More evidence why global warming hysteria is BS

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, I don't really like sedans and I don't like FWD. Even if I get a CTS, I won't get 30mpg. Even a 325Ci won't get me 30mpg.

new 328 coupe does 30mpg with a manual.

[CaddyXLR-V]

new 328 coupe does 30mpg with a manual.

So I go from 400hp down to what.... around 210? No thanks. If a get a BMW, it will be a 335Ci.

[Drew Dowdell]

So I go from 400hp down to what.... around 210? No thanks. If a get a BMW, it will be a 335Ci.

See, this is why we are unsustainable... when 300hp in a 3500lbs coupe is barely enough.

[Camino LS6]

It's just time to replace oil, not limit our choices.

Yeah, I'm going to be stubborn about that.

[CaddyXLR-V]

See, this is why we are unsustainable... when 300hp in a 3500lbs coupe is barely enough.

So how would you feel if someone takes away your car, and says your not allowed to drive it anymore? Turns the electricity and heat off in your house and hands you candles and a blanket?

Why should someone else have control over telling me how I should live, what I should drive, and how much I should drive? Who decides how much should be "enough"?

[Robert Hall]

So how would you feel if someone takes away your car, and says your not allowed to drive it anymore? Turns the electricity and heat off in your house and hands you candles and a blanket?

Why should someone else have control over telling me how I should live, what I should drive, and how much I should drive? Who decides how much should be "enough"?

You won't need 400hp when gas gets to $5 a gallon...just quit yer whinin' and get a sensible commuter car like everybody else (Prius, Corolla, Camry, Civic, Accord, etc..)

[Camino LS6]

You won't need 400hp when gas gets to $5 a gallon...just quit yer whinin' and get a sensible commuter car like everybody else (Prius, Corolla, Camry, Civic, Accord, etc..)

Death first!

[ocnblu]

OMG Camino, you actually like the new Kia Death concept car?

[Camino LS6]

I thought it was called a "Smart".

[zhawk]

Meanwhile, I work nightshift when the busses aren't running to and from the base where I work.

I live about 27 miles from work and my Vette averages around 27-29MPG. I live out in the country where it is quieter, property taxes and sales taxes are lower, my insurance is lower, and I have room to breathe. I also moved out there because it had a better school district for my children.

There are a lot of reasons that people like me move out to the country. We accept that we are going to have to drive farther to work but it is worth it for us. I cannot stand city living. Too many people, too close.

[Camino LS6]

Meanwhile, I work nightshift when the busses aren't running to and from the base where I work.

I live about 27 miles from work and my Vette averages around 27-29MPG. I live out in the country where it is quieter, property taxes and sales taxes are lower, my insurance is lower, and I have room to breathe. I also moved out there because it had a better school district for my children.

There are a lot of reasons that people like me move out to the country. We accept that we are going to have to drive farther to work but it is worth it for us. I cannot stand city living. Too many people, too close.

Amen!

[pow]

...and now we have an energy bill that includes raising CAFE standards to 35 mpg combined for cars AND trucks by 2020. Madness.

Auto industry backs CAFE deal

I love how impossible the industry made it seem, predicting dire consequences, extreme costs, the loss of thousands of jobs, and so on, yet the moment they realize their lobbying efforts ineffective and the results inevitable, they openly embrace it. Companies naturally fight change, preferring to stick with what's easiest, while opposing interest groups apply pressure, ultimately creating a nice check and balance that results in a happy compromise.

With the end of cheap oil, fuel efficiency will improve anyway. Frankly I'm optimistic we'll exceed these goals, and with this change from fighting to cooperation, CAFE merely signals the start of a more concentrated effort. We can DOOO it!

[pow]

It's not the factories, the coal burning smokestacks, the 747 that

burns of a billion gallons of 115 octane a year, it is the CARS,

they're the DEVIL, evil I tell you, those sin-promotin' contraptions

must be stopped, but if we can't kill them altogether we can at

least put the screws to 'em... 35mpg including trucks means

they will be dealt such a blow that people will rather WALK than

be outpaced by an '72 Vega with one fouled sparkplug.

