The Weather Channel founder denounces Global Warming

[Person Man]

That's still a ratio of like 30:1, David.


Another issue is not economics, but political ideology. Are there any progressive climate deniers?

[David S]

That's still a ratio of like 30:1, David.

You assume that there are 3 thousand scientists who support the AGW theory. Well where is the list of those scientists? Show it to me. Some of the people on the list I posted were on the IPCC. But they don't agree with the report. Are they counted among the "believers"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that have to do with climate?

[Person Man]

Although, at this point, there may only be enough political will to make an argument for adaptiation. However, we would be missing out on the oppurtunity to create new industries...

That's still a ratio of like 30:1, David.

You assume that there are 3 thousand scientists who support the AGW theory. Well where is the list of those scientists? Show it to me. Some of the people on the list I posted were on the IPCC. But they don't agree with the report. Are they counted among the "believers"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that have to do with climate?

Motive.

[David S]

Although, at this point, there may only be enough political will to make an argument for adaptiation. However, we would be missing out on the oppurtunity to create new industries...

That's still a ratio of like 30:1, David.

You assume that there are 3 thousand scientists who support the AGW theory. Well where is the list of those scientists? Show it to me. Some of the people on the list I posted were on the IPCC. But they don't agree with the report. Are they counted among the "believers"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that have to do with climate?

Motive.

If you are making an accusation then where is your proof?

I could say that Al Gore will stand to profit from government requirements to move to a green economy because Al Gore is the chairman of a company which invests in such businesses.
http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/why.html

If you are looking for profit motive, there it is.

[Person Man]

I was speaking of political motive. We have already established an economic motive for many deniers. What we need to do is figure out is if some people just don't want to admit that they were wrong.

[Person Man]

I was speaking of political motive. We have already established an economic motive for many deniers. What we need to do is figure out is if some people just don't want to admit that they were wrong.

When will the Chicken Littles of the global warming crowd admit that they were wrong? 

And if libertarians can be said to have a economic motive for denying global warming, then 'progressives' (socialists and other malcontents) can be said to an economic motive too.  Namely, raising taxes on everybody to support their hysteria.

How long did it take for the global cooling people to retract their statement?

They did, didn't they?


...and what is it with "raising taxes" and accusing everyone of "raising taxes"?  Your hysteria is comical. Should we have NO taxes?

[2952-0-0]

Yes, yes, yes, because all the big dogs in the insurance industry can't be correct when all of them are speaking with one voice on the issue of global warming.

I mean, what do trillions of dollars in underwritten assets and armies of bean counters and even bigger armies of investors know about risk?

I thought global warming was a scheme cooked up by goddamn communists to take away all our money!

[David S]

I was speaking of political motive. We have already established an economic motive for many deniers. What we need to do is figure out is if some people just don't want to admit that they were wrong.

You haven't established a damn thing. You make pronouncements without the slightest shred of evidence and then claim they are true. Make an argument you can back up with facts!!! Show us how any of the "deniers" have profitted from their opposition to AGW theory.

According to the state department the US spent over $9 billion on climate research since 2002.
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2007/February/20070207171758eaifas0.6189997.html

Who do you suppose gets those funds?  The same guys who promote anthropogenic global warming theory. So what happens to their funding if the AGW theory turns out to be false?

Don't tell us that the "deniers" are all paid schills of the oil industry and the believers are all just nice guys who have no financial motives.

[Хahar 🤔]

Doggonnet, I lost the link as it was only on briefly on Oklahoma City's NBC affiliate website, but what it said was that the founder of The Weather Channel who now lives in San Diego has officially denounced the theory of Global Warming calling it one of the biggest myths and one of the biggest scams in American History.  He was saying that Al Gore, to steal a phrase from Gore himself, "played on our fears" and got us to buy into this myth in order to advance his own ego.

One note:  There is no link, to my knowledge, on The Weather Channel's website as they firmly believe in Global Warming.

I am a big fan of The Weather Channel and watch it almost daily, and I don't agree with this scientist denouncing it as a myth and a scam.

What if he's right?

What if Karl Marx was right?

As far as I know Marx didn't have much to say about the weather. But if you are referring to his communist manifesto then I think history speaks for itself. Let's look at the countries that adopted that philosophy; The former USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and to a lesser extent maybe India. So where is the shining success story? Which of those countries provided the people with the level of prosperity or freedom that we enjoy right here in the capitalist USA? What they got was tyranny and poverty. If you think Marx's philosophy was a sound one you will have a tough time proving it.

Exactly. You just undermined your own argument.

Doggonnet, I lost the link as it was only on briefly on Oklahoma City's NBC affiliate website, but what it said was that the founder of The Weather Channel who now lives in San Diego has officially denounced the theory of Global Warming calling it one of the biggest myths and one of the biggest scams in American History.  He was saying that Al Gore, to steal a phrase from Gore himself, "played on our fears" and got us to buy into this myth in order to advance his own ego.

One note:  There is no link, to my knowledge, on The Weather Channel's website as they firmly believe in Global Warming.

I am a big fan of The Weather Channel and watch it almost daily, and I don't agree with this scientist denouncing it as a myth and a scam.

What if he's right?

He's not.

Of course, a twelve year old is far more knowledgeable on this subject than a highly successful meteorology entrepreneur. 

Sheesh. I'm 13.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I was speaking of political motive. We have already established an economic motive for many deniers. What we need to do is figure out is if some people just don't want to admit that they were wrong.

You haven't established a damn thing. You make pronouncements without the slightest shred of evidence and then claim they are true. Make an argument you can back up with facts!!! Show us how any of the "deniers" have profitted from their opposition to AGW theory.

According to the state department the US spent over $9 billion on climate research since 2002.
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2007/February/20070207171758eaifas0.6189997.html

Who do you suppose gets those funds?  The same guys who promote anthropogenic global warming theory. So what happens to their funding if the AGW theory turns out to be false?

Don't tell us that the "deniers" are all paid schills of the oil industry and the believers are all just nice guys who have no financial motives.

When I say a lot of things about AGW on this forum, I assume much of it is common knowledge and do not cite it because A)  I'm lazy and B)  If you think I'm wrong, I invite YOU, as the critic, to find information to the contrary and provide it.

I'm not writing a research paper.. I'm debating the issue on a politics forum.

Also, don't just toss out crap like "$9 billion" like it's some huge numbers.  I see this done a lot by conservatives that are criticizing liberals for wanting to spend more.  "You damn libruls... we spent $9 BILLION on climate research"... conservatives go "Wow.. $9 billion dun be a biggun!"  And liberals ask:  In the context of what?  The very well being of future generations and one of the biggest problems to face us today?

$9 billion is a drop in the bucket when we are the leading polluter in the world.

Also, government funds are obviously not rewarded to only those that find information supporting AGW.  Unlike the oil company scientists who have profits to protect, the government, at least not our current one, is not pushing a specific global warming agenda.

I can see where environmental groups or even some universities might be pushing for a pro-AGW finding in some research.. but that just strengthens the argument that government should be funding this important research so that it might remain objective.

[David S]

I was speaking of political motive. We have already established an economic motive for many deniers. What we need to do is figure out is if some people just don't want to admit that they were wrong.

You haven't established a damn thing. You make pronouncements without the slightest shred of evidence and then claim they are true. Make an argument you can back up with facts!!! Show us how any of the "deniers" have profitted from their opposition to AGW theory.

According to the state department the US spent over $9 billion on climate research since 2002.
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2007/February/20070207171758eaifas0.6189997.html

Who do you suppose gets those funds?  The same guys who promote anthropogenic global warming theory. So what happens to their funding if the AGW theory turns out to be false?

Don't tell us that the "deniers" are all paid schills of the oil industry and the believers are all just nice guys who have no financial motives.

When I say a lot of things about AGW on this forum, I assume much of it is common knowledge and do not cite it because A)  I'm lazy and B)  If you think I'm wrong, I invite YOU, as the critic, to find information to the contrary and provide it.

I'm not writing a research paper.. I'm debating the issue on a politics forum.

Also, don't just toss out crap like "$9 billion" like it's some huge numbers.  I see this done a lot by conservatives that are criticizing liberals for wanting to spend more.  "You damn libruls... we spent $9 BILLION on climate research"... conservatives go "Wow.. $9 billion dun be a biggun!"  And liberals ask:  In the context of what?  The very well being of future generations and one of the biggest problems to face us today?

