Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

trickblue

11-08-2007, 08:20 AM

Link (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/)

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Intro by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap, CCM

I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

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 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 do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, 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. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

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. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

PosterChild

11-08-2007, 08:28 AM

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

-H.L. Mencken

AbeBeta

11-08-2007, 08:48 AM

I have read dozens of scientific papers.

Wow. Dozens of papers. That's some deep research there.

Of course, there aren't many scientific libraries in kookootown

jterrell

11-08-2007, 09:08 AM

Joe D'Aleo is funded by Exxon.

Just visit exxonsecrets

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

Roger Pielke Sr. heralds a new bunch hawking their wares as climate consultants, and an ill star group they are. The demeriti among them, and there are many, certainly have a bunch of time on their hands. However mice shouldn't take the list too seriously. This is the braindead child of Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist who we last met as author of the Fraser Institute Summary for Making Bad Policy, one of the last doors in the Exxon AR4 Advent Calendar

He set up a booth at the American Meteorological Society meeting and asked anyone who had an interest in what they planned to leave their names and addresses.

Like from a melting ice cap, the rodents of denial who left their names are already jumping ship. Chip Knappenberger, from New Hope Environmental Services (Pat Michaels' chop shop) said:

To my direct knowledge, some of the “experts” listed were not contacted by ICECAP, and in fact, have no idea as to who or what ICECAP is. So clearly, they should not be referred to as “our experts” which carries an air of association when done exists. This is not good form and this misunderstanding should be cleared up by the ICECAP management

Which is a nice way of saying Pat and I and our friends have our own things, include us out. Chip says he talks to others besides Pat. Joe D'Aleo has an interesting reply:

Icecap is funded by private individuals and think tanks not associated with the oil or major corporations.

Eli understands such formulations, CEI is not associated with Exxon, except for getting some funding from them, so Exxon can pass the money to us through them, or something like that. It is called implausible deniability. The effort does have the stink of Regency Press, Pajama Media, etc. typical US right wing money washing . But you can see that Chip was right, and there will be others leaving the list soon by reading D'Aleo's description of how the experts "joined" Icecap:

The experts listed were all informed that the effort was underway and agreed to help provide their expertise or allow us to use their material or link to the material on their sites. We told them for that material, we would list them as contact experts and link to their sites or books.....

All the members listed below the expert list signed up at the AMS annual meeting where we had a booth or via email. That list will grow.

D'Aleo pwnd S. Fred and Sally just like Siggie and Sally got everyone else with the Heidelberg Appeal, the Leipzig Declaration, the OISM petition! Irony is good.

* Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor, Climatology, Arizona State University
* Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
* Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research University of Albany, Policy associated with sudden disasters. Not clear he is a real Ice Capper.

* Robert Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
* William Cotton, Professor, Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
* David Deming, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma
* James R. Fleming, Professor, Colby College. Not clear he is a real Ice Capper
UPDATE: Well that was a good guess, see the comments.

* Mel Goldstein, Chief Meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut.
* Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer IPCC
* William Gray, Meteorologist
* Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist
* Warwick Hughes, Earth Scientist
* Craig D. Idso, Founder, Chairman of the Board, and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
* Sherwood D. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
* Madhav Khandekar, retired Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada
* David Legates, Associate Professor in Climatology, University of Delaware, still another victim of the Kaine shuffle
* Joseph E. Luisi, Former Chief Meteorologist for Delta Airlines
* Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
* Pat Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, the original Kaine shuffle victim
* Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa
* James O’Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University
* Gary Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
* S. Fred Singer, President of the Science & Environment Policy Project
* Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama
* George Taylor, Faculty Member, Oregon State University’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences....Note NOT Oregon State Climatologist, another victim of the Kaine shuffle.
* Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
* Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator, ACRIM Experiments Somehow Eli doubts this, take a look at the list of ACRIM C0-Is

jterrell

11-08-2007, 09:13 AM

trickblue

11-08-2007, 09:22 AM

Joe D'Aleo is funded by Exxon.

The intro is by Joe D'Aleo, not the article...

There is a difference...

peplaw06

11-08-2007, 09:29 AM

Joe D'Aleo is funded by Exxon.

Just visit exxonsecretsFor the record, this piece wasn't written by Joe D'Aleo. It was John Coleman.

And you citing a environmentalist group's website for damning evidence about D'Aleo and exxon raises just as much skepticism. They benefit in the same sort of way.

Again the problem with this scam concept is who benefits?

Who has more to gain by lying? Exxon or CNN?

I'd take this a lot more seriously if every expert who disagrees with global warming didn't also happen to get paid for those opinions, not from their university salaries but from think-tank paychecks that are all funded by far right-wing groups most with direct ties to exxon.

When my two small kids are telling different stories I can generally understand the lie. It is neither wants to get a smack on the butt. Lying is generally done with a purpose. When it involves adults it most often has to do with money.That's a two way street jt, and you know it.

Odds are you're never going to find any research done by someone who is completely devoid of some type of underlying bias.... look for it hard enough, and you'll find it.

