Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History' »
Posted by: bill2936 10 months ago342 Comments Report this Story
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Read Full Story at icecap.us
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 342
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.106 Replies
-
-
0%
Neophile10 months ago
I guess it's hard to resist a good echo chamber. Like moths to a flame...
Joe D'Aleo, the guy who wrote the intro for this piece, is a contributing author for the Fraser Institute, a think tank that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil over the years.
Reply-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.12 Replies
-
0%
engineer10 months ago
Only the doctored Decooney reports supports his claim. The other 300 PhDs who say their is climate change must all be wrong. Alpha, do you believe only what the far right says? Are they the only correct opinion? How about opening your eyes!!
Reply-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.9 Replies
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
The Fraser Institute measures and studies the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on individuals and society. Our peer-reviewed research is distributed around the world and has contributed to increased understanding of how economic policy affects people.
The Institute is an independent non-profit research and educational organization. We do not accept government grants or contracts for research. We depend on contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations.
Your search - Joe D'Aleo - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "Joe D'Aleo".
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
Neo wrote "a think tank that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil over the years."
Even the exxonsecrets site does not confirm this statement. $60K in 2003 and $60K in 2004. When looking into the Exxon site I was unable to verify this claim.
Neophile's claims cannot be verified and in at least one case seems to be an outright lie.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.p...
Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
2003
$60,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$60,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2005
(changed name to Cheney's guns and ammo)
550 Billion
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
Thank you for verifying my post. Now lets just say this is actually true (Since I was unable to verify this through online Exxon records). $120,000 somehow bought off Fraser Institute to do what? In addition when Neophile stated that because Joe D'Aleo reported this story and was a "contributing author for the Fraser Institute" (which appears to be untrue) it somehow through the supposed Exxon connection to the Frazer Group is the reason as you put it "Big Oil" is behind the Weather Channel Founder calling global warming a scam? OK
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
I was not even aware of a connection to exxon. Thank you for that information. Also thank you for the link to the exxon funding site - a possible resource.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
GLee10 months ago
'GLOBAL WARMING' is one of the best business 'ventures' of our time. Many have hopped on the wagon led by Big Al Gore. Problem is, our earth is engaged in a multi-year warming cycle which is not 'man-made'. Granted, we can all take care of Mother Earth much, much better but 'Man' is not the cause of this current warming trend. As a matter of fact, we would be better spent by preparing ourselves for an upcoming 'little ice age'. It isn't that far off and will be much more devasting to humankind.......
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
Added quantity 1 of ZeroCarb - Family for $396.00 each
To Update an item, change the quantity or options and click update. Click delete to remove an item from the cart.
Thank you for supporting Carbonscam.scam, offsetting your climate impact and being a leader in the fight against global warming. Your leadership is important today and for future generations.
Yes, it is that simple. There are lots of nuts and bolts in the background, but that is why we started Carbonscam.scam to make it simple and affordable for individuals and organizations to have an impact on climate change now. As in soon. Today. So our children have a healthy world to live in. (You get the idea...)
Reply -
0%
ecotourusa10 months ago
GLee-
I love a "good" business venture! I mean, here is a venture, where clean air and water are the result.
what could be harmful about this scenario?
hop on board. see the movie the 11th Hour. you may be inspired with an eco-business idea yourself.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
injest10 months ago
"Only the doctored Decooney reports supports his claim"
Actually it's a hundred years of "the sky is falling" global climate change disaster scares that have all petered out that supports his claim.
Take the same data and depending on "HOW" it is entered into the computer model the outcome is either global warming disaster or global cooling disaster.
"The other 300 PhDs who say their is climate change must all be wrong".
No one is claiming that the climate does not change. In fact the climate is, as it has always been, in flux, cycling from warm to cold to warm. On that there is a strong consensus, however there is no overwhelming agreement that climate change is "man made"
Engineer, do you believe only what the far left says? Are they the only correct opinion? How about opening your eyes!!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
And don't forget about the Nobel Peace prize committee. Or the International Science Community. They are ALL funded by George Soros.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
injest10 months ago
RickyDawkins
Stop babbling, start reading
Interesting article. This line jumped out and I think explains a lot!
"By then most people had come to fear planet-wide harm from technology in general"
Are the "sky is falling" alarmist the NEW Luddites?
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population." - Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Reply-
0%
injest10 months ago
"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." - Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling", 1976
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcityâ;¦in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." - Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food productionâ;;with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soonâ;¦ The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it." - Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy10 months ago
Everybody is just one man. The problem is there is a large collection of these just one man. You people sound like Muslims talking about Islam. Any facts to the contrary about what is happening is rejected out of hand. Historians stating what happened are biased and wrong or lying.
History records periodic warming and cooling cycles of 1500 years. Ignored.
A volcano spews out more nasty chemicals That hurt the ozone layer than mankind has in history and the ozone layer gets back to normal in about 3 years. Ignored.
Documented lie after lie in Gores film and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Ignored.
Who has the story like a gospel?
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
It's not a problem. It's how we do science.
