From here:
The founder of The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as ‘the greatest scam in history’ and accused global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public.
“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM,” John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
The World Council of Churches, having largely abandoned the Gospel in favour of almost anything that is sufficiently outlandish, is one of the dwindling numbers of organisations that is sufficiently gullible to cling tenaciously to the fantasy of anthropomorphic global warming.
Perhaps the member churches of the WCC have succumbed to nostalgia and, no longer believing in hellfire and damnation in the next life, feel they must preach it in this one.
h/t my underpaid research assistant
If the best he/she can come up with is a story that is more than three years old, your research assistant may be being appropriately reimbursed. John Coleman an authority? Most people don’t seem to put much trust in anything weather reporters have to say. He’s no scientist by the way:
[source Wikipedia]
I gather you didn’t have a merry Christmas.
Very nice, actually. Friends invited us for dinner and I’ll have to tell you sometime about another guest who latched onto me for about three hours and wanted to talk nothing but politics. Until yesterday, even I thought I was often using hyperbole and stereotypes to describe American right-wing conservatives. This fellow, however, far exceeded any description I could have thought up myself. I honestly didn’t think there were people like him walking around loose. Fortunately the conversation stayed quite civil and I think everyone else was glad that I was occupying his time. Interestingly, before he became a Christian about 10 years ago, he said he was a hard-nosed atheist (and whole hearted disciple of Ayn Rand) and held to much more radical views. When Clinton got elected, he said he was on the verge of moving to a cabin in the mountains of Idaho to prepare for the worst.
The turkey and ham were great, though. And sunshine, no snow, and +12 C didn’t hurt either.
Gee Warren, are you a proponent of Global warming or not?
Peace,
Jim
Jim, first of all, I don’t give a fig for the opinion of pundits or those with a political axe to grind – on either side of the debate. That eliminates about 99% of the voices out there. It is an issue for science – and even in that domain, politics frequently seems to creep in. I don’t know enough about the science to have an educated opinion about climate change; so I’m not a proponent for anything except reason and common sense. However, it is my understanding that there is large scale agreement within the scientific community that climate change is not something that governments should simply ignore. I also know that the US military (which I believe you have great respect for) takes the possibility of climate change seriously and is concerned about the pontential implications for national security:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/events/details.cfm?q=82
Mockers and scoffers add zero value to equation and largely appear to have minds that cannot be changed regardless of what evidence may be available.
Hopefully this is helpful for you.
Warren,
Just lately the Green movement have reversed their endorsement of corn based ethanol for vehicles. After lobbying for years on catch phrases, they have finally done their research and discovered the error of their ways. Fortunately their sucessful lobbying will only cost the US consumer a couple of hundred billion dollars a year.
In the case of the proposals for Global warming, it would cost trillions a year.
Sadly, I detect the same cult flavour in both.
Also, I would hope western governments prepare for a wide range of future scenarios -from the likely to the near ridiculous. I would put Global Warming somewhere in mid pack.
Peace,
Jim
Jim, this sounds like a reasonable position:
I do have considerable sympathy for governments, though. If human activity in recent decades is affecting the climate in a way that could be deleterious to our way of life, then the problem is, by definition, international and much more difficult to resolve than a national problem. Timelines will be long and, arguably, wealthier nations should give some consideration to impoverished nations whose populations have nothing to give.
As well, the timelines to put reasonable certainty to scientific hypotheses are very long in comparison to the typical lifespan of governments. If solutions are needed, the timelines to implement them are also very long (and likely very costly). If a wait-and-see approach is taken, all may turn out well, or a window of opportunity to do something positive may be lost.
As I said in my last comment, I’m neither well enough informed nor understand the science in sufficient depth to have a personal opinion on whether or not man-caused climate change is occurring. My preference, however, would be that my government err on the side of safety – even if it means that my standard of living is reduced as a result. As well – and separate from the climate change / global warming debate – I favour good and wise stewardship of non-renewal resources and see an important role for government to play in this regard.