And if you were to find such a person, odds are he wouldn't have the extensive resume of the people who are getting paid by someone else to do the research, because there is big money to be made in research.

jterrell

11-08-2007, 10:17 AM

The intro is by Joe D'Aleo, not the article...

There is a difference...

D'Aleo worked for Coleman and later paid Coleman for articles presented by D'Aleo himself such as the one you are posting.

Exxon/Mobil has spent over 20 million dollars in an effort to delay environmental concerns. And why not when they are making more than that per day in profits.

The tobacco companies did much the same thing.

This stuff isn't new and it doesn't require much intelligence to see who has the most to gain from lying.

No doubt feeling some heat, Exxon/Mobil issued a statement recently in response to an IPCC update: "There is increasing evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period-and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions." The statement also acknowledged that "the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant...it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks..."

Whether the company is really ready to aggressively develop alternative energy sources-like its competitors Shell and BP-is yet to be seen. But environmental leaders share a guarded optimism that the tide is turning in their favor and that Exxon/Mobil will back up its words with action-eventually.

jterrell

11-08-2007, 10:19 AM

For the record, this piece wasn't written by Joe D'Aleo. It was John Coleman.

And you citing a environmentalist group's website for damning evidence about D'Aleo and exxon raises just as much skepticism. They benefit in the same sort of way.

That's a two way street jt, and you know it.

Odds are you're never going to find any research done by someone who is completely devoid of some type of underlying bias.... look for it hard enough, and you'll find it.

And if you were to find such a person, odds are he wouldn't have the extensive resume of the people who are getting paid by someone else to do the research, because there is big money to be made in research.

I understand it works both ways thus my distinction about who has the most to gain.
It is self-serving Exxon/Mobil or various environmental nuts.

I certainly wish we had less environmental nuts because they just cloud the issue but the Exxon guys have money at stake. Big, big, big piles of money.

In the midst of "global warming" Exxon has produced the biggest profits of any American company in history. Easily outdistancing their competitors who are actually taking some environmental steps.

paladin78749

11-08-2007, 10:28 AM

Then it comes down to an issue of credibility.
Exxon has a history of shafting "ordinary joes" in order to keep it's profits high.
I don't see the same track record from the opposition.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

ConcordCowboy

11-08-2007, 10:56 AM

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Exxon/images/plante.jpg
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Exxon/images/powell.gif
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Exxon/images/crowson.gif
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Exxon/images/walthandelsman.gif

jterrell

11-08-2007, 11:28 AM

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 02:04 PM

D'Aleo worked for Coleman and later paid Coleman for articles presented by D'Aleo himself such as the one you are posting.

Exxon/Mobil has spent over 20 million dollars in an effort to delay environmental concerns. And why not when they are making more than that per day in profits.

The tobacco companies did much the same thing.

This stuff isn't new and it doesn't require much intelligence to see who has the most to gain from lying.

No doubt feeling some heat, Exxon/Mobil issued a statement recently in response to an IPCC update: "There is increasing evidence that the Earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period-and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions." The statement also acknowledged that "the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant...it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks..."

Whether the company is really ready to aggressively develop alternative energy sources-like its competitors Shell and BP-is yet to be seen. But environmental leaders share a guarded optimism that the tide is turning in their favor and that Exxon/Mobil will back up its words with action-eventually.If you don't think CNN, NBC, CBS, and the weather channel aren't benefiting by supporting the global warming farce, you need to look more closely. AGW is a huge story. Without this story, fewer people will these networks (especially the weather channel). Some of the large networks are also owned by other companies that would benefit from the selling of environmentally friendly products.

The industries that would be hurt the most by Kyoto would be automobile manufacturers, utility companies, and you.

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 02:07 PM

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Exxon/images/crowson.gif
I find this cartoon ironic, since it was posted by someone who supports a party that consistantly has raised taxes on gasoline. I also don't see liberals rushing to reduce gas taxes to help out the working poor.

Doomsday101

11-08-2007, 02:26 PM

Again the problem with this scam concept is who benefits?

Who has more to gain by lying? Exxon or CNN?

I'd take this a lot more seriously if every expert who disagrees with global warming didn't also happen to get paid for those opinions, not from their university salaries but from think-tank paychecks that are all funded by far right-wing groups most with direct ties to exxon.

When my two small kids are telling different stories I can generally understand the lie. It is neither wants to get a smack on the butt. Lying is generally done with a purpose. When it involves adults it most often has to do with money.

Big money in research grants that keep them in business. I have no problem with the research but right now they do not know the reasons why they have theories not hardcore facts. The Earth they know has seen many climate changes over the millions of years and no one know the exact reason why. Only problem I have is with idiots like Al Gore and his scare tactic BS

ConcordCowboy

11-08-2007, 02:45 PM

I find this cartoon ironic, since it was posted by someone who supports a party that consistantly has raised taxes on gasoline. I also don't see liberals rushing to reduce gas taxes to help out the working poor.

