According to John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, global warming is about as true as Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony.
In a series of tweets and emails he sent to Al Gore and various Democratic supporters and organizations, he called out climate alarmists with a barrage of facts based on actual science and not wishful thinking. As it turns out, if you chart global temperatures back into the ’70s, there are absolutely no signs of global warming.
Continue on page 2:
So, of course, the position of one former TV weatherman who doesn’t even have a degree in meteorology, much less in climatology, trumps that of countless scientists and negates mounting evidence and a clear cause and effect relationship between between increasing carbon in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures. I suppose it is very comfortable to latch onto anything that supports what you want to be true so that you don’t have to do anything about it.
Meteorology is *not* the relevant discipline, either. Geology and planetary cosmology are relevant because they encompass all of Earth’s systems and their interaction.
Using meteorology and oceanography alone only gives transient and contemporary information. That information is useless in the debate.
I am just a simple man, but even I can follow the money… Every scientist that even hints of evidence that climate change is false…Loses their funding. Speaks volumes to an ordinary “hick” such as myself…
Surprisingly this guy can’t read a thermometer.
How old is the earth? Can scientists agree on that? So basically scientist are using data from one day out of 27 years to make this hypothesis. Explain this to me again how anyone can make these “global warming” statements unequivocally? Seriously!
We just recently beat a hight temperature record from 1916-ish. Must’ve been global warming a lot back then, after which we took a 100 year break.
If libs really want to help… stop driving and flying and heating your home. Give a larger percentage of your income to the government. Please… save us all!
I found this 30 minute presentation interesting. I also found many comments interesting, by the logic of some comments, only money from business people can influence a persons perception of facts and data, money from the government in the billions, does not have any effect on perception of data by people receiving grant and research money? Interesting perspectives to say the least.
Global Warming: The Myth of Settled Science
If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?
They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.
— Charles Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html
“Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy. So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.”
— Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Nuclear Energy Institute