1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

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

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    29,081 Messages
    451 Likes Received

    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.
  2. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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
  3. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,817 Messages
    1,168 Likes Received
    Wow. Dozens of papers. That's some deep research there.

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

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,218 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    Joe D'Aleo is funded by Exxon.

    Just visit exxonsecrets


    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
  5. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,218 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    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.
  6. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    29,081 Messages
    451 Likes Received
    The intro is by Joe D'Aleo, not the article...

    There is a difference...
  7. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    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.
  8. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,218 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    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.
  9. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,218 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    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.
  10. paladin78749

    paladin78749 Active Member

    154 Messages
    36 Likes Received
    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.
  11. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,748 Messages
    3 Likes Received
  12. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    20,218 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    :lmao2: :bow:

    Those are classic.
    Quite sad but quite true.
  13. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  14. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  15. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    80,130 Messages
    4,855 Likes Received
    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
  16. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,748 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    Hey I don't agree with the Dems on everything.:D

    Exxon's massive profits aren't coming from gasoline taxes.
  17. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    80,130 Messages
    4,855 Likes Received
    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
  18. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,817 Messages
    1,168 Likes Received
    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.
  19. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Would this restriction also apply to grants from organizations funded by oil companies or environmental groups?
  20. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,748 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    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.


Share This Page