Sign up for our newsletters    

Sign up for our newsletters   

Baltimore City Paper home page.

Local Weathermen Say Global Warming is a Conspiracy, “Scam”

December 10, 2012
By

Last week, Rolling Stone ran a story about how TV meteorologists—the “weather experts” who have the most contact with the general population—tend to be doubters of the science of climate change. This despite the fact that ragtag conspiracy theorists like NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS), to which virtually every weatherman and weatherwoman in America belongs, state unequivocally that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC) is a fact.

It turns out that several of Baltimore’s best and brightest TV weatherman fit the trend to a tee. WBAL’s Tony Pann, who won City Paper’s “Best Weatherman” this year, posted the RS story on his Facebook page, calling it “ridiculous” and referring to ACC as a “theory.”

It was suggested to Pann on Facebook that he renounce his membership in the AMS (which he brags about on the WBAL website) over its positions that “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal” and that the “dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced.” He said, “I think a lot of AMS members are going to do just that! I won’t be alone. The AMS took some serious lobbying heat from those in the reaserch [sic] field. If you are making a living on government grants to research global warming, and have been for 20 years, you don’t want that money to dry up! I hate to say it, but you just have to follow the money.”

Pann, who holds a Bachelor of Science in meteorology from Northern Illinois University, says this despite the fact that, according to a study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NPAS), “(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii)the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. ”

And he’s not the only local 7-day forecaster throwing out conspiracy theories about climate change. WMAR’s Mike Masco, who has a bachelor’s degree in Communications and a certificate in “Broadcast Meteorology,” joined in the Facebook debate, calling global warming “the biggest scam in modern time,” and insisting “I don’t drink the liberal coolaid [sic].”

Asked for comment, Justin Berk, formerly of WMAR, said the Rolling Stone story “was written with an agenda,” and also referred to ACC as “a theory.”

As the NPAS study and countless others show, there is absolute consensus in the scientific community—the one with PhDs who spend their lives studying climatology—that human-caused global warming is a genuine threat to humanity. If you want more detailed—and terrifying—proof check out this extensive story from RS, which quotes several eminent climatologists from NASA and elsewhere).

Unfortunately, the public remains unconvinced and that’s because they get their “science” from pundits like Sean Hannity and politicians like Sen. James Inhofe, both of whom have used their absolute lack of scientific credentials to call climate change “a hoax.” Local TV weathermen like Pann and Masco use their eminently junior credentials to add a few big words to the denial and much of the public is only too happy to believe them and punt on some of the hard decisions that come with slowing the rate of global warming.

In short, we’re doomed.

  • PardonMyFrench

    “This despite the fact that rag­tag con­spir­acy the­o­rists like NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmos­pheric Admin­is­tra­tion (NOAA) and the Amer­i­can Mete­o­ro­log­i­cal Soci­ety (AMS), to which vir­tu­ally every weath­er­man and weath­er­woman in Amer­ica belongs, state unequiv­o­cally that anthro­pogenic (human-caused) cli­mate change (ACC) is absolute fact.”

    I stopped reading after this, because Mr. Serpick made it up. AