Weather Channel Founder: “Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History”
The founder of The Weather Channel has written an article about global warming that can be read in it’s entirety here. In this article he is not only skeptical of global warming, he calls it an outright scam and a lie.
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 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.
There it is in a nutshell. Scientists and politicians in bed together. The scientists claim we are destroying the planet, the government gives them huge grant money and everyone is happy. But why would the government want to give grant money to something they know is a scam? Because they consider it an investment. The return on that investment will come in the form of tax revenue. Believe me, the government is poised to make a killing off of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.
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.
This is where the problem lies. The debate is over according to Al Gore. Humans are destroying the planet. News outlets are reporting the man made global warming theory as fact, and the most gullible of all, our children, are being taught by other environmentally gullible teachers that we must change our habits of the world as we know it will end.
As John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel goes on to say in his article, I do not oppose environmentalism. What I do oppose is the fact that we are being told America is the biggest polluter in the world and that America is most responsible for destroying the earth. How can it be that America, which has strict environmental laws and restrictions be a bigger contributor to global warming than Mexico or China, countries with very little environmental regulations? I’ll tell you how, in the liberals eyes, America can be responsible, we have more money. More money that can be taken by the government and spent on whatever the hell they want.
I was always of the belief that the whole global warming issue was a hoax to get people willing to accept more taxes as a means to save the planet. Money to me, was always the real hidden agenda of global warming. But there may be an even more sinister ideal at work here behind the scenes. We all know that all the Democrat candidates for president are socialists, that is the debate that is over, Hillary even said, ” we’re going to take things away from you on the behalf of the common good.” If that’s not socialism, I don’t know what is.
So with the knowledge that the Democrats are socialists, and the fact that we are going to be taxed out the ass in the name of global warming, I ask you, as arclightzero mentions in this post, could the real hidden agenda of global warming be socialism?
It is time for us to stand up and be heard on the global warming debate NOW, while we still have a voice.
America's Watchtower 
It is the greatest scam in history and I’m sick of hearing how I’m an idiot because I don’t buy into it. Al Gore doesn’t even think another side should be told.
LikeLike
It’s fascinating that Al Gore was the 2nd most powerful man on earth for nearly a decade, and during that time, a mere 7 years ago, you didn’t hear 1/1000th of the “global warming is out of control” noise that you hear today, now that Al Gore is private citizen / movie maker / academy/emmy/nobel award winner.
And we’re expected to believe this is all about “science”?
How often do you hear a scientist say at the beginning of a discussion “The debate is over.”? A great excuse for ignoring data that doesn’t support your agenda.
LikeLike
I’m just going to repost this from my own blog, as it was a response to yours and Micky’s comments on exactly what you’re talking about here:
What’s worrisome is that this has always been a “religion” of sorts to the environmentalists out there. The faith-based “man is killing the planet” environmental movement is nothing new… However, it is only recently that the politicians (people like Al Gore) have seen the power that this pseudo-religion holds over people, and have figured out how to use it to instill fear in the general population.
Is this any different than a “mainstream” religion using the threat of a wrathful god to instill fear and obedience in its followers? I mean, what’s the difference between the Christian belief of going to hell if you don’t do what you are told and the environmentalists belief that the world is going to burn if we don’t do what they tell us?
Even more alarming is the fact that mainstream religion like this has been used many times in the past to influence and control people and governments. Look at France and England several centuries ago. Look at what sort of power the Catholic church has held over nations over the centuries.
Now take that same model and apply it to global warming and the environmental crowd. Are they not doing the same thing? Are they not using their religion to try to exert control over the people and governments of the world?
It’s really scary to think about. America instituted the separation of church and state to prevent a religious takeover of this nation, but the environmental movement seems to have found a back door that they can use to do the exact same thing that a theocracy would do, and get away with it.
LikeLike
Excellent article and comments… and what cojones John Coleman has to come out and make the blatant statement that this is a scam! 🙂
I’d like to add in my $.02 worth. I know little to nothing about the climate. I am, however, an expert on computers. I’ve been involved with them since telecommunications meant handing a computer tape to a courier to drive over to the satilite uplink… around 1969.
I made the presumption that AGW was a fraud the very first time I heard that it was based upon computer climate models. The reason? You can’t load a bunch of half-baked theories into a computer and expect a correct answer.
Computer models are the current “in” technology. It was computer models that got the Voyagers out into the right orbital paths to intersect with the outer planets on a tricky timetable. Computer models have a good reputation because of NASA.
However, an idea… any idea… isn’t necessarily true just because a computer model says so. And here’s why.
If NASA says that Jupiter will be in a certain location on a certain date 300 years from now, you can bet the farm that, barring a system-wide disaster that would destroy us all anyway, Jupiter will be exactly where NASA says it will be at the right time, in 300 years or probably even 3000 years. We know this to be correct because we can backdate our computers, pretend that it is, say, 300 years ago, and ask the NASA model to predict the location of Jupiter on Nov 9, 2007, at 18:31 EST. The answer will be correct to within seconds of a degree of arc.
However, NASA’s planetary orbital models are based upon a mathematical database that goes back to ancient Babylon. As with many other cultures, Babylon believed that the planets were gods and developed orbital geometry to keep close track of what the gods were up to. The difference with them is that they understood that the sun was in the center of it all with the planets, including Earth, orbiting it. So they started out with accurate figures. Since then the Babylonian geometry has been added to and correct over thousands of years, adjusting for eliptical orbits here and gravitational wells there.
And it is the most accurate mathematical database in existence.
