By now most people are aware that the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November.

On Monday, while speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change being held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/w...global-warming-fraud

While your title is not very indicative of the article (Gore isn't being sued for fraud.), I hope Mr. Coleman, who should have enough money, puts that money where his mouth is and sues Gore. As the plaintiff, wouldn't he have to prove that what Gore has said is in error? That might be a bit hard to do. In any case,if he actually wasn't just spouting off, he should hurry. The more time passes, the more information comes in, and the vast majority of that information backs Gore.

John Coleman is being sued for fraud!

Well, er... no , he isn't. But how would Coleman makes his claims stand up in court?

'Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back
in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmentalextremism
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...

...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 the 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...' Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (pdf)

I'm guessing that, if he put some names to the characters his lame conspiracy theories, Coleman would be sued. The "facts" in Coleman's comments aren't any more convincing - for example he's less than honest about the Medieval Warm Period, presenting it as a global phenomenon (like global warming) when we don't know if it was any such thing.

I can understand some businesses, and the politicians they have in their pockets, trying to claim there's no such thing as global warming (or there is but it's not man-made, or there is but it can't be helped, or whatever); some businesses without the resources to develop new products or processes maybe see global warming only in terms of regulation eating into their profits. But why are so many private individuals so set against recognising global warming? Is it that, for some audiences, right-wing commentators have successfully painted anyone who talks about global warming as a granola-eating beatnik?

The pattern goes like this. Some environmental group, sometimes government funded, comes out with a new report, stating how Global Warming is doing this or doing that. Of course it is always blaming man-made greenhouse emissions causing the problem. In turn, the public gets all stirred up about how we are destroying the planet.

It generallt akes anywhere from two weeks to a month for another study for a rebuttal. And every time a rebuttal is put out there, it always blows the conventional Global Warming theories out of the water and shows it to be the junk science that it is.

Sure the conservative talk radio pundits are attacked by the environmental groups. Being right is not always easy. After all when talking about Global Warming, we're talking about someone's grant money that could probably be used elsewhere to fund something more practical.

But I figure once Barack or Hillary takes over the White House in November, we won't be hearing so much about Global Warming. The environmentalis willo have their person in there & will remain quiet for a few years.

"It generallt akes anywhere from two weeks to a month for another study for a rebuttal. And every time a rebuttal is put out there, it always blows the conventional Global Warming theories out of the water and shows it to be the junk science that it is."

Sorry, but this just isn't true. More and more studies show that global waqrming is what the environmentalists say it is, and fewer and fewer say it isn't. Further, the list of 10,000 scientists that the anti-global warming people often quote (If you look in AP, you'll find John Galt using that group.), there is a serious problem: all it takes to get on that list of "scientist" is to state in the letter (or e-mail) that you are a scientist. No one bothers to check to see if those 10,000 are scientists or garbage collectors.

The strongest indication that global warming is bunk is the fact that even bush has said it is a fact, but I suspect that he wanted to go on record as being part of the solution before history faults him for yet another deception.

"But I figure once Barack or Hillary takes over the White House in November, we won't be hearing so much about Global Warming. The environmentalis willo have their person in there & will remain quiet for a few years."

Well, we'll get to see soon enough if you are right, won't we?

DG-In other words you are saying that because more & more scientists are signing on to this bandwagon, that it makes the Global Warming theory true??? So because they are the majority that makes them right??? I don't think so...

So what are all of these scientists going to when they discover the movement they've signed on to is wrong??? Will they acknowledge they are wrong??? No, they will do what they are doing right now. Keep on putting out more junk science BS like they're doing now.

And in the meantime, Al Gore's business activties do nothing to bolster his sagging credibility...

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2008/tc2008035_855093.htm

quote:

It generallt akes anywhere from two weeks to a month for another study for a rebuttal. And every time a rebuttal is put out there, it always blows the conventional Global Warming theories out of the water and shows it to be the junk science that it is.

For example?

The facts are what they are. You are choosing to believe the increasingly smaller and smaller number of scientists, but saying that my accepting what an increasingly larger group of scientists is wrong. What makes your group right, the fact that they agree with you? That is quite simply illogical. As I said, the facts are what they are, and those of us who accept what the vast majority of scientists say aren't relying on a group who allows English teachers and bartenders to masquerade as scientists.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

It generallt akes anywhere from two weeks to a month for another study for a rebuttal. And every time a rebuttal is put out there, it always blows the conventional Global Warming theories out of the water and shows it to be the junk science that it is.