Politicians always THINK they can play scientist.

I just came back from a conference on the health impacts of the goods-movement industry on communities, and believe me, cars are just one of the many pollution-reduction sources people target. In LA, it's all about ships that burn bunker fuel 1,000 times dirtier than ULSD, ports that waste energy through inefficient cranes and other equipment, the consequent water quality degradation, the nasty semis still on the road after 15 years, and China. As car enthusiasts, it might seem as if the public focuses too much on cars, but scientists, advocacy groups, and legislators tend to look at it holistically.

Edited December 2, 2007 by empowah

[pow]

There was an article a while back that only .2% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere worldwide comes from cars and trucks (article from The Car Connection). So let me get this straight...we are spending all this energy to regulate something that contributes a fraction of less than 1% of the "pollutants" in the air.

Cars in the US alone account for 5% of anthropogenic CO2. Here was my response...

Despite the rapid economic, population, and fuel-usage growth of China, India and other developing countries, the U.S. is blamed for 25 percent of the planet's human-caused CO2. So the 20 percent of that the EPA attributes to U.S. cars and light trucks is just five percent of the world's newly generated man-made CO2. But only four percent of new CO2 is man-made; 96 percent comes from natural sources, primarily decaying plant and animal life and solar heating of sea water. So U.S. autos contribute five percent of that four percent, or just 0.2 percent of new CO2 added to the atmospheric mix. That is what CAFE targets.

Yes, but as we know from the carbon cycle, nature's release of CO2 is balanced by biological and physical processes (i.e. natural sinks), that remove nature's CO2 from our atmosphere. It is this unaccounted 4%, the 27,000,000 thousands of tons humans emit annually, that exceeds the balancing effect of sinks, resulting in the measured increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration (currently at 380 ppm).

IMO the fact that one nation's automobiles are responsible for *five percent* of the world's net CO2 is staggering. We need action, whether it's higher fuel economy standards as Congress proposes, or higher gas taxes as this author proposes. Of course, we need cooperation from other emitting nations as well, but developed nations have the greatest potential for reducing GHGs.

It's odd how we're so skeptical about things we don't like, yet we completely gloss over the misleading when it's something we agree with.

[pow]

That's what bugs me about "idealism" and "utopia"...it simply will never happen. I visit a skyscraper board often where you get a lot of the anti-car, pro-urban attitude. What they don't understand is that this "urban utopia" will never, ever happen. Never in the history of the world have these utopias succeeded; the idea of everybody living the same is always tainted by corruption of a few at the top. Look at what happened with the Soviets. They had good intentions of this utopic society of government housing and economic equality, but with the lack of competition and disparity there was no innovation, and quickly the living conditions in the USSR deteriorated and stagnated compared to the rest of the world that continued to advance and invent and innovate.

As $h!ty as it is to say it, the world progresses because of disparity and strife. We only look for solutions when we feel threatened. The people who have little see the people who have a lot, and if they truly want that, they will work to get it. That's what this country was founded on...people that had nothing and did great things because they had the determination and drive to change it.

All I see with this anti-car, anti-corporation, anti-technology attitude is failure of people to learn from history.

No one is advocating a utopia in which everybody must live the colorful, adjective-laden world of regfootball's brain. No, people are advocating incremental policy changes that encourage and allow people the option to live closer to their workplace, use the most suitable form of transport, buy local (aka American) when possible, and ultimately reduce their carbon and pollutant footprint.

[pow]

There is a middle ground. I don't understand why all the hystaria over the extremes when just being smart about some things can make huge differences.

IF you work in a major urban area....... don't buy a house 45 minutes away by freeway. Find something closer to work or at least a way to use public transit to get to work. Don't tell me you can't do it. Every major city I have visited in the US had some type of service for the outlying areas.

IF you do change jobs and now have to use a car to get to work and it's a long distance drive. The NEXT time you buy a vehicle, DON'T buy the Suburban or Tahoe. Use some brains and buy something efficient. Yes we know you need to tow your 22' bowrider out to the lake 3 times a year. Avis rents SUVs that can tow it. The money you'll save in gas by not driving a Tahoe 360 days a year would be more than enough to cover the rental charges for the other 5 days. Hell buy a used Fleetwood.. it still gets better mileage than a Tahoe and can tow 7,000lbs.