Hey I don't agree with the Dems on everything.:D

Exxon's massive profits aren't coming from gasoline taxes.

Doomsday101

11-08-2007, 02:55 PM

Hey I don't agree with the Dems on everything.:D

Exxon's massive profits aren't coming from gasoline taxes.

No they come from many things restriction in refineries being one that help drive up the cost. City and states also require them to produce different blends to meet air quality standards. Tell me how is global warming the fault of the oil companies? They seem to get blamed for every ill in the world and seem like an easy scape goat by liberals. Funny thing is it will be the Exxon, Chevrons and others who are working on alternative fuels because in the end they are companies who want to provide energy to the public be it oil or another an alternative fuel

AbeBeta

11-08-2007, 02:59 PM

Big money in research grants that keep them in business.

Research funding is predicated on issues being under researched. Consistently finding support for a specific theory is the surest way to bring a close to the funding stream.

Also it is important to note that researchers do not profit a great deal from research grants. For researchers at universities or research institutes associated with universities, the "profits" are limited. For example, a researcher who earns $100,000 a year from his university position would be capped at earning roughly $135,000 a year to work full-time on Federal research grants (Federal grants are the game here since most other funding sources simply cannot afford multimillion dollar grant programs)-- there is no "double-dipping," you can't get another Federal Grant to bump your salary up higher - that's a hard cap on all Federal salary from grants over the year. Also, that $135,000 is not on top of the researcher's salary, it PAYS the researcher's salary so that the university may hire a replacement. So we are talking a modest gain in salary here.

Incidentally, most researchers in this field are tenured faculty who would retain their positions even if they did not receive any funding in the future. The only way tenured faculty lose positions is if they do something like falsify data -- which is a claim implicit in some of the ideas expressed over and over in this argument.

So the "big money research grant" idea is one that is both overstated and overblown. The financial motivation does not match the level of conspiracy implied.

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 03:04 PM

Research funding is predicated on issues being under researched. Consistently finding support for a specific theory is the surest way to bring a close to the funding stream.

Also it is important to note that researchers do not profit a great deal from research grants. For researchers at universities or research institutes associated with universities, the "profits" are limited. For example, a researcher who earns $100,000 a year from his university position would be capped at earning roughly $135,000 a year to work full-time on Federal research grants (Federal grants are the game here since most other funding sources simply cannot afford multimillion dollar grant programs)-- there is no "double-dipping," you can't get another Federal Grant to bump your salary up higher - that's a hard cap on all Federal salary from grants over the year. Also, that $135,000 is not on top of the researcher's salary, it PAYS the researcher's salary so that the university may hire a replacement. So we are talking a modest gain in salary here.

Incidentally, most researchers in this field are tenured faculty who would retain their positions even if they did not receive any funding in the future. The only way tenured faculty lose positions is if they do something like falsify data -- which is a claim implicit in some of the ideas expressed over and over in this argument.

So the "big money research grant" idea is one that is both overstated and overblown. The financial motivation does not match the level of conspiracy implied.

Would this restriction also apply to grants from organizations funded by oil companies or environmental groups?

ConcordCowboy

11-08-2007, 03:10 PM

No they come from many things restriction in refineries being one that help drive up the cost. City and states also require them to produce different blends to meet air quality standards. Tell me how is global warming the fault of the oil companies? They seem to get blamed for every ill in the world and seem like an easy scape goat by liberals. Funny thing is it will be the Exxon, Chevrons and others who are working on alternative fuels because in the end they are companies who want to provide energy to the public be it oil or another an alternative fuel

To be honest I'm not blaming them for Global Warming...that was just a cartoon about their massive profits that had the dog saying that.:p:

I really dislike Exxon because of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Yes they did pay to clean up...like they should...but it's still not clean.

My gripe with them is how they still haven't payed the damage part of the award against them (which was cut in half by a Appeals court) and they keep fighting it...which finally will be coming to a end because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Now I know that that's their right...but the amount owned to those people who's income was decreased or destroyed is something like only one or two DAYS worth of profit...and it's been 18 years!

Some of these people are dead now and never saw any money.

I know some people will say well that's business and I know that's true...I just don't care for how they've handled it.

JMO.

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Hey I don't agree with the Dems on everything.:D

Exxon's massive profits aren't coming from gasoline taxes.The gasoline taxes also hurt the working poor. Gasoline taxes are some of the most regressive taxes that the government can raise. Why would an organization that claims to be so concerned with the poor tax a commodity that affects the poor more than the rich???? The fact that the money goes to the federal government instead of Exxon doesn't impact the working poor much. The money still comes out of their pockets!

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 03:14 PM

To be honest I'm not blaming them for Global Warming...that was just a cartoon about their massive profits that had the dog saying that.:p:

I really dislike Exxon because of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Yes they did pay to clean up...like they should...but it's still not clean.

My grip with them is how they still haven't payed the damage part of the award against them (which was cut in half by a Appeals court) and they keep fighting it...which finally will be coming to a end because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Now I know that that's their right...but the amount owned to those people who's income was decreased or destroyed is something like only one or two DAYS worth of profit...and it's been 18 years!

