the guy is makes it valid for conversation here. If the founder of Microsoft or Birdseye said said it...I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at it, let alone post it here. This is 'climate chat' which is a bit more flexible than the 'Climatic Discussion and Analysis' section. I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already. Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
Words like that get used all the time when talking about conspiracies for example. If he feels it is all a conspiracy then that is up to him to voice that opinion. It is up to the individual as to whether they believe he is right or not. Global warming is not proved, therefore he cannot provide evidence, as Andy suggested that it doesn't exist. That wouldn't be fair would it. Besides, he doesn't need to. He is simply refuting what has been said. He believes there is a motive for pushing the AGW band wagon - he has explained that motive, so surely that is enough for him to suggest it.
#12
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 16861
- Joined: 31-May 06
- LocationTonbridge, Kent. 44m asl.
Posted --
Quote
Chris Lloyd - 9/11/2007 12:22
Quote
Big Dave's Gusset - 9/11/2007 12:15 Well, use of the word "whacko" to describe people with an opposing view doesn't suggest levelheadedness. ;) Not sure why these overheated rants which insist on employing words like "scam" and "bogus" i.e. accusations of malpractice seem to be so popular for dredging up and posting here..whoever says them. He may be right for all I care but this kind of sledging is just likely to make people more entrenched in their views and doesn't help the debate at all.
Quote
Martin North - 9/11/2007 11:56 Like I said Dave...the very nature of who the guy is makes it valid for conversation here. If the founder of Microsoft or Birdseye said said it...I wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at it, let alone post it here. This is 'climate chat' which is a bit more flexible than the 'Climatic Discussion and Analysis' section. I'm not going to comment on it anymore than to say what I've said already. Some may wish to say more....as long as it is within the forum rules. :)
Words like that get used all the time when talking about conspiracies for example. If he feels it is all a conspiracy then that is up to him to voice that opinion. It is up to the individual as to whether they believe he is right or not. Global warming is not proved, therefore he cannot provide evidence, as Andy suggested that it doesn't exist. That wouldn't be fair would it. Besides, he doesn't need to. He is simply refuting what has been said. He believes there is a motive for pushing the AGW band wagon - he has explained that motive, so surely that is enough for him to suggest it.
So what makes him such an expert on conspiracy?
It's just an diatribe when he could express his opinion in a less confrontational way. Yawn. big fracking deal :s
#14
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 16861
- Joined: 31-May 06
- LocationTonbridge, Kent. 44m asl.
Posted --
Quote
Martin North - 9/11/2007 12:29
Well...this has livened the forum up a bit! ;)
Well...this has livened the forum up a bit! ;)
Well, if that's all that you want... [hehe]
#15 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted --
Quite honestly, if he chooses to think it is complete tosh and *ollox, then that is up to him. He is talking about a theory only, and not directing it at a person, so hardly a diatribe. I personally consider the whole AGW push a thunderous attack on my own ability to judge for myself. I don't like being told adamantly that the current global warming is due to humans, and I certainly don't want my kids being taught it at school. I get this every day of week in some shape or form. If he wishes to be so bold to the contrary, so be it and fair play to him. At least this time we don't seem to be getting the 'who is he anyways' that we normally do. And there is enough smoke to question the supposedly objective manner in which global warming is being looked at. It is subjective, motivated and wholly one-sided at the moment and I welcome a dilution of that, backed up with evidence or not, because there is no solid evidence that AGW exists - only circumstancial events that seem to fit the picture.
#16
Posted --
This report about global warming scepticism just in:
It, Global Warming scepticism, is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming scepticism; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with anti environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion there isn't global warming. Other scientists of the same anti environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus anti global warming claims. Their friends in industry steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Anti environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other anti liberal, anti environmentalist journalists to create this wild "internet" scenario of the capitalism/back to the stone age threatening consequences of being under threat from Global Warming facts and figures we face unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for Climate Audit, Newsbusters, surfaceStations, the Republican Political Party, the Governor of some bible belt state, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible anti environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the anti Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
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 anthropogenic climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not yet catastrophic but it is happening. Our planet is 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 scepticism.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
#17
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 16861
- Joined: 31-May 06
- LocationTonbridge, Kent. 44m asl.