YES we know you feel safer in an SUV, BUT if you did research you'd find that you are actually safer in most sedans. The Taurus is one of the safest family cars out there, has AWD optional, has "Command" seating and gets class leading fuel efficiency. If you have to be a Euro-snob, get a Saab 9-3 it even comes in a wagon.

IF you have more than 3 kids, buy a midsized crossover and the jumbo pack of condoms.... better yet, get snipped.

Sure there are exceptions to any of these situations. Yes there are people that hunt/offroad/get 14 feet of snow/do construction..... those people are the exceptions. As a society we need to get smarter about things.

How can we possibly think that buying a McMansion on an interest only loan with no money down 1.5 hours from work and driving in a Suburban is sustainable? Yet that is exactly what so many people do.

+1/Agreed/Spot On/Amen!

Also try making better food choices. Food production, distribution, and consumption have enormous implications on the climate. Buying local, organic (when appropriate; e.g. not organic garlic grown in China), trying out a farmers market or CSA when feasible, won't result in testicular shrinkage, nor will it turn you into a "Starbucks-sipping", "tiny eyeglass-wearing" CR-V driver. It will, however, reduce food miles..

[pow]

So how would you feel if someone takes away your car, and says your not allowed to drive it anymore? Turns the electricity and heat off in your house and hands you candles and a blanket?

Why should someone else have control over telling me how I should live, what I should drive, and how much I should drive? Who decides how much should be "enough"?

You can drive whatever you want, pollute however much you want, IMO, but you should be responsible for paying the true cost of these actions, which for sure shouldn't be subsidized.

[Camino LS6]

+1/Agreed/Spot On/Amen!

Also try making better food choices. Food production, distribution, and consumption have enormous implications on the climate. Buying local, organic (when appropriate; e.g. not organic garlic grown in China), trying out a farmers market or CSA when feasible, won't result in testicular shrinkage, nor will it turn you into a "Starbucks-sipping", "tiny eyeglass-wearing" CR-V driver. It will, however, reduce food miles..

There is absolutely no way that I would spend that kind of effort on restricting my life.

[pow]

It blows my mind that these people look to urban environments for solutions. It is such environments that produce so much strife in the first place. It is simple really, too many people, too close together always fosters crime and depersonalization. Even the gated communities in upscale neighborhoods suffer from this herd mentality with restrictive rules via homeowner associations.

I can't stand that kind of crap. I'm going to live my life as I choose.

Point taken, but these people aren't telling rural residents to move into urban environments. Rather they look to existing urban-but-low-density (suburb) residents to consider more centralized, higher-density living when appropriate, as a means to mitigate some of the urban sprawl and traffic. Los Angeles is the ultimate example of freeway-driven urban sprawl from everybody wanting a piece of that pseudo-countryside life.

[pow]

There is absolutely no way that I would spend that kind of effort on restricting my life.

How is pulling up to a farmer's market, buying a bag of oranges, then leaving "restricting" your life any more than pulling up to a supermarket, buying a bag of oranges, and then leaving??

[Camino LS6]

How is pulling up to a farmer's market, buying a bag of oranges, then leaving "restricting" your life any more than pulling up to a supermarket, buying a bag of oranges, and then leaving??

By limiting choices and having to hold this mindset as a directive. Even if I were a proponent, I wouldn't always follow the plan and very few others would. This is just human nature and it dooms ideas like this, no matter how well intentioned.

[Camino LS6]

Point taken, but these people aren't telling rural residents to move into urban environments. Rather they look to existing urban-but-low-density (suburb) residents to consider more centralized, higher-density living when appropriate, as a means to mitigate some of the urban sprawl and traffic. Los Angeles is the ultimate example of freeway-driven urban sprawl from everybody wanting a piece of that pseudo-countryside life.

I understand the concept, it just disgusts me. So socialist and bland.

