John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, denounces Global Warming in no uncertain terms. He’s right, too.
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.
Tony Lopez-Cisneros
I personally have always had my doubts on this “GLOBAL WARMING” HYSTERIA.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m a personal friend to KEVIN GORE: Nephew of FORMER U.S. VICE-PRESIDENT and “GLOBAL WARMING” ADVOCATE and SPOKESMAN MR. AL(BERT) GORE!
But I have PERSONALLY looked at WEATHER/TEMPERATURE STATISTICS within the LAST 100-to-150 years: and THEY seem to CONTRADICT this so-called “GLOBAL WARMING” Threat/Apocalypse !
Example #1:
Back in the mid/late 1800s, ESPECIALLY in the 1890s; Temperatures in the MID-WEST (Chicago-land area) reached WELL OVER the 90-DEGREE/100-DEGREE level (back when OUR GREAT(-GREAT)-GRANDMOTHERS wore THEIR/THOSE HEAD-TO-TOE LONG VICTORIAN BLACK DRESSES/DRAPES & BLOOMERS) !
Example #2.
Even in THE YEAR 1950; especially on NOVEMBER 1st, 1950 (The day the Three Puerto-Rican Nationalists/Terrorists ATTEMPTED to ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT HARRY TRUMAN in Washington D.C.) The Temperatures that afternoon (in D.C. & Chicago, IL) SWELLED into THE HIGH-80s/MID-90s !
The STATISTICS and RECORDED HISTORIC FACTS & FIGURES CONTRADICT The Hypothesis, Theories and OUTRIGHT SCAM of
GLOBAL WARMING ! ! ! ! ! !
*NOTE: KUDOS TO THE WHEATHER CHANNEL’S FOUNDER. . . . . . .MR. JOHN COLEMAN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Tony Lopez-Cisneros
2002/2004 Candidate for Congress,
United States House of Representatives,
4th Congressional District,
State of Illinois,
Republican.
Web: http://www.lopez-cisnerosin2002.0catch.com
E-Mail: tonyin2002@hotmail.com
Scott D
There is something implanted in the brains of a large part of the populace that requires attribution of every ill that befalls us to human action. The world before humans, after all, was Eden. It was Man that disrupted the perfection. But for Man, everything would be perfect again.
Scott Beall
The entire “debate” on climate change misses a key point. I ask, what would we change, policy wise, if all agreed that global warming wasn’t anthropogenic, or even happening at all? Would we suddenly ignore the need to curtail fossil fuel use? Would we suddenly ignore the reality that oil is very limited, and we must transition to alternatives (a long term proposition) as quickly as possible to avoid a REAL economic shock from waiting and having to do it too quickly? Would we suddenly believe that burning coal has no other negatives? My point, there are countless other reasons to take the mitigation measures for global warming, other than global warming! Get off this ridiculous arguement and begin doing what must be done. It’s as though global warming skeptics are looking for an excuse (i.e. global warming is fake) to avoid facing the reality of what must change in the coming decades, and are in denial regarding the economic benefits of such changes.
JDZ
We might entertain the Abionic Origin theory which eliminates the “running out of petroleum” problem. Or, we might take the optimistic view that the market provides perfectly adequate incentives to reduce usage and to encourage new production and the development of alternatives already, without WE, i.e. Government, doing anything in particular at all, aside from getting out of the way.
As to coal… well, coal was used for heating from Elizabethan times, and on an enormous scale from the time of the invention of the Franklin stove down until the end of WWII. Coal is less convenient than oil largely with respect to the disposal of the ashes problem. But I lived in a house heated with coal as a boy, and I could survive living that way again if it became necessary, which seems unlikely.
If you or some other fellow can invent some wonderfully clean and inexpensive new fuel, why! you or he will undoubtedly become staggering wealthy and terribly famous. Those are nice incentives. I fail to see why tax dollars would more effectively incentivize inventors.
Personally, I think the real problem is the pseudo-intellectual clerisy talking so much rubbish about imaginary solutions to imaginary problems as a means of laying claim to powers over other people’s lives and purses to which they are not entitled.
Please Leave a Comment!