Thursday, November 8, 2007
Amazing article
There is a community of journalists, scientists, educators and ordinary people called ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project). In an article published there yesterday (h/t Newsbusters via Laura), John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, wrote an article in which he sweepingly excoriates the global warming crisis and calls it a scam in which "some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming." He goes on to say that "huge research grants" were steered the way of these scientists in order "to keep the movement going" and soon "they claimed to be a consensus." He adds that "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." To be honest, I found myself cheering as I read this, because I have wondered if there wasn't room in the media world for letting a few people speak who think that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a quasi-religious matter requiring panic and hysteria.
By the way, lest we think Coleman is simply a flatfoot Luddite denier, he is not. His point is that global warming is not the right phrase because it is really "climate change," and perhaps most importantly,
By the way, lest we think Coleman is simply a flatfoot Luddite denier, he is not. His point is that global warming is not the right phrase because it is really "climate change," and perhaps most importantly,
it 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. . . . and natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.He concludes by saying that he believes "the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend." (I vividly remember people worrying a lot about a coming ice age, and I'm not old enough for that to have been more than 20 or so years ago.) His main and final point is - and I applaud him for saying this and I hope that his credentials will garner his article the attention it deserves - that the sky is not falling.
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 9:05 AM
jau — at 2:29 PM, November 08, 2007:
ligneus — at 4:30 PM, November 08, 2007:
jau — at 4:34 PM, November 08, 2007:
ligneus — at 7:09 PM, November 08, 2007:
jau — at 7:43 PM, November 08, 2007:
DADvocate — at 9:50 PM, November 08, 2007:
| posted by jau at 9:05 AM
8 more:
jau — at 2:29 PM, November 08, 2007:
Quite the summary, there! But how does one argue with that?
And who does one support for the White House, with all this in mind? Help!
And who does one support for the White House, with all this in mind? Help!
< home >
ligneus — at 4:30 PM, November 08, 2007:
I guess I did boil it down a bit! You argue by keep plugging away at the facts and spreading such as the series of articles in The National Post on The Deniers.
As for the White House, I'm for Giuliani, in large part because of his strong supportive stand on Israel and his realistic view of the Islamic states. [Remember when he told the Saudi prince to stuff his million dollars where the sun don't shine. I think that's how he put it.]
Romney is too much like a manager in a large corporation.
John McCain I think would make a fine president but he is getting a bit old, if he were to win two terms he'd be 80 at the end of it.
Huckabee seems to be coming along well, don't know enough about him but do we want another governor from Arkansas? I know that's unfair, just as it is that Jeb Bush can't even consider a run.
I like Fred a lot but I'm in two minds about him, I like his directness and common sense but he does seem old and tired.
As for the Dhimmicrats, do we want the children running the show?
As for the White House, I'm for Giuliani, in large part because of his strong supportive stand on Israel and his realistic view of the Islamic states. [Remember when he told the Saudi prince to stuff his million dollars where the sun don't shine. I think that's how he put it.]
Romney is too much like a manager in a large corporation.
John McCain I think would make a fine president but he is getting a bit old, if he were to win two terms he'd be 80 at the end of it.
Huckabee seems to be coming along well, don't know enough about him but do we want another governor from Arkansas? I know that's unfair, just as it is that Jeb Bush can't even consider a run.
I like Fred a lot but I'm in two minds about him, I like his directness and common sense but he does seem old and tired.
As for the Dhimmicrats, do we want the children running the show?
< home >
jau — at 4:34 PM, November 08, 2007:
I think McCain is also a bit too loose a cannon - if that's the way to put it. Who can blame him, but he's just not rational enough for my taste. I think I agree with you about Guiliani although his temper and his NY-ness may make him unelectable. On the other hand, if it's between Billary and Rudy, many people who loathe NYers will have to bite one or another very unpleasant bullet. (Do you want to run?!)
< home >
ligneus — at 7:09 PM, November 08, 2007:
I'd forgotten actually the 'weird factor' with Giuliani though to me he's not as weird as either of the Clintons.
Hugh Hewitt has interesting stuff about Romney.
Was the 'do you want to run?!' directed at me? I'm not even a citizen but in any case my little brain would not be up to it. Now Alan Sullivan I could vote for, his wide knowledge and wise judgement are amazing.
[Why did spell check pick up on judgement, I don't see anything wrong with it]
Hugh Hewitt has interesting stuff about Romney.
Was the 'do you want to run?!' directed at me? I'm not even a citizen but in any case my little brain would not be up to it. Now Alan Sullivan I could vote for, his wide knowledge and wise judgement are amazing.
[Why did spell check pick up on judgement, I don't see anything wrong with it]
< home >
jau — at 7:43 PM, November 08, 2007:
It picked up judgement because we in the U.S. spell it without the "e". And some think English is English is English. Ha.
I'll read the Hewitt stuff. I agree that Billary are far weirder than Rudy. Scary, too. And besides, no one is supposed to re-occupy the White House, darn it all.
I'll read the Hewitt stuff. I agree that Billary are far weirder than Rudy. Scary, too. And besides, no one is supposed to re-occupy the White House, darn it all.
< home >
DADvocate — at 9:50 PM, November 08, 2007:
Vedy, Vedy interesting. But it was awful hot this summer!! :-) The alarmists, who always seem to be left wingers, have little concern for facts or the truth. Having taken only a little over a year of geology in college, I easily saw holes in the alarmist's message.
I took a candidate quiz and Huckabee came the closest to my views. whatever the case, I definitely won't be voting Democrat.
I took a candidate quiz and Huckabee came the closest to my views. whatever the case, I definitely won't be voting Democrat.
< home >
< home >