[regfootball]

But see, that's the problem... All of the bleeding heart policy makers can't police and control China. The U.S. with it's whipped and ignorant, self-loathing population is a much easier target. As usual, WE will be the one's who make compromises for the good of the rest of the world. Same $h!, different day.

My beef is; why do these people who need a hobby instead of taking up the latest 'cause' always tend to gravitate toward Detroit or the automobile in general? Is it the freedom which an automobile gives that they don't like? Is it the tight-knit, rather discriminating culture that they hate? I mean, they've only tried to kill the concept of the car 3 times now and they've only been trying to kill Detroit for 30-40 years now.

I really hope we can avoid major changes, but I fear our fun as car 'enthusiasts' is about over. Especially if this social movement continues to pick up steam. THE GOOD NEWS: Social Movements tend to only last about 5 years and this one seems to already be losing popularity. THE BAD NEWS: The fallout from it will affect us for years via regualtions and such.

[balthazar]

>>"IMO the fact that one nation's automobiles are responsible for *five percent* of the world's net CO2 is staggering. "<<

Curious: what percentage of the world's automobiles are in the U.S.?

[pow]

By limiting choices and having to hold this mindset as a directive. Even if I were a proponent, I wouldn't always follow the plan and very few others would. This is just human nature and it dooms ideas like this, no matter how well intentioned.

The choices are still there. In addition to deciding who to buy from based on cost, quality, convenience, and so on, you can also factor in food miles. Sure, some hold the mindset of only buying domestic (food) as a directive, but not all.

[regfootball]

No one is advocating a utopia in which everybody must live the colorful, adjective-laden world of regfootball's brain. No, people are advocating incremental policy changes that encourage and allow people the option to live closer to their workplace, use the most suitable form of transport, buy local (aka American) when possible, and ultimately reduce their carbon and pollutant footprint.

3 words that = socialist driven agenda. who decides?

some want to solve the problem without restricting freedoms.

some want to legislate and force changes to people's freedoms and think they've solved the problem.

we could probably reduce our pollution by 1/3 simply by banning cars in california, where sprawl was invented. hey, let's start there!

[pow]

3 words that = socialist driven agenda. who decides?

[#1] some want to solve the problem without restricting freedoms.

[#2] some want to legislate and force changes to people's freedoms and think they've solved the problem.

we could probably reduce our pollution by 1/3 simply by banning cars in california, where sprawl was invented. hey, let's start there!

Nope, we want to #1 over #2, don't we?

[regfootball]

Nope, we want to #1 over #2, don't we?

yeah, but letting government be overly active it usually results in a major f-up

i.e wait till they f- up 'universal health care'

usually what happens is those that think they know better find ways to infiltrate government and policy making to steer the agenda to match their idealism. the rest of the general populace that prefers something else is generally too busy with their producing type jobs to divert what free time they have into countering the folks that steer the agenda.

things like supposedly SF banning plastic bags in grocery stores........

those of us who either recycle our bags or use them for trash so we don't have to buy more bags (i.e. they won't have to use more plastic to make more)

nope, gotta ban the bags. POLICY! AGENDA! now i guess we'll just use even more paper. and buy more plastic bags for trash instead of using the ones we have already or recycling them

Edited December 2, 2007 by regfootball

[Camino LS6]

Now we begin to touch the core of things...

[Camino LS6]

I think I'm going to leave this one right where it is for the night. Believe it or not, I temper some of my stronger viewpoints and we are edging oh so close to some of them now. I think I'd better just put down the philosophy and back slowly away...

For now.

[balthazar]

>>"people are advocating incremental policy changes that encourage and allow people the option to live closer to their workplace, use the most suitable form of transport, buy local (aka American) when possible, and ultimately reduce their carbon and pollutant footprint."<<

Would this not, also, include buying domestic automobiles vs. those shipped acorss the Atlantic or Pacific?? Do these people ALSO advocate that 'policy change', or are they looking the other way here?

[regfootball]

God forbid we promote the notion of buying goods from one of our own companies. But we haven't legislated that.