$9 billion is a drop in the bucket when we are the leading polluter in the world.

Also, government funds are obviously not rewarded to only those that find information supporting AGW.  Unlike the oil company scientists who have profits to protect, the government, at least not our current one, is not pushing a specific global warming agenda.

I can see where environmental groups or even some universities might be pushing for a pro-AGW finding in some research.. but that just strengthens the argument that government should be funding this important research so that it might remain objective.

Yes $9 billion is a drop in the bucket to the government but its a huge amount to the researchers who get it.

I'm never sure where you are coming from. Sometimes you argue in support of AGW and sometimes against. Where are you today?

[David S]

Doggonnet, I lost the link as it was only on briefly on Oklahoma City's NBC affiliate website, but what it said was that the founder of The Weather Channel who now lives in San Diego has officially denounced the theory of Global Warming calling it one of the biggest myths and one of the biggest scams in American History.  He was saying that Al Gore, to steal a phrase from Gore himself, "played on our fears" and got us to buy into this myth in order to advance his own ego.

One note:  There is no link, to my knowledge, on The Weather Channel's website as they firmly believe in Global Warming.

I am a big fan of The Weather Channel and watch it almost daily, and I don't agree with this scientist denouncing it as a myth and a scam.

What if he's right?

What if Karl Marx was right?

As far as I know Marx didn't have much to say about the weather. But if you are referring to his communist manifesto then I think history speaks for itself. Let's look at the countries that adopted that philosophy; The former USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and to a lesser extent maybe India. So where is the shining success story? Which of those countries provided the people with the level of prosperity or freedom that we enjoy right here in the capitalist USA? What they got was tyranny and poverty. If you think Marx's philosophy was a sound one you will have a tough time proving it.

Exactly. You just undermined your own argument.

No I only demonstrated that Marx's ideas failed where ever they were tried. I said nothing about the legitimacy of the weatherman's claims.

[Хahar 🤔]

Doggonnet, I lost the link as it was only on briefly on Oklahoma City's NBC affiliate website, but what it said was that the founder of The Weather Channel who now lives in San Diego has officially denounced the theory of Global Warming calling it one of the biggest myths and one of the biggest scams in American History.  He was saying that Al Gore, to steal a phrase from Gore himself, "played on our fears" and got us to buy into this myth in order to advance his own ego.

One note:  There is no link, to my knowledge, on The Weather Channel's website as they firmly believe in Global Warming.

I am a big fan of The Weather Channel and watch it almost daily, and I don't agree with this scientist denouncing it as a myth and a scam.

What if he's right?

What if Karl Marx was right?

As far as I know Marx didn't have much to say about the weather. But if you are referring to his communist manifesto then I think history speaks for itself. Let's look at the countries that adopted that philosophy; The former USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and to a lesser extent maybe India. So where is the shining success story? Which of those countries provided the people with the level of prosperity or freedom that we enjoy right here in the capitalist USA? What they got was tyranny and poverty. If you think Marx's philosophy was a sound one you will have a tough time proving it.

Exactly. You just undermined your own argument.

No I only demonstrated that Marx's ideas failed where ever they were tried. I said nothing about the legitimacy of the weatherman's claims.

As will global warming denial.

[opebo]

It hardly seems surprising that this right-wing plutocrat denounces global warming.  They pretty much all dislike the issue.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I was speaking of political motive. We have already established an economic motive for many deniers. What we need to do is figure out is if some people just don't want to admit that they were wrong.

You haven't established a damn thing. You make pronouncements without the slightest shred of evidence and then claim they are true. Make an argument you can back up with facts!!! Show us how any of the "deniers" have profitted from their opposition to AGW theory.

According to the state department the US spent over $9 billion on climate research since 2002.
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2007/February/20070207171758eaifas0.6189997.html

Who do you suppose gets those funds?  The same guys who promote anthropogenic global warming theory. So what happens to their funding if the AGW theory turns out to be false?

Don't tell us that the "deniers" are all paid schills of the oil industry and the believers are all just nice guys who have no financial motives.