Some of these people are dead now and never saw any money.

I know some people will say well that's business and I know that's true...I just don't care for how they've handled it.

JMO.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will add some interest payments on this money that hasn't been paid.

ConcordCowboy

11-08-2007, 03:19 PM

The gasoline taxes also hurt the working poor. Gasoline taxes are some of the most regressive taxes that the government can raise. Why would an organization that claims to be so concerned with the poor tax a commodity that affects the poor more than the rich???? The fact that the money goes to the federal government instead of Exxon doesn't impact the working poor much. The money still comes out of their pockets!

I agree taxes on gas should be cut.

But my point on this whole thing is I dislike Exxon...for the Alaskan oil spill... and of course their greed.

ConcordCowboy

11-08-2007, 03:20 PM

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will add some interest payments on this money that hasn't been paid.

That would be nice.

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 03:31 PM

I agree taxes on gas should be cut.

But my point on this whole thing is I dislike Exxon...for the Alaskan oil spill... and of course their greed.I dislike Exxon for the Alaskan spill as well, but it's a completely different environmental issue. I believe Exxon got off too light for the disaster they created.

ConcordCowboy

11-08-2007, 03:42 PM

I dislike Exxon for the Alaskan spill as well, but it's a completely different environmental issue. I believe Exxon got off too light for the disaster they created.

No question in my mind.

And 18 YEARS later..still haven't payed up.

Pathetic.

jterrell

11-08-2007, 03:46 PM

If you don't think CNN, NBC, CBS, and the weather channel aren't benefiting by supporting the global warming farce, you need to look more closely. AGW is a huge story. Without this story, fewer people will these networks (especially the weather channel). Some of the large networks are also owned by other companies that would benefit from the selling of environmentally friendly products.

The industries that would be hurt the most by Kyoto would be automobile manufacturers, utility companies, and you.

To prove that you would have to show some link between these stories and increased revenue. Truth is there isn't much if any correlation there.

Global Warming doesn't draw all that much interest.
Can anyone here say they watched even one extra minute of NBC because of Green Week? I wouldn't even know they had it if I wasn't already watching shows and saw it.

I am sure some companies will benefit, but who exactly? Will GE? Perhaps. But they already had you buying light bulbs which are a temporary product. You were already buying new kitchen electronics and dishwashers. They aren't high end and aren't super cheap. They just exist in the market and will continue to get purchased if they are price competitive. Tying some eco-friendliness in helps but it isn't going to separate them from others who do the same.

In paying for this type of media coverage it isn't cheap. So it has to be motivated by either huge sums of money which should be readily traceable or some other means. That other means could be ill-gotten gains but it isn't really all that likely.

Auto manufacturers will benefit when they produce new hybrids with serious curb and performance appeal. Then they can push me out of my Durango and into a new eco-friendly car. Used cars sales will slow and new car sales will rise.

Essentially companies who put money now into research and development will benefit. If they can come up with eco-friendly products that do not sacrifice quality and can be price competitive.

Oil companies are specifically against global warming because they do not have other forms of money making yet to replace it. They aren't going to sell you alternative products. At least not yet. And these companies are run by short-timers who want to build a fortune in the short term and let everyone else worry about later. Financial impatience is the biggest problem we face in this country and in any free market system imho.

AbeBeta

11-08-2007, 03:53 PM

Would this restriction also apply to grants from organizations funded by oil companies or environmental groups?

That is a federal cap -- but the feds have nearly all the money. Funding from environmental organizations or even oil companies is minor in comparison. Whereas most climate change researchers have federal funding, very few would have funding from those other sources. You can cherry pick on or two who do have that sort of funding, but environmental and oil companies are not the primary funding sources for most of this work.

iceberg

11-08-2007, 03:54 PM

what's really funny is the "idea" here isn't really debated in this thread.

who wrote it and *their* background is.

it just seems no matter what someone says, minds are never changed, just altered to keep the current view alive.

jterrell

11-08-2007, 04:11 PM

Would this restriction also apply to grants from organizations funded by oil companies or environmental groups?

It would if they hold professorial positions but they are mostly retired or on extended leave of absence specially so they can earn more money.

Many of these folks were academics at some point but the majority of folks spouting about a GW conspiracy are not currently.

The problem I have is these think tanks are by and large not paying for "research". They are funding the marketing and advertising conspiracy charges against global warming. A think tank in and of itself is a way to create ideology much more so than any research tool.

AbeBeta

11-08-2007, 04:33 PM

That is a federal cap -- but the feds have nearly all the money. Funding from environmental organizations or even oil companies is minor in comparison. Whereas most climate change researchers have federal funding, very few would have funding from those other sources. You can cherry pick on or two who do have that sort of funding, but environmental and oil companies are not the primary funding sources for most of this work.