Edited December 2, 2007 by regfootball

[pow]

>>"people are advocating incremental policy changes that encourage and allow people the option to live closer to their workplace, use the most suitable form of transport, buy local (aka American) when possible, and ultimately reduce their carbon and pollutant footprint."<<

Would this not, also, include buying domestic automobiles vs. those shipped acorss the Atlantic or Pacific?? Do these people ALSO advocate that 'policy change', or are they looking the other way here?

Yep, proposals range from $20 billion in low-interest "Green Vehicle Bonds" for domestic automakers to battery R&D funding, increasing the competitiveness of domestic cars in the American marketplace.

Of course there is the argument that people keep cars much longer than food items, and that over time, the emissions from shipment may be offset by differences in fuel efficiency.

[balthazar]

No,no; I am asking if there is any grassroots-level talk of reducing shipping pollution by consumer self-restricting the purchase of imported vehicles.

This is akin to a 'double-dose': burning huge amounts of fossil fuels to get.... huge amounts of fossil-fuel burning vehicles here. As we all know- these numbers (imported vehicles) grow yearly, and some companies (honda, for one) have been steadily & quietly increasing the percentage of their imports AND thusly, their corporate CO2 emissions.

Eliminate the shipping vessels and what would the CO2 savings be worldwide?? What portion of the U.S.'s CO2 emissions are caused by all the ships belching into our ports 24/7- I'd surely enjoy hard numbers here.

Wait; lemmee guess- no one has bothered to check into this because it 'hits home' too painfully. No more priuses? OMGNO!

[PurdueGuy]

No,no; I am asking if there is any grassroots-level talk of reducing shipping pollution by consumer self-restricting the purchase of imported vehicles.

This is akin to a 'double-dose': burning huge amounts of fossil fuels to get.... huge amounts of fossil-fuel burning vehicles here. As we all know- these numbers (imported vehicles) grow yearly, and some companies (honda, for one) have been steadily & quietly increasing the percentage of their imports AND thusly, their corporate CO2 emissions.

Eliminate the shipping vessels and what would the CO2 savings be worldwide?? What portion of the U.S.'s CO2 emissions are caused by all the ships belching into our ports 24/7- I'd surely enjoy hard numbers here.

Wait; lemmee guess- no one has bothered to check into this because it 'hits home' too painfully. No more priuses? OMGNO!

Of course the pollution savings of buying a car built here is only partial if all the parts and materials still come from overseas. Raw material & smaller parts is usually more space-efficient to ship than whole cars, but still...

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

You won't need 400hp when gas gets to $5 a gallon...just quit yer whinin' and get a sensible commuter car like everybody else (Prius, Corolla, Camry, Civic, Accord, etc..)

Or you could get a sensible commuter and save the 400hp car for 'special events' It works for me and keeps my nicer cars, well, nicer, in the first place.

I agree that we shouldn't have to make compromises in what we buy though. I don't think people should just be extravagant for the sake of image but I don't think people should be forced into crap cars either.

[pow]

No,no; I am asking if there is any grassroots-level talk of reducing shipping pollution by consumer self-restricting the purchase of imported vehicles.

This is akin to a 'double-dose': burning huge amounts of fossil fuels to get.... huge amounts of fossil-fuel burning vehicles here. As we all know- these numbers (imported vehicles) grow yearly, and some companies (honda, for one) have been steadily & quietly increasing the percentage of their imports AND thusly, their corporate CO2 emissions.

Eliminate the shipping vessels and what would the CO2 savings be worldwide?? What portion of the U.S.'s CO2 emissions are caused by all the ships belching into our ports 24/7- I'd surely enjoy hard numbers here.

Wait; lemmee guess- no one has bothered to check into this because it 'hits home' too painfully. No more priuses? OMGNO!

I don't remember off the top of my head, but there are definitely stats on CO2 emissions from ports. In LA, a third of NOx and something like 40% of PM come from ships idling on bunker fuel. Yes, those aren't GHGs, but they indirectly contribute to warming, and thei immediate health effects are far more serious.