For example?

Here are a couple of articles to illustrate my point. Granted it is not the specified time frame, but it does maintain my point that when new Global Warming information does come out, eventually it is soundly rebutted.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/...%80%99t-cooperating/

You are calling that a refutation of global warming??? I suggest you read the entire National Geographic article, which explains, iin part, the Antarctica anomaly. While you are at it, read the links I posted (in Sammy's thread on global warming) from various glacier experts around the world talking about the loss of glaciers on every continent.

By the way, it's hard to accept as objective a site who proclaims in their first paragraph of its "About Us" page that their purpose is to point "out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming." Nothing like objectivity.

--------
A little information on the Chief Editor of that second site, from Wikipedia (Bold mine - DG) -

[i] Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., (born February 15, 1950) is a part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences on leave from University of Virginia[1]. He is a former university Climatologist for Virginia, a position he held from 1980 [2] [3] until his resignation in 2007 [4]. His professional specialty was the influence of climate on agriculture. In interviews Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades, though he is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic [5][6][7][8][9] who contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and even beneficial in many cases. He has written extensive editorials on this topic for the mass media, and for think tanks and their publications such as Regulation[10].

A number of prominent scientists have criticized Michaels' research conclusions. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." [22]

Climate scientist Tom Wigley, [23] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat is On[24]: "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[25]

Like global warming skeptics Richard Lindzen and William M. Gray, Michaels' World Climate Report offered in late 1998 "to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures."[13] After learning of the bet offer in 2005, climatologist James Annan attempted to accept World Climate Report's offer, but it was withdrawn.

Michaels has also engaged in controversy regarding the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer. In particular, he has criticised predictions of thinning of the ozone layer over the Arctic, and of increasing ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth, in the absence of a phaseout CFC emissions. The Montreal Protocol of 1989 required such a phaseout.

Although scientists generally considered the basis for the relationship between CFCs and the ozone layer to be settled by 1995, when the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Paul Crutzen , Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland for their work that demonstrated physical mechanisms for the effects of CFCs on ozone depletion, Michaels persisted in advocating against the CFC phaseout as late as 2001. [14][15][16]

In a July 27, 2006 ABC News report, it was revealed that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps. The wider context of the report concerned entities within the fossil fuel industry giving money to scientists in an effort to create a perception that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming. [17] But Michaels has long been a skeptic of what he sees as environmental alarmism. He does not, however, deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

[edit] TASSC

Michaels was a member of the Advisory board of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an organization later shown to have been founded by PR firm APCO Worldwide and funded by the Phillip Morris corporation to criticise scientific research inimical to the interests of tobacco companies and other corporations [1].

Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."[26]
--------
Looking at his published workd, I see that Michaels has made a decent living by publishing his theories. Below are some of the footnotes from Wikipedia:

# ^ Kessler, Aaron. "State: Climatologist appointed by university", The Daily Progress (Charlottesville, VA), August 19, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-02-25. "“The Code of Virginia does not provide for the governor to appoint a state climatologist,” [Secretary of the Commonwealth] Hanley wrote. “My office has been unable to find evidence that any governor since 1980 has made such an appointment.""

# ^ Santos, Carlos. "Climatologist request made", Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch, August 19, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-02-25. ""Michaels, who has been the [University's] state climatologist since 1980, has come under fire after news reports last month said a Colorado utility raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges to help him analyze other scientists' global-warming research.""

# ^ Kessler, Aaron. "State: Climatologist appointed by university Michaels no longer Virginia official", The Daily Progress, August 19, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
# ^ Szkotak, Steve. "Virginia asks state climatologist to limit use of title", Associated Press, WVEC, August 19, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.

^ American Geophysical Union (2003-07-07). "Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
--------
(I didn't bother to look at the background of the other 3 guys on the staff of that site. I've been told that I go in for overkill too much, and I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm.)

Or maybe not so soundly...