Just to be clear -- I of course am talking about work from a pro-warming stance done by university faculty...

burmafrd

11-08-2007, 05:00 PM

"Global Warming doesn't draw all that much interest."
Jterrel, how could you type that with a straight face?

burmafrd

11-08-2007, 05:02 PM

More then a few holes have been punched in the Global Warming THEORY- but you will not hear about it in the mainstream media since its not part of their AGENDA.

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 05:19 PM

That is a federal cap -- but the feds have nearly all the money. Funding from environmental organizations or even oil companies is minor in comparison. Whereas most climate change researchers have federal funding, very few would have funding from those other sources. You can cherry pick on or two who do have that sort of funding, but environmental and oil companies are not the primary funding sources for most of this work.I was asking, because a lot of the loudest supporters and detractors receive money from conservative and liberal organizations that are largely funded by oil companies, environmental groups, and far-left liberal and right-wing conservative rich hacks.

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 05:21 PM

It would if they hold professorial positions but they are mostly retired or on extended leave of absence specially so they can earn more money.

Many of these folks were academics at some point but the majority of folks spouting about a GW conspiracy are not currently.

The problem I have is these think tanks are by and large not paying for "research". They are funding the marketing and advertising conspiracy charges against global warming. A think tank in and of itself is a way to create ideology much more so than any research tool.
I'm not sure where you got this from. Most of the people that I quoted during the debates were still professors. Many of the scientists screaming the loudest on the pro-GW side are currently not professors.

Cajuncowboy

11-08-2007, 07:31 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

:lmao:

BrAinPaiNt

11-08-2007, 08:56 PM

Bush admits U.S. has big role in global warming

LINK (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010612climate0612netp2.asp)

Tuesday, June 12, 2001

By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON -- After the White House admitted badly handling its abrogation of the global warming treaty, President Bush yesterday conceded as he left for his first diplomatic trip to Europe that the United States is a major player in heating up the Earth.

Calling for more scientific research into how carbon dioxide emissions damage worldwide climate patterns, the president said: "Our country, the United States, is the world's largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases; we account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions."

Yet he pointed out that the statistic means 80 percent of those emissions come from other countries, such as India and China, which would have been exempted from the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, angering many in the United States.

The Small Business Survival Committee applauded Bush's speech as showing "real leadership," citing his condemnation of the treaty as "unrealistic," "arbitrary" and "not based on science."

Bush in recent days has sought to mollify European leaders regarding his administration's repudiation of the treaty as he prepared to meet with more than a dozen of them for the first time to discuss global warming and his plan to speed up implementation of a missile defense system, which many of those leaders also oppose. Bush is also likely to encounter protests throughout Europe over both issues.

The president's comments yesterday offered no new steps to immediately tackle global warming, and environmental groups were not pleased. As he spoke in the White House Rose Garden, Greenpeace environmental activists picketed outside.

David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said: "President Bush says he takes global warming seriously, but he is stalling instead of acting to cut global warming pollution. The Bush energy plan, which calls for burning more fossil fuels, would actually accelerate global warming."

The National Wildlife Federation said Bush's call for more study is "akin to studying a speeding train while standing in its path."

White House chief of staff Andrew Card yesterday told reporters that the Kyoto treaty was "fatally flawed," but added, "We didn't do a good job" explaining why or calling for a new round of debate on global warming. While Bush was correct to say "the emperor has no clothes" regarding the Kyoto pact, "the timing was wrong because the stage was not set," Card said.

The pressure for Bush's remarks yesterday came from a report that a National Academy of Sciences task force recently released, which concluded that global warming is a genuine concern.

Bush said the report was a review of existing science, but that more research is still needed. "The academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming," he said. "And finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided."

The Clinton administration insisted that the available research was conclusive that carbon dioxide emissions must be curtailed.

But Bush said more money is needed to study global warming and developing technologies to cut greenhouse gases, such as car exhaust and power plant emissions, that warm the earth by trapping infrared radiation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has for years contended that $1.4 million annually to monitor carbon dioxide is not enough.Bush's call for more research likely means it will be years before another treaty of the scope of Kyoto accords comes close to global ratification.

BrAinPaiNt

11-08-2007, 08:57 PM

Admission - Bush's simply admitting global warming exists isn't enough. Something must be done.

LINK (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11107)

Gerald Eisman
July 1, 2006

Admission - A voluntary acknowledgment of truth. 2. A fact or statement granted or admitted; a concession.

President George Bush’s acknowledgment that an increase in human-caused greenhouse gas emissions is contributing to global warming signals more than a shift in rhetoric. It signals the fact that, at last, he is beginning to think INSIDE the box. What it shows is, when bludgeoned with the facts often enough, even the hardest of heads begins to crack and political rhetoric eventually crumbles when it runs head-on into facts.

Before arriving at the Group of Eight summit in Scotland, Bush publicly acknowledged that the surface of the Earth was getting warmer and that human-caused greenhouse gases were contributing to the problem. He also said he would reject any calls for action by fellow G8 members to impose limits on carbon emissions. Some people will simply have their own way even when they haven't a clue what that way is.