[Sixty8panther]

IF you work in a major urban area....... don't buy a house 45 minutes away by freeway. Find something closer to work or at least a way to use public transit to get to work. Don't tell me you can't do it. Every major city I have visited in the US had some type of service for the outlying areas.

WRONG!!!

Go 4 miles away from Boston and you've got two options:

1. drive

2. Walk

3. Commuter Rail in VERY select areas (just as expensive as driving)

IF you have more than 3 kids, buy a midsized crossover and the jumbo pack of condoms.... better yet, get snipped.

Now you sound like a jerk.

We all know many of the people breeding in large numbers should NOT

be breeding in general but don't make this about something it's not.

How can we possibly think that buying a McMansion on an interest only loan with no money down 1.5 hours from work and driving in a Suburban is sustainable? Yet that is exactly what so many people do.

And guess what? Until we start flying the Hammer & Sickle over 1600 Penn. Ave

this is still a free country and as such people can waste their money as they

please... free will is a bitch sometimes.

[Chris_Doane]

WRONG!!!

Go 4 miles away from Boston and you've got two options:

1. drive

2. Walk

3. Commuter Rail in VERY select areas (just as expensive as driving)

Now you sound like a jerk.

You either haven't been to Boston lately or didn't open your eyes when you were there. Riding the T isn't that hard.

There's about a zillion bus routes:

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/bus/

The subway

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/

Mmm yup not much light rail service...very few "select areas" there.

Ride a freakin boat some places if you want:

http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/boats/

Sure you might have to walk a couple blocks to a station/stop depending on where you live. You certainly aren't out of options though.

[Drew Dowdell]

WRONG!!!

Go 4 miles away from Boston and you've got two options:

1. drive

2. Walk

3. Commuter Rail in VERY select areas (just as expensive as driving)

1. Lies

2. Damn Lies

3. Statistics

I'd really like to see you back up number 3.... especially with the cost of insurance in Mass.

And guess what? Until we start flying the Hammer & Sickle over 1600 Penn. Ave

this is still a free country and as such people can waste their money as they

please... free will is a bitch sometimes.

Yes, because encouraging people to make more thoughtful, researched, decisions rather than just automatically running off to a suburban McMansion in a Hummer is sooo totally communism. Listen pal, just because you lived under communism doesn't mean that having to give something up out of necessity is the same thing. In WWII this country was willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. Most often these sacrifices were made voluntarily. Today, if we as a society ask people to pick the most efficient vehicle for their ACTUAL* needs or even to try and incorporate public transportation into their lives for the greater good of the country we get asshattery rants like yours saying "OMGZ! NOOO TAHT Is tEH COmmuniMS!"

Sorry man, you've been sniffing 1959 Buick exhaust fumes too long. Communism is just a red herring.

*needing a truck to go to Lowes once a month isn't a real need. Lowes will deliver full truckloads of anything for $60 in a 15 mile radius from the store... often next day.

[mustang84]

More fuel for the fire, this time from the founder of the Weather Channel

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 an illusion 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 environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. 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.

SOURCE: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/co...global_warming/

[Robert Hall]

Sorry man, you've been sniffing 1959 Buick exhaust fumes too long. Communism is just a red herring.

Maybe he thinks it's still 1959 and the cold war is still going on... his rants are usually irrational and devoid of reality in general...

[Camino LS6]

More fuel for the fire, this time from the founder of the Weather Channel

SOURCE: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/co...global_warming/

Well now, that's something.

[Camino LS6]

One minor comment:

While communism may be a red herring, socialism certainly isn't.

It's a very real threat - one you don't need scientists to validate for you.

[Drew Dowdell]

I have socialistic tenancies for businesses that end up being natural monopolies.... utilities, some areas of transportation, those sorts of things. I also tend to not like market consolidation and would like to put stronger limits on mergers and acquisitions. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

[Camino LS6]

I have socialistic tenancies for businesses that end up being natural monopolies.... utilities, some areas of transportation, those sorts of things. I also tend to not like market consolidation and would like to put stronger limits on mergers and acquisitions. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Actually, there isn't much disagreement coming from me on those issues (perhaps a matter of degree).