Ecology, however, is only 50 years old at best. The word didn’t even exist until the ’60s. We don’t have a 7000-year-old database of accurate temperature readings and weather data to base computer scripts upon. What we DO have are geological proxies, which we are STILL in the process of learning something about. CO2 shows up in proxies like tree rings and ice. All that this really shows, however, is that warm weather and high CO2 concentrations are generally concurrent.
What is NOT evident in the proxies is whether increasing CO2 caused warming or whether warming caused the CO2 increase. The first is the “decided science” of the AGW crowd, and is the scenario virtually all of the computer models are based upon.
However, there are hundreds of scientists all over the world who tell us that the overwhelming majority of atmospheric CO2 comes from marine life in the worlds oceans, and that the higher probability is that warming (from whatever cause) is increasing the population of marine life, thereby causing the increase in CO2. Possible suspect: Increased solar activity (flares, not luminance).
If these “outliers” are right, and warming causes the CO2 increase and not the other way around, then every computer model for global climate is bass-ackwards. It’s based upon a premise that simply isn’t true.
A thing is true or it is not true. There is plenty of room for speculations about minutia in details of global climate.
But there is NO ROOM for speculations about the order of warming/CO2 increase. We have to get that right or everything else is hogwash.
LikeLike
Good comments by all and I love that someone of high caliber stepped up to the plate.
Mr. Pink Eyes, you’ve nailed it on the head again. Government pays off the scientists to produce the data they want to force a social change regardless of the accuracy of the data.
This isn’t the first topic nor is it the last as this happens all too often. It begins by obscuring what observational science and what real science is starting in 1st grade.
Manipulate the masses and pay the right people to say what you want them to say. Gee, I wonder why the Founding Fathers didn’t approve of giving the tax payers money away for things like these grants.
LikeLike
Gary, all of the comments on this topic are high caliber :). We’re just approaching the topic from different experiences.
One thing I forgot to expand upon in my own diatribe, however, is the backdating the computers thing. I went off on a tangent and dropped that train of thought.
I mentioned that you can backdate a computer and load a NASA model with planetary data from 1707 (from a reliable source such as the Greenwich Observatory) and have it predict the position of Jupiter in Nov 2007 to within seconds of a degree of arc.
However, when you do the same thing with global climate models, a very weird thing happens. Backdate a computer, say, 20 years, load the pertinent weather and climate information for that chosen day, and have it predict today’s climate.
The climate models are invariably WRONG. Most of them have New York and Florida and the Mississippi Delta and hunks of California flooded today when they’ve been backdated that way.
The reason is because the person who WROTE the programs prejudiced the scripts toward his own beliefs. There may have been absolutely no intention of prejudicing the computer scripts. But this isn’t based on the pure logarithmic geometry that NASA’s orbital database is. It is based on THEORIES that may or may not be correct, and the programmer will use the theory that best represents his own views.
And given the poor performance of climate models in backdating tests, a good number of those theories are dead wrong.
But this is what virtually ALL of the “gloom and doom” predictions are based upon.
And ALL of them have failed backdating tests.
Nice, huh? 🙂
LikeLike
mamapajamas,
I fully understand where you are coming from as I was a Computer Science minor in college with a focus on programming. (Granted outdated languages but..) In programming it is mandatory that you have some set guidelines to build a program towards so all are outcome oriented. Bias is mandatory in programming or you may as well not even start writing the code. Of course, if you have a desired outcome to manipulate and conceal it makes it all the worse. Assuming honesty was involved, then the programming was no where near robust enough. But these details fly over the heads of many.
Combine this with a notorious issue of the left to redefine science and forget that science is based on observational data that can be measured and tested, it is no surprise the results are botched up.
I’m also a bit of a science geek. One of my pet peeves is the massive overuse of the word ‘theory’. Most theories are not theories at all. They pulled a trick over many people in the science textbooks by redefining the term. (I used to be a public school teacher.) A theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous testing and observations and proven to still hold water. Many things called ‘theories’ today are hypotheses or models (collection of hypotheses) that can never be tested or proven. Origin of life, a lot of stuff in astronomy & astrophysics, global warming, etc.
But it just wouldn’t sound scientific enough to say x and x is our wild a** guess or a version of a Sci Fi flick.
I really delve into this stuff on my other blog thematurekid.com.
Since I’m almost done with my Naruto Anime marathon, I’ll be bouncing around more. 😀
LikeLike
Hey… Gary! I went to take a look at the website you have and left a comment here: my comment
This one was about the tainted history lessons given 1st graders. I loved your comments, and added my own! 🙂
I think we are living on the same planet! 😀
LikeLike
Really good and really interesting post. I expect (and other readers maybe :)) new useful posts from you!
Good luck and successes in blogging!
LikeLike
This is right here, in the present, not the future.
LikeLike
whether global warming is fact or fiction, it is always better to avoid any unnecessary environmentally dirty acts
LikeLike
Lester, NO ONE “wants” dirty air or water.
No one “wants” a dirty environment.
However, you would be well advised to be on the lookout for clowns who are, in fact, USING the environmental movement to implement socialism.
Ever heard the term “watermelon”? It is a 20-year-old reference to activists who are green on the outside, and red on the inside. When communism started collapsing, they just moved over to the environmental movement. Take a close look at ANY envirnoment demonstration, and you will see vendors selling copies of books on the topic of how socialism will “save the planet” when it is obvious to anyone who got a good look at Eastern Europe that the opposite is true.
Only wealthy nations can afford to worry about snail darters spotted owls.
LikeLike
I have never heard the term “watermelon” before but it certainly fits. You are right on when you say we don’t WANT to hurt the planet. They try to frame those who oppose global warming as uncaring and as people who want to destroy the planet. That simply isn’t true. But that is not what this movement is about.
LikeLike