The National Academy of Sciences announced that data amassed after reconstructing global average surface temperatures for the last two millennia show that human activities are responsible for much of the recent global warming. Actually, the findings show that earth is hotter now than it has been in the last 2000 years.

Discoveries by other agencies have shown that global warming produced about half the hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005. The research further pointed out that natural cycles of weather were a minor factor in the trend. Skeptical of the reports, congress sought answers to how researchers could project backward two thousand years and determine temperatures. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chairman of the House Science Committee, asked the academy for the report after House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx) launched an investigation of three climate scientists.

To this writing, the Bush administration has maintained that the threat from global warming is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls. According to the White House, such controls would cost America 5 million jobs. Is this a fact? NO! The Bush administration has done absolutely no research to substantiate its claim that policies to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants would do any harm to the U.S. economy. While industry trade associations have published many misleading claims of economic harm, two comprehensive government analyses have shown that it is possible to reduce greenhouse pollution to levels without harming the U.S. economy.

Since taking office in 2000, President Bush has opposed the Kyoto Protocol. In March 2001, after reneging on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, President George W. Bush announced his administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international accord setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In renouncing the protocol, the president and members of his administration have used a number of seriously flawed arguments.

There are no countries exempt from the protocol, contrary to administration rhetoric. Developed countries such as the United States, with only 25 percent of the world's population, are responsible for more than 75 percent of the accumulated greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere. Nonetheless, many developing countries - including China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina - have made progress in reducing the greenhouse gas emission rates from their economies through improved transport, forestry and other policies. While U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, emissions in China have dropped more than 17 percent since 1997. We are now the world's leader in greenhouse gas emissions.

Now that Bush recognizes that fact, has he any plan to correct the problem? NO! The administration has announced that it is conducting a cabinet-level review of the global warming and that the president believes that working with friends and allies we can develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to combat global climate change." The administration has not offered any explanation for announcing its conclusions before conducting the review.

Is there anything Americans can do to help in some small way to alleviate the situation? Yes!

* We can buy energy-saving appliances. Purchase only items that display the energy-star label.

* Install efficient shower-heads or clean old heads for more efficient water use and heating.

* Lower the temperature of your hot water tank to 120 degrees.

* Insulate your home, water-heater and all exposed pipes.

* Get into recycling of bottles, cans, paper goods and plastics.

* Buy products made of recycled materials.

* Keep automobile and truck tired properly inflated.

* Make your next auto purchase a hybrid.

* If you are a home-owner, invest in deciduous trees for shade around the house, and

* Invest in "green power" for electricity in your home.

By doing any or all of these simple improvements you will take a step toward helping keep global warming in check. There is one more thing we all can do as Americans to help in this endeavor. Make it clear to every current and aspiring politician that in order to get our vote, they absolutely must take a positive stance on global warming. Not only does America depend on that, the whole earth does.

BrAinPaiNt

11-08-2007, 08:58 PM

Bush admits to being hotter and gassier, blames humans

LINK (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/09/g8_global_snoring/)

G-8 commits to inaction
By Ashlee Vance in Chicago → More by this author
Published Saturday 9th July 2005 21:14 GMT
Download free whitepaper - Building a Virtual Infrastructure from Servers to Storage

World leaders are mad as hell about global warming and happy to take it some more.

Despite much global warming grumbling, the G-8 crew left Gleneagles with their standard commitment to inaction intact. The powers did manage to leak the part of their communique that dealt with climate change, so that everyone knew the issue bothered them all. The document, however, failed to detail any environmental goals or plan of attack.

[B]The bout of impotence surprised many who expected Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair to exert significant pressure on George Bush over the global warming issue. Instead, Bush left the summit unscathed. But Bush could be cracking if a speech before the G-8 festivities began is any indication.

"Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," Bush told reporters in Denmark.

That statement marks a rare alignment between Bush's state of mind and that of the scientific community. It's also the typical, minor concession Bush makes to let the global warming freaks feel like they're accomplishing something. The president maintains a stance that says the US economy will crumble if its adherers to Kyoto accord-like policies.

Meanwhile, the Yourtushimpressesmyhandanator Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, went on a global warming crusade ahead of the G-8 meet and greet.

"Ze duh bate is o fer," he (or a staffer) wrote in an opinion piece. "We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate. And we know the time for action is now."

BrAinPaiNt

11-08-2007, 08:59 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

:lmao:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

:lmao:

Cajuncowboy

11-08-2007, 09:25 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

:lmao:

It's still a bunch of crap. Therefore..........

:lmao:

As well as

:lmao2:

And yet people still think it's real. Bush has fallen into the Bill Clinton syndrome of working for a legacy. Maybe if he touts some of this stupid nonsense than they media will portray him better.

Of course they won't but that can be the only explanation I can come up with.

If you are so hot to believe him of this, why not Anything else?

People that believe in this also believe in UFOs and Big Foot. Just ask Dennis Kusinich.

BrAinPaiNt

11-08-2007, 09:25 PM

It's still a bunch of crap. Therefore..........