When I say a lot of things about AGW on this forum, I assume much of it is common knowledge and do not cite it because A)  I'm lazy and B)  If you think I'm wrong, I invite YOU, as the critic, to find information to the contrary and provide it.

I'm not writing a research paper.. I'm debating the issue on a politics forum.

Also, don't just toss out crap like "$9 billion" like it's some huge numbers.  I see this done a lot by conservatives that are criticizing liberals for wanting to spend more.  "You damn libruls... we spent $9 BILLION on climate research"... conservatives go "Wow.. $9 billion dun be a biggun!"  And liberals ask:  In the context of what?  The very well being of future generations and one of the biggest problems to face us today?

$9 billion is a drop in the bucket when we are the leading polluter in the world.

Also, government funds are obviously not rewarded to only those that find information supporting AGW.  Unlike the oil company scientists who have profits to protect, the government, at least not our current one, is not pushing a specific global warming agenda.

I can see where environmental groups or even some universities might be pushing for a pro-AGW finding in some research.. but that just strengthens the argument that government should be funding this important research so that it might remain objective.

Yes $9 billion is a drop in the bucket to the government but its a huge amount to the researchers who get it.

I'm never sure where you are coming from. Sometimes you argue in support of AGW and sometimes against. Where are you today?

I argue in favor of the science.  Computer models can predict some very general scenarios, but I do not accept any of the doom and gloom specific predictions they spit out.  And the right has offered almost nothing to the climate change debate, except to polarize it and oppose it.

I've said it a million times:  The debate has become polarized.  The left clings to the gloomiest predictions as an effort to try and scare people into taking action while the right simply denies warming thanks to being skeptical of science and wanting to oppose the left for the sake of opposing the left. 

It just bothers me as someone who loves the weather and climatology to have to try and sort through the basics with every Joe Public who has a rigid opinion, from which they will not budge an inch because Al Gore/Rush Limbaugh told them not to.

The fact that the conservatives that have gone on against AGW theory on this forum are pulling the same bullsh**t conservative talk radio talking points out of their hats just proves my point.

There was a recent example of a hoax paper put out by two scientists that falsely claimed that global warming was a sham.  Rush Limbaugh picked up on it and started touting it to all his fans on national talk radio!  Only to find out he had a lot of egg on his face when the authors came forward.

It just goes to show that these people (on both extremes) don't want the research or the answers.. oh no.. they've got their outcome dreamed up clear as day.. they just need something to attach it to in order to make it legit.

[7,052,770]

Believing that global warming is not a threat, or not caused by humans, is equivalent in silliness to believing that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, or that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Хahar 🤔]

Believing that global warming is not a threat, or not caused by humans, is equivalent in silliness to believing that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man, or that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's amazing this is even up for debate.

[Bono]

Scientific consensus gets overthrown all the time. Right wingers aren't skeptical of science, we're skeptical of scientism. Someone needs to go read Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Scientific consensus gets overthrown all the time. Right wingers aren't skeptical of science, we're skeptical of scientism. Someone needs to go read Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.

Just as I'm skeptical of the claim that the earth was created in six 24 hour days.  I'm skeptical of Bible fanaticism and obsession.  I would suggest that right wing literal Bible Christians take into consideration the vast amounts of evidence that support the theory of evolution.  But they won't.  They simply throw Bible verses at me.

I fail to see where right wingers have actually presented a case against anthropocentric global warming.  The best I've seen are sound bytes like "Well, Mars is warming too so it must be the sun" or "well, the climate has changed in the past, so it's just natural and we're not to blame".

The best cases against AGW have come from scientists who believe in AGW but found evidence contrary to the "consensus".  This evidence is then peer reviewed and much of it has found its way into conventional AGW theory.  The large-scale denial of the hockey-stick temperature graph wasn't brought down by reactionaries that didn't like it from the beginning, but by scientists who found problems with the methodology of hte original researchers and proceeded to test the hypothesis independently for themselves.

I agree Bono:  Blind faith to any institution is foolish.  AGW is, however, a theory that has a vast wealth of evidence supporting it and it is becoming increasingly foolish simply to oppose it.

[perdedor]

I fail to see how the fact that he founded the Weather Channel implies that his opinion is the end all in a discussion in which the vast majority of scientists hold the opposing viewpoint. Just my two cents.