If you have objections, you present your *data* from your scientific *study*.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
From their site: The Fraser Institute measures and studies the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on individuals and society. Our peer-reviewed research is distributed around the world and has contributed to increased understanding of how economic policy affects people.
The Institute is an independent non-profit research and educational organization. We do not accept government grants or contracts for research. We depend on contributions from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
Newsflash: Exxon contributed over 100,000 dollars to the Fraser Institute
"Climate change activists are exaggerating the certainty in the linkage between human action and climate change and advocating policies that offer no environmental gain, but a lot of economic pain. These prescriptions are likely to deprive society of the economic productivity it needs to protect environmental quality."
Source: Fraser Institute Press Release, 7/21/03
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.p...
Reply-
0%
CovalentBond10 months ago
And IPCC scientist aren't bought and paid for? Please give me a break! They are paid to find that man is the cause of global warming. And they earn every dollar with their lies.
Like the hockey stick graph. A lie from day one. Where did it go? It's not in the latest IPCC report.
You claim every scientist that disagrees with you about the cause of global warming, is bought and paid for by big oil. Sorry but that bogus argument won't fly with me.
Everybody is getting paid from someone. If you had any real proof you wouldn't have to try and discredit every scientist that says you are wrong.
You don't like the message attack the messenger.
Scientist who disagree with the junk science of anthropogenic global warming have been threatened with their very lives, for their opinions. If your side is so right why is this happening?
Reply-
-
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
So you have some proof that Exxon paid the Founder of the weather channel $10,000 for this op=ed. Your claim is not only misguided but rather gross when it come to intellectual integrity. If you would like people to take your side mud-slinging and false accusations may be your method to convince others to come to your side of the debate but I find it highly suspect and unconvincing.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny10 months ago
"I guess it's hard to resist a good echo chamber. Like moths to a flame...
Joe D'Aleo, the guy who wrote the intro for this piece, is a contributing author for the Fraser Institute, a think tank that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil over the years."
Funny how you always attack the funding source and never the science. Guess that's the best you Al Gore worshippers have when faced with real scientific scrutiny.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
When searching the Fraser Institute for articles by Joe D'Aleo there is none found. This statement appears to be false and border line slander against Fraser Institute. It is a typical tactic and repeated pattern of Neophile to proclaim any contrary evidence or opinion to his to be bought and paid for. Again a slander-ist remark in many peoples opinion. I have forwarded this information to Fraser Institute to make them aware that Neophile has pronounced there work invalid do to contributions from Exxon. I have also passed it on to the legal department at Exxon/Mobil. Neophile has an official capacity as a Scout on Propeller. I would urge Propeller management to take a second look at this persons intentions and integrity as he is spreading false information in their name. I for one if in a position of having the company name represented this way would need to let the person go and strip them of any credentials linking them to the Brand name.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
In a study of the global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years later. Likewise, Petit et al. (1999) found that for all of the glacial inceptions of the past half-million years, air temperature consistently dropped before the air's CO2 content did, and that the CO2 decreases lagged the temperature decreases by several thousand years.
Reply-
0%
Neophile10 months ago
The source for this plagiarized comment is here:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C...
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
I am not taking credit for the data I am simply posting it with the sources. Now if I claimed that data as mine that would be plagiarism. Matters not as the tactic to discredit debate is to attack the delivery person and not the data.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
Here is some more plagiarized non-consensus data for you Neo: Oh by the way good job trying to get this story buried. Wouldn't want this to get out now would we? If the authors' calculation of middle Eocene atmospheric CO2 concentration is correct, then, in their own words, "it implies either that earth's climate is very sensitive to small changes in pCO2, or that the global cooling since the Eocene was not driven primarily by changes in pCO2, but rather reflects reorganization of ocean circulation resulting from tectonic opening and closing of oceanic gateways."
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
Bury this!
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/scientific.html
Antarctic ice core records vividly illustrate that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels today are higher than levels recorded over the past 650,000 years (see figure below). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30 percent in the last 150 years, with half of that rise occurring only in the last three decades. It is a well-established scientific fact that CO2 (and other gases emitted from industrial and agricultural sources) traps heat in the atmosphere, so it is no surprise that we are now witnessing a dramatic increase in temperature.
Compared with other factors that influence climate (including solar variation, volcanic eruptions, and pollutant emissions such as sulfur dioxide), human activities-primarily burning fossil fuels and deforestation-have been a major contributor to climate change over the last 50 years.
Reply-
-
MichaelRhodenteComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
What about KOT? Anybody seen him lately?
He used to deny global warming with the best of 'em.
"The sun done it"
"The sun done it"
"The sun done it"
-King of Truth
Reply
-
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
capn_caveman10 months ago
"either that earth's climate is very sensitive to small changes in pCO2, or that the global cooling since the Eocene was not driven primarily by changes in pCO2, but rather reflects reorganization of ocean circulation resulting from tectonic opening and closing of oceanic gateways"
So a 50 / 50 chance that CO2 causes global warming? Care to roll the dice with our future?
http://mr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR13...
Reply-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
Reply
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
"So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming."