:lmao:

As well as

:lmao2:

And yet people still think it's real. Bush has fallen into the Bill Clinton syndrome of working for a legacy. Maybe if he touts some of this stupid nonsense than they media will portray him better.

Of course they won't but that can be the only explanation I can come up with.

If you are so hot to believe him of this, why not Anything else?

People that believe in this also believe in UFOs and Big Foot. Just ask Dennis Kusinich.

I don't care one way or the other.

Just not had a chance to bust your balls in a long time old buddy.:D

AtlCB

11-08-2007, 10:03 PM

Bush admits U.S. has big role in global warming

I think statement proves that AGW is a hoax.

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

peplaw06

11-08-2007, 10:06 PM

silverbear

11-09-2007, 12:11 AM

Only problem I have is with idiots like Al Gore and his scare tactic BS

Let's see-- you're arguing politics on a football board, Gore is winning awards all over the place for his work... but HE'S the "idiot"?? :D

silverbear

11-09-2007, 12:14 AM

I really dislike Exxon because of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Yes they did pay to clean up...like they should...but it's still not clean.

My gripe with them is how they still haven't payed the damage part of the award against them (which was cut in half by a Appeals court) and they keep fighting it...which finally will be coming to a end because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Now I know that that's their right...but the amount owned to those people who's income was decreased or destroyed is something like only one or two DAYS worth of profit...and it's been 18 years!

Some of these people are dead now and never saw any money.

I know some people will say well that's business and I know that's true...I just don't care for how they've handled it.

JMO.

I'm a native born Alaskan, and will let myself run out of gas before I'll pull into an Exxon station... I'll hitchhike 30 miles with a gas can rather than put even one nickel into those bastidge's pockets...

Ever...

jterrell

11-09-2007, 12:44 AM

"Global Warming doesn't draw all that much interest."
Jterrel, how could you type that with a straight face?

Show me the highly rated specials on global warming then we can talk. Show me the money we sink into global warming funding.

Polls show global warming is a very low priority for folks.

Gore gets a nobel prize for his work and in America the vast majority either don't care or are up in arms over it.

The people who care most are idiotic neo-cons with AGENDA driven blinders on doing Exxon's dirty work.

Problem is like with GW Bush, Exxon is now admitting to Global Warming and leaving its chirping birdies hung out to dry.

Oh well the neo-cons can't always be wrong... they'll get one right one day....

:laugh2:

I really do think it is sad that neo-cons do not see that this nonsensical political theory was started by flat liars and thieves, folks in jail now or who have been pardoned or protected by bush, and was simply dirty politics to get their way. The never had a moral high ground or any superiority in any area except in political terrorism.

I disagree with tried and true libertarians and conservatives(liberals too actually) in many areas but I respect them, neo-con fan boys make me wanna vomit.

jterrell

11-09-2007, 12:50 AM

I find it mildly ironic that GW believers, will cite a guy, who they routinely defame as a moron, imbecile, and borderline retarded, and think that helps make their point when he supports their theory.

They say, "Bush is a moron."
Then they turn around and say, "So you don't believe in GW? Well Bush does. So it must be true."

It's like anyone who doesn't believe in GW automatically believes everything that comes from Bush's mouth, so if he believes it, then 100% of people in the US should believe it.

Bush gets quoted because he was initially on the side of the neo-cons. Bottom line is folks are jumping ship from that dated perspective and the slow ones still hack away at keyboards trying to keep faith in an idiotic concept.

The ex-Bush backers are still making arguments Bush has long sense discarded.

arglebargle

11-09-2007, 02:10 AM

Like I said elsewhere...

... the idea that the human population could go from 1 to 6+ billion, with the related exponential explosion in poisonous and harmful industrial wastes, without having some effect on enviornmental patterns seems rather strained to me.

Exactly what's appropriate for the response? Well, that is the rub, isn't it?

ConcordCowboy

11-09-2007, 08:04 AM

Bush gets quoted because he was initially on the side of the neo-cons. Bottom line is folks are jumping ship from that dated perspective and the slow ones still hack away at keyboards trying to keep faith in an idiotic concept.

The ex-Bush backers are still making arguments Bush has long sense discarded.

Yep and people are always saying it's the Liberals saying Global Warming is happening...because they want us to eat tofu or drive a Prius or whatever...blah..blah...blah.

And here's their Republican...(compassionate:ralph: )Conservative President...who's NOT a Liberal saying that not only is Global Warming happening...but that people are to blame.

Personally I put no credence into really anything that Bush says...I just think it funny that now even Joe Rock head is saying it's true.

AtlCB

11-09-2007, 08:39 AM

Yep and people are always saying it's the Liberals saying Global Warming is happening...because they want us to eat tofu or drive a Prius or whatever...blah..blah...blah.

And here's their Republican...(compassionate:ralph: )Conservative President...who's NOT a Liberal saying that not only is Global Warming happening...but that people are to blame.