'The bigger ice mass at the other end of the globe seems less fragile. Except for the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts past the Antarctic Circle, Antarctica is safely deep-frozen. Global warming may even be causing parts of the ice sheet to thicken, because warmer air ferries more moisture, leading to heavier snowfall.' From the National Geographic article. And what about all the other evidence cited in that article - not in Antarctica?

A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.

Meanwhile, in the North

OKAY...and I'm sorry DG, I didn't read your entire post, so if it was about this, please forgive me...

Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that approximately every 20,000 years, the earth's axix shifts a bit? Enough to cause climate changes.

I don't, at this moment, have my hands on the facts behind this...but just recently watched a Science Channel special on it, and am sure I can find corroborating papers.

Global warming is real, yes...but it's a natural occurrence, we're just in the cycle that's been happening for tens of thousands of years.

Sounds to me as though someone is greatly twisting the truth and ignoring the facts because they have an ax to grind against Al Gore and the environmentalists of the world, for some odd reason. Of course, I may be wrong. And, then, of course, pigs may some day sprout wings and fly.

I think people tend to believe what they want to believe. This is done sheerly out of fear. Doesn't matter how many facts you show them, they'll always come up with some sort of counter argument to try to convince others and themselves of. Whatever helps them rest easier.
Al Gore is not a bad guy, but I wouldn't doubt whether someone tries to sue him eventually for some nonsense, just because he's out there trying to raise awareness, which is the first step in doing something to stop the damage being done to our planet.

More on the paradoxical effects of global warming:

"How Global Warming Can Chill the Planet"

Maybe we need another example. Those two cited weren't actually studies, but popular accounts of studies, written for lay people like us. The National Geographic article summarises reports of the loss of ice around the planet, and touches on how Antarctica might appear to buck the trend, for various reasons. The "rebuttal" seizes on what's happening in Antarctica, and tries to say that this is somehow a problem for the whole "greenhouse crusade". It's barely a rebuttal, let alone a sound one.

quote:

Originally posted by Valor D:
Sounds to me as though someone is greatly twisting the truth and ignoring the facts because they have an ax to grind against Al Gore and the environmentalists of the world, for some odd reason. Of course, I may be wrong. And, then, of course, pigs may some day sprout wings and fly.

What does Al Gore do??? He pushes junk science, trying to scare the population into thinking the world will end at any time because of Global Warming. And why is he doing it. The bottom line is the bottom dollar. He makes thou$and$ every time he gives a speech on the subject. I have nothing against him making a lot of money, but what he is doing is feeding a big pack of lies to the American people and the whole world in the process.

When the FACTS are, whatevertemperature changes that do take place are natural occurances. Gizmogram certainly has it right.

I can remember a time years ago, I used to like & respect Al Gore. Then he got hooked up with Bilol Clinton, and the more he pushes the Global Warming myth, trying to call it reality, the man has NO credibility whatsoever. And those who believe his BS are getting suckered big time.

Yes, LR, you have it right, along with the fake "scientists" that are being claimed by the anti-Global Warming group, and the overwhelming majority or real scientists have it wrong. That makes sense.


"I think that I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you on the ass!" ~ Richard Dreyfuss as Hooper, the scientist, in "Jaws"

quote:

What does Al Gore do??? He pushes junk science... what he is doing is feeding a big pack of lies to the American people...

For example?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

What does Al Gore do??? He pushes junk science... what he is doing is feeding a big pack of lies to the American people...

For example?

How about man made Global Warming. That's at the top of my list.

Yes, that's the general topic; for this thread it is the list. Now can you give a specific example of the junk science or lies that Gore pushes and feeds us?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Yes, that's the general topic; for this thread it is the list. Now can you give a specific example of the junk science or lies that Gore pushes and feeds us?

"Arctic ice is melting & may disrupt global weather patterns." (Al Gore, May 2006)

I will not question Arctic ic melting. But the link I posted previously explained what is happening. Essentially we have forces of nature at work here, not man made global warming.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/...%80%99t-cooperating/

What the environmental movement, along with their accomplice, Al Gore, has developed what the stock market would call a "herd mentality". A bunch of people getting on board, only to find out later that they were wrong. And when it comes to man made Global warming & its effects, this is certainly a classic example.