However, social engineering where it impacts personal choice and freedom has the potential to make me into a revolutionary rather quickly.

The movement to a colorless, least-common-denominator society offends me deeply.

[pow]

More fuel for the fire, this time from the founder of the Weather Channel

It does add more fuel to the fire, but sadly it doesn't add any knowledge or fact. I can quote tons of crap from the internet, too, courtesy of a three-second Google search:

The Heritage Foundation Touts John Coleman and Talk Radio

24 November 2007

The conservative Heritage Foundation recently wrote a column for the conservative FOX News praising conservative talk-radio programs such as Rush Limbaugh's. Among the lauded accomplishments of talk radio was their coverage of issues such as this:

"Television meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, published a scathing article dismissing global warming as 'the greatest scam in history.' "

"Scathing"? Try "feeble." Read the article yourself, and you'll see that it's completely devoid of any arguments whatsoever. It's simply the feeble invective of an old man.

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 back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko 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.

Notice how he misspelled "illusion," and failed to cite any support or substance for his accusation of fraud.

The rest of the article is just more of the same, with grammatical errors all over the place ("Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted"). But this was my favorite part:

I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct

Dozens, I tell you! This article is really the epitome of cranky old man argumentation. Again, I suggest that everyone personally read it.

Also, as a point of clarification, being the founder of the Weather Channel does not make one an expert in climatology. Coleman earned his degree in 1957, then went to work at television stations doing the weather, working for programs such as Good Morning America. Ultimately, he turned to business, founded the Weather Channel, and subsequently retired. It's hardly a groundbreaking story when someone like this comes out of the woodwork and states his opinion (without any substantive arguments other than "I read dozens of articles - trust me!") on an issue like climate change. Especially when he does so in such a weak way. To carry this story, and to market it as a "scathing" criticism, is not highbrow journalism. It's &#036;h&#33;ty journalism.

UPDATE: Here is a summary of the invective:

greatest scam in history... appalled and highly offended by it... It is a SCAM... dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data... an allusion of rapid global warming... same environmental wacko... the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims... Environmental extremist... create this wild "scientific" scenario... to their radical agenda... very gullible... a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam... They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business... manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted... drive their environmental agendas... endorse it without question... environmental elitists berated them... . It is all a scam, the result of bad science... this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid... I am incensed... the outrageous scam

Or...

Weathermen not educated in climate change.

The right wing has been trumpeting the global warming denial of TV weatherman John Coleman, claiming that such a “high profile member of the weather reporting community” should be viewed as a legitimate skeptic of climate change. Climate Progress’s Joe Romm reports that meteorologists generally have thin knowledge of long-term climate patterns:

Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service]certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change.

Romm writes, “Asking a meteorologist to opine on the climate — or even the cause of recent extreme weather — is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a mid-West sheriff the prospects for nuclear terrorism.”

[Robert Hall]

the aztek is a vehicle that truly would benefit from a power rear hatch.

Yes...and if they ressurected the Aztek, offered it with a hybrid or fuel cell powerplant, it could be GM's answer to the Prius...it has strange futuramic styling like the Prius...hmmm...maybe the Aztek was before it's time.

[Robert Hall]

It does add more fuel to the fire, but sadly it doesn't add any knowledge or fact. I can quote tons of crap from the internet, too, courtesy of a three-second Google search:

True..there is a lot of crap out there.. and anything that says 'conservative Heritage Foundation' or 'Rush Limbaugh' I immediately discount...I don't take anything from the right wingers as credible or serious.

[regfootball]

Yes...and if they ressurected the Aztek, offered it with a hybrid or fuel cell powerplant, it could be GM's answer to the Prius...it has strange futuramic styling like the Prius...hmmm...maybe the Aztek was before it's time.

when you have about 20 browsers open and are doing a bunch of IM, sometimes a post goes astray.

oops.

there's been some global warming in the house tonight. the kid tampered with the thermostat and jacked the heat up to 84 degrees, and i just found out. no wonder it was so FREAKING hot in here. and to think, i was about to switch over to the dark side and believe all the crap!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 4, 2007 by regfootball