Can We Get That Nobel Prize Back, Too?
There is vindication for those of us who have refused to buy into the liberal hype of global warming over the past several years. It used to be that suggesting global warming was a myth was a virtual invitation to ridicule. But my father tells stories of being in high school and being shown videos depicting mock news reports in the year 2000 which would feature segments on where you could go to obtain breathable oxygen. These sorts of government hypes have been around for a while.
So it was realtively big news last November when Weather Channel founder John Coleman called global warming “the greatest scam in history.” Then, just months later, came a report that all four major global temperature tracking stations recorded sufficient temperature drop over 2007 alone to erase the past 100 years of global warming.
Now John Coleman is calling on people to sue the global warming alarmists, including Al Gore, for fraud. This strikes me as a rather interesting idea. Al Gore and the creators of the carbon credit scheme have made big money off of the global warming hysteria and scientific evidence has been around for a long time that the earth is on a regular cycle of minuscule temperature variance to which human activity does not contribute. There might be merit to a suit alleging that Gore and his cohorts knew or should have known that global warming was false, but misrepresented the truth to induce people to buy his sham credits for his own personal gain.
It should be interesting to see if anyone takes Mr. Coleman up on his suggestion.
HT: The Legal Scoop
March 11th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
the paranoia is strong in this one. or perhaps its author has accepted summer work with either Chevron or Mobil Exxon. Regulating pollutant control is beneficial for both the environment and the oil industry. the depth of support, inner-circle support, for BP and DuPont as they parted ways with a then dying Global Climate Coalition was surreal considering the nature of their respective businesses. an elaborate conspiracy involving thousands of renown scientists is an industry driven by a fading status quo intent on misrepresentation rather than clarification. get to the truthiness bitches..
March 11th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Do try to keep up, my friend. This post makes no reference to regulation of pollutants. As you correctly imply, there are plenty of good reasons to encourage environmental stewardship without inventing ones based on science fiction.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
By the way, how many “Hail Maries” does pollution go for these days?
March 12th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Global warming or global cooling???? Does it matter? Not really. It is immaterial, germane.
Like most people, I am not a scientist nor have I studied the subject of global climate changes in depth. Like most people, my knowledge on the subject is as deep as what I hear on the news networks and a few science articles. Thus, like most people, I am not in a position to take a calculated and objective stance in support or opposition to the global warming theory. However, unlike most people, I don’t take a stance. Yet, it doesn’t matter.
Whether or not you believe in global warming, you should want the cleanest environment possible. I think we can all agree that we want a clean earth for ourselves and our posterity. It is common sensically responsible to not litter, not pour oil/sewage/waste into the oceans, recycle your plastics/papers/metals, not to deplete soil quality, not to pump all types of noxious fumes and emissions into the air, pursue cleaner energy sources, and have a “science solid(not based on theories)” plan to manage the earth’s limited natural resources. We don’t have to buy into global warming to live green, we should do it anyway. I enjoy swimming and surfing in a clean ocean, watching beautiful sunsets, breathing fresh air, catching and eating fish that don’t have flesh eating bacteria, walking through live green woods, and just living my daily life in a beautiful and clean environment.
Pertaining to the Al Gore’s of the world: assume it is all hype, a money making scheme (which is debatable), and that they are all fraudmeisters. Even assuming this, all the hype (not all attributable to Gore and Co.) has made our society more “green-minded” and environmentally conscious, which is a good thing. It seems that people have started to behave more friendly towards their surroundings. Now, I am not citing a profitable ends to justify a fraudulent means. If there was legitimate fraud then yes sue them, but please do not do so merely on ideological grounds. I have never understood why my fellow Christians (in general) are so opposed to the global warming group. As Christians we should be on THE champions of the environment. Genesis 1:26 says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over EVERY creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” The Hebrew word for this “dominion” is “radah” meaning: reign, rule, take. God has granted us reign over nature. We should not abuse this grant.
In conclusion, “Green” should not be a red/blue issue. It should be a human issue. Also, it shouldn’t require a colloquial or trendy title; it should just be the way we are.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:34 am
I just read a fair amount of John Coleman’s assertions about Global Warming. I find his assertions about the impossibility of global warming to be poorly-documented. He assures that he has read scientific articles and talked to scientists. He points to SCAM and leaves us all with the impression that we are being swindled into believing Global Warming could exist. Yet, I see no evidence of these discussions with scientists, no cites to scholarly research papers, etc. Maybe being a law students requires me ask the question - “Where’s the proof?”
March 25th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Pamela,
What do you make of the temperature tracking station data and the 2005 NCPA report linked in the article?