Personally I put no credence into really anything that Bush says...I just think it funny that now even Joe Rock head is saying it's true.....and I can show liberals who believe the opposite.

Bush is also an idiot.

BrAinPaiNt

11-09-2007, 08:41 AM

I find it mildly ironic that GW believers, will cite a guy, who they routinely defame as a moron, imbecile, and borderline retarded, and think that helps make their point when he supports their theory.

They say, "Bush is a moron."
Then they turn around and say, "So you don't believe in GW? Well Bush does. So it must be true."

It's like anyone who doesn't believe in GW automatically believes everything that comes from Bush's mouth, so if he believes it, then 100% of people in the US should believe it.

The same could be said for the other side.

That he is not a moron and so on but if he admits something they don't like then he is a moron.

Works both ways I guess.

I think the bottom line, no matter what side you fall on, is in the end bush is a moron sooner or later.:D

AtlCB

11-09-2007, 08:42 AM

Let's see-- you're arguing politics on a football board, Gore is winning awards all over the place for his work... but HE'S the "idiot"?? :D
Using that logic, I certainly hope you will not call Bush an idiot. He beat the brilliant :muttley:, award-winning Gore in a national election.

Since, I'm not using your logic, I can call both of them idiots.

Doomsday101

11-09-2007, 08:52 AM

Let's see-- you're arguing politics on a football board, Gore is winning awards all over the place for his work... but HE'S the "idiot"?? :D

Yes and I'm talking politics in an area that is setup for politics. Gore winning some meaningless liberal award does not mean jack to me I know it makes you wet but does not do anything for me. I guess he could post it on the internet that he invented. :laugh2:

ConcordCowboy

11-09-2007, 08:52 AM

....and I can show liberals who believe the opposite.

Bush is also an idiot.

OK now that's at least two things we agree on...this is scary.:D

AtlCB

11-09-2007, 10:05 AM

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.
The response from the AGW crowd on this board was no different.

ConcordCowboy

11-09-2007, 10:15 AM

I'm a native born Alaskan, and will let myself run out of gas before I'll pull into an Exxon station... I'll hitchhike 30 miles with a gas can rather than put even one nickel into those bastidge's pockets...

Ever...

Have you ever been to Prince William Sound?

iceberg

11-09-2007, 10:26 AM

The response from the AGW crowd on this board was no different.

i beg to differ. my mind is open to maybe it is mankind doing it. but i don't think we have adequate proof to make sure all the hype is true.

AtlCB

11-09-2007, 11:27 AM

i beg to differ. my mind is open to maybe it is mankind doing it. but i don't think we have adequate proof to make sure all the hype is true.You are definitely not part of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or manmade global warming) crowd.

jterrell

11-09-2007, 12:04 PM

i beg to differ. my mind is open to maybe it is mankind doing it. but i don't think we have adequate proof to make sure all the hype is true.

I agree.
I do believe there is firm evidence of global warming but to what extent that will continue and what net effect it will have are question marks.

I just do not see any large conspiracy to promote global warming.
Are there cause-heads? Sure. They will be fighting for a cause regardless.

Does that mean because they are super gung ho and overboard that being environmentally aware if not friendly is a bad goal?

Of course not.

Remove the emotional term global warming and most intelligent folks can get that we are seeing water become a valued commodity, we are seeing ice caps melt at record rates, we are seeing oil-reliance bite us in the butt politically and financially et al. Most folks would agree those are worthy items to deal with and certainly not items to be brushed off with a wide brush of calling it a conspiratorial crock.

Ben_n_austin

11-09-2007, 04:29 PM

Wow. Dozens of papers. That's some deep research there.

Of course, there aren't many scientific libraries in kookootown

:lmao2:

Ben_n_austin

11-09-2007, 04:37 PM

Research funding is predicated on issues being under researched. Consistently finding support for a specific theory is the surest way to bring a close to the funding stream.

Also it is important to note that researchers do not profit a great deal from research grants. For researchers at universities or research institutes associated with universities, the "profits" are limited. For example, a researcher who earns $100,000 a year from his university position would be capped at earning roughly $135,000 a year to work full-time on Federal research grants (Federal grants are the game here since most other funding sources simply cannot afford multimillion dollar grant programs)-- there is no "double-dipping," you can't get another Federal Grant to bump your salary up higher - that's a hard cap on all Federal salary from grants over the year. Also, that $135,000 is not on top of the researcher's salary, it PAYS the researcher's salary so that the university may hire a replacement. So we are talking a modest gain in salary here.

Incidentally, most researchers in this field are tenured faculty who would retain their positions even if they did not receive any funding in the future. The only way tenured faculty lose positions is if they do something like falsify data -- which is a claim implicit in some of the ideas expressed over and over in this argument.

So the "big money research grant" idea is one that is both overstated and overblown. The financial motivation does not match the level of conspiracy implied.

Hey, no fair! No making references to the realities of scientific research when talking about GW.

I disagree with posters in this thread. I think there are a lot of scientists w/o bias.

What's in it for the average scientist to be biased?