Huh... And this guy is going to have the ear of the next president... So much for that swamp...

 

Weather Channel Founder: Man-Made Global Warming is ‘Baloney’

(CNSNews.com) – On the same day that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a major new global warming report, John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel, appeared on CNN Sunday to reiterate his stance that “climate change is not happening.”

Describing himself as a “skeptic,” not a denier – “that is a word meant to put me down” – the veteran weather forecaster told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that the news network was promoting an inaccurate view on the issue.

“CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, that it is a consensus,” he said. “Well, there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts.”

“And if you get down to the hard, cold facts, there’s no question about it: Climate change is not happening, there is no significant, man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future. There’s a whole lot of baloney.”

Coleman said climate change has become part of the Democratic Party platform, adding that he regretted that the issue has become “political instead of scientific.”

“But the science is on my side,” he declared.

Challenged on the assertion that “97 percent of climate scientists” are in agreement on the issue, Coleman charged that the figure was “manipulated.”

Since the government only funds scientists who put out results “supporting the global warming hypothesis,” he claimed, “they don’t have any choice.”

“If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.”

 

Doesn't change anything about how Breitbart lied...

 

so you want to make this thread about media lying....

where do you want to start next------CNN-CNBC-MSNBC-CBS-NYT-Huff Post....

 

Breitbart LIED??
Is that what elitists call it when someone posts something they don't agree with?
Shooter nods; now he understands ................

 

I enjoyed watching her rip into said person when I saw this on the news yesterday.

You go girl ...

 

Since you went on that lies mission here is an interesting video ...

 

New York AG Schneiderman, Massachusetts AG Healey, and several others attempted to subpoena and depose climate and energy scientists in the oil industry and many non-profits in order to muscle them out of business by trying them for thought crimes. Their offense? Denying the global warming religion. They were forced to stop, of course, and many of the affected organizations are now countersuing.

Most climate and energy scientists do, in fact, agree with most of the hard science with respect to greenhouse gases and their warming effects on closed systems.

But that is where the consensus ends. The earth is not a closed system. It is a fantastically complex open system. And there is no consensus on whether it is warming due to human activity, and even less consensus on whether this is even a bad thing. Certainly the earth has been much warmer in the past, and life thrived as a result. So, we do not even have consensus on how warm the earth is supposed to be. What is the ideal ambient temperature for life on earth? No one knows.

So, given there is in fact no consensus, here is the question:

When a credentialed climate scientist verbalizes skepticism to the politically charged aspects of global warming dogma, is he/she a liar?

Or, to put it another way, are Schneiderman and Healy right? Is he/she guilty of a thought crime?

 

The problem with global warming deniers is that they use natural cycles of warming and cooling over the last several millenia to say that it is normal for the earth to experience warming trends and that things like the erosion of the ozone layer, increased use of fossil fuels and higher populations of both humans and methane-producing cattle have nothing to do with the increasing speed to global warming.

This is just idiocy.

On the other hand, global warming 'supporters' claim that cutting back on the use of fossil fuels and seeking alternative energy sources will stop global warming.

This is also nonsense.

The earth IS undergoing a normal cycle of warming and it will continue for a while. However, this warming trend is ENHANCED by human factors (like raising more cattle for meat, burning fossil fuels and.....well.....having more and more babies adding to a population that the planet has a difficult time supporting).

Simply by burning less fossil fuels will NOT stop global warming. Even cutting back on cattle-raising will not. Even limiting population growth will not. However, a combination of all of those things will SLOW the global warming trend. Not stop it----it will STILL get hotter, perhaps for another hundred years, but it can slow it.

To deny global warming at ALL, however, is like a blind man trying to explain to a deaf man what a food neither has ever eaten tastes like. Pointless.

 

Was Greenland every really green? Did Iceland ever have a climate that could grow crops?

So maybe, just maybe, the planet was warmer at one time than it is now.

And guess what? In the past it's been colder than it is now, too.

And this has been going on for much longer than the time that man has been on Earth.

 

@umpire2:

The problem with the global warming debate begins with the assignation, "denier." I call people who use that word "believers," and I am convinced that I am entitled.

The Mt. Washington Observatory, which has been monitoring extremal weather for more than a century (albeit in one microclimate) runs with virtual autonomy, is beholden to no one, and is staffed by credentialed meteorologists. The Observatory, to this day, takes no stand on anthropogenic global warming on the grounds that the data are inconclusive.

People, think about that: set aside all the politically charged hyperbole about rising sea levels and the inundation of coastal cities over the next century. MWO won't even take a stand on whether anthro warming, in and of itself, is even occurring.

And yet, the scientists who staff MWO rank among the consensus who do agree that (1) greenhouse gases warm atmospheres in closed systems, and (2) mankind generates greenhouse gases, and (3) mankind's activities must contribute to the earth's climate to some degree (as all life does).

I am one of those evil "deniers," yet even I, myself, am rationally convinced of the above assertions.

But I do not agree that (1) catastrophe looms, (2) we know how to fix it, and (3) we are technologically capable of doing so. Therefore I oppose the approach. Killing the oil industry, subsidizing windmills, wasting money on solar farms that generate joules per unit area less efficiently than burning wood, and all the rest.

On the other hand, I do agree that we should clean the earth for its own sake. For the health of the air and the oceans. But regressing back to the stone age is not the way to do it. A better approach is to do the exact opposite. Build out energy infrastructure and use that infrastructure to progress economically and technologically, so that we have sufficient intellectual and capital resources to develop the next-generation technologies that will really SOLVE these problems, and not just serve to assuage our guilt by letting us convince ourselves that we are living "green," or whatever that means, to no ultimate benefit whatsoever, while China and India develop by burning every last liter of fossil fuel that we conserve.

 

Your side, my side...

Lies are lies. I don't care who talked.

 

No one likes Hillary except the leftist losers and the bought and paid for MSM.

 

Yes you do care.

 

Coming from someone who doesn't know...

 

What a crock of shit.

'' The warmest in recorded history''....

Recorded history goes back just 166 years+/-, hardly an accurate form of measuring the 'historiclly significant' changes the Planet has experienced over the past 100 million years.

 

Yea......certainly this thread that ''you'' made goes totally against your claim

 

And that claim would be?

 

I recently proposed a question to RoMmy.

It was simple question, it goes like this;

''Who is the sole authoritarin to determine what a fact is?''....He couldn't answer that question.

Although I was enlighten the the text book defintion as to what a ''fact'' is.

So now, I want to propose a question to you...(maybe you can do better than RoMmy did).

''Who is the sole authoritarin to determine what a lie is?''

 

Lol! There's no point to answering because urine igit!