Posted --
Quote
Chris Lloyd - 9/11/2007 13:00
Quite honestly, if he chooses to think it is complete tosh and *ollox, then that is up to him. He is talking about a theory only, and not directing it at a person, so hardly a diatribe. I personally consider the whole AGW push a thunderous attack on my own ability to judge for myself. I don't like being told adamantly that the current global warming is due to humans, and I certainly don't want my kids being taught it at school. I get this every day of week in some shape or form. If he wishes to be so bold to the contrary, so be it and fair play to him. At least this time we don't seem to be getting the 'who is he anyways' that we normally do. And there is enough smoke to question the supposedly objective manner in which global warming is being looked at. It is subjective, motivated and wholly one-sided at the moment and I welcome a dilution of that, backed up with evidence or not, because there is no solid evidence that AGW exists - only circumstancial events that seem to fit the picture.
Quite honestly, if he chooses to think it is complete tosh and *ollox, then that is up to him. He is talking about a theory only, and not directing it at a person, so hardly a diatribe. I personally consider the whole AGW push a thunderous attack on my own ability to judge for myself. I don't like being told adamantly that the current global warming is due to humans, and I certainly don't want my kids being taught it at school. I get this every day of week in some shape or form. If he wishes to be so bold to the contrary, so be it and fair play to him. At least this time we don't seem to be getting the 'who is he anyways' that we normally do. And there is enough smoke to question the supposedly objective manner in which global warming is being looked at. It is subjective, motivated and wholly one-sided at the moment and I welcome a dilution of that, backed up with evidence or not, because there is no solid evidence that AGW exists - only circumstancial events that seem to fit the picture.
DIATRIBE: bitter criticism: a bitter verbal or written attack on somebody or * something *
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Clearly, he can express his opinion - whoever he is ;) It's just appears that being on record as outspokenly anti AGW is by itself enough to give oneself some extraordinary street cred 8-)
Still, as a sceptic who refuses to renounce AGW as completely implausible I suppose that makes me brainwashed follower of the herd...
#18 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted --
Quote
Peter H - 9/11/2007 13:21
This report about global warming scepticism just in:
It, Global Warming scepticism, is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming scepticism; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with anti environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion there isn't global warming. Other scientists of the same anti environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus anti global warming claims. Their friends in industry steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Anti environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other anti liberal, anti environmentalist journalists to create this wild "internet" scenario of the capitalism/back to the stone age threatening consequences of being under threat from Global Warming facts and figures we face unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for Climate Audit, Newsbusters, surfaceStations, the Republican Political Party, the Governor of some bible belt state, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible anti environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the anti Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
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 anthropogenic climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not yet catastrophic but it is happening. Our planet is 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 scepticism.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
Hang on, nothing has been proved as far as AGW, so how on earth can it be a scam to refute something that hasn't been proved in the first place. I think you are getting your chickens and eggs mixed up a bit.
How long did that take you to do ;)
Not everyone believes AGW. It is not set in stone and it is far from proved. I think therefore you are standing very tall above the fence and being wholly presumptuous and naiive to assume that anyone who questions it is some kind of conspiracist. That really does 'begger belief.' That aside, it still doesn't alter the fact that this man is entitled to his opinion, and as you are always so succinctly telling people, don't pay attention if you are not interested in what you hear. Don't waste your time on it re-writing paragraphs from text that show a simplistic view on things. People who don't believe in AGW have nothing to prove, the onus is on them/ you if you wish to be counted amongst them. I will however voice my opinion if I don't agree with it. In the mean time, I will conserve energy and recycle like I have always done and continue to live responsibly. That is the real issue that gets diluted by AGW and all the scientists who have so much to lose if they are wrong about it. And that makes me suspicious - conspiracy theory. That same rule cannot be applied to me, it doesn't work like that.
#19
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 16861
- Joined: 31-May 06
- LocationTonbridge, Kent. 44m asl.
Posted --
Quote
Chris Lloyd - 9/11/2007 13:54
In the mean time, I will conserve energy and recycle like I have always done and continue to live responsibly.
In the mean time, I will conserve energy and recycle like I have always done and continue to live responsibly.
Glad to hear it :)
I agree that there is a danger of serious problems being smothered by a single issue agenda and the hazards of seeking cures that are worse than the disease (e.g. turning over land for food production into "clean" fuel sources).
#20 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted --
Quote
Big Dave's Gusset - 9/11/2007 14:00 Glad to hear it :) I agree that there is a danger of serious problems being smothered by a single issue agenda and the hazards of seeking cures that are worse than the disease (e.g. turning over land for food production into "clean" fuel sources).
Quote
Chris Lloyd - 9/11/2007 13:54 In the mean time, I will conserve energy and recycle like I have always done and continue to live responsibly.
Good then. Everything is being clouded by AGW and I am fed up of hearing about it. Let's worry about the reserves that we have left. Save those more responsibly, and who knows, the 2 may go hand in hand. I still think the current warming trend is natural - just my opinion.