Based on that assumption it is unclear how then the process is reversed. Based on the fact that cooling also preceded CO2 reduction CO2 is not the main forcing but rather a indicator of a sequence of events. The climate changes. FACT. CO2 from man-made sources is causing climate change. UNPROVEN. There are other forcing being investigated and to suggest this issue is solved is at best irresponsible. To link economic activity to the reduction of CO2 output is also irresponsible. We do not know if caps will have any result whatsoever. Some say we should just do it anyway for the "Environment". CO2 is not a pollutant! It is not a good reason to just do it anyway (Cap and Trade) Some estimates suggest that it would cost a family of 4 an extra $10,000 per year in living expenses under such a scheme. A scheme that may or may not effect the climate.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
I know you must not get to the library much Capecoral...
But don't you have access to anything written in THIS century?
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
Klarissa, read this (if you have time between negs):
We see in ice core records from Antarctica and Greenland that the world cycled in and out of glacial periods over 120,000 year cycles. That climate cycle's timing is fairly well understood to be caused by changes in the orbit of the earth, though the mechanism behind the response has not been conclusively established. These orbital cycles are regular and predictable and they are definitely not the cause of today's warming. The other important difference between the glacial-interglacial cycles and today is the rapidity of the current change. The rate of warming is on the order of 10 times faster today than in the ice cores.
Such rapid warming on a global scale is quite rare in the geological record, and there is strong evidence that whenever such a change has happened it was a catastrophic event for the biosphere.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
"whenever such a change has happened it was a catastrophic event for the biosphere." At least you acknowledge that warming has happened before.
Reference
Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.
Description
General climatic features were inferred from a study of the grain size, total organic carbon content, biogenic silica content and, most importantly, magnetic susceptibility of 210Pb- and 14C-dated sediments retrieved from the eastern Bransfield Basin (61°58.9'S, 55°57.4'W) just off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Most of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1050-1550) was warmer than the Current Warm Period.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/221...
There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.
Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/me...
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.
Keep trying Capecoral.
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
Klarissa, did you know that if everybody jumps at the same time...
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
A stupid question gets an equivalent response.
What is there to refute? This is old news. I knew about the earthquake back in 2004, like, when it happened...
"The length of the day correspondingly decreased by 2.68 millionths of a second."
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050112_e...
So? This shows that minute changes in Earth's orbit can be observed. Please explain why this is good for the science deniers like Klarissa?
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
First rule of Propeller: Don't ask a question in the margin if you don't want an answer in the margin.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
I don't need to keep trying. The research speaks for itself. There are more peer reviewed research papers that conclude that the temperatures on earth at various times have been warmer than it is today. Without the so called "man-made" label attached to it. It very well may be warming some think as much as 0.7 C over the past 100 years. New data suggests this may not even be the case. Either way the issue remains that this is most likely a natural phenomenon that is not completely understood. It also would mean that buying carbon offsets from Al Gore will do nothing to change the situation other than putting a bunch of green in the pocket of Al Gore and his buds. As ol' Al & company puts it Deliver superior investment performance by taking a long-term investment view and integrating sustainability research within a rigorous fundamental equity analysis framework. Meaning Al Gore is promoting his company with his falsehoods and is using the UN to push it.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM10 months ago
"Several key developments have occurred in the carbon funds market since late 2005 when we undertook our previous edition of this study," said Natalia Gorina, senior consultant in ICF's London office. "The newest funds entering the market are designed to generate cash returns for investors rather than carbon credits for compliance purposes. Also, carbon funds are moving upstream, from a process of simply signing Emission Reductions Purchase Agreements to focusing on direct project investment and development. Another key trend is increased interest, shown by several funds, in carbon asset classes in the voluntary segment of the carbon market."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
Capecoral = Bag of wind?
'Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change'
There are also events in geological history when sharp rises in temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse gases -- not unlike the fossil-fuel-emissions spike today. The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is such a case. Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over 5oC. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this occurred in a period of time no longer than 5K years; it's not possible to know if it happened even faster. The likely cause was massive releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100K years for the ocean, atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224...
Reply-
0%
Klarissa10 months ago
Paleocene Climate
The climate during the Paleocene was much warmer than today. Palm trees grew in Greenland and Patagonia. The Mangrove swamps of southern Australia were located at 65 degrees south latitude.
The next period was:
Early Eocene Climate
During the Early Eocene alligators swam in swamps near the North Pole, and palm trees grew in southern Alaska. Much of central Eurasia was warm and humid.
Reply-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
Paleocene Climate
The climate during the Paleocene was not warmer than today. Palm trees did not grow in Greenland or Patagonia. The Mangrove swamps of southern Chile were located at 42 degrees south latitude.
The next period was:
Early Eocene Climate
During the Early Eocene alligators swam in swamps near the North Florida, and palm trees grew in southern Hawaii. Much of central Eurasia was cool and dry.
Reply -
-
-
0%
capn_caveman10 months ago
And people like you don't understand that volcanic activity cools the planet and counteracts the effects of greenhouse gases on a short term basis.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins10 months ago
STILL be having nightmares about that hockey stick graph?
It scared me too, and for good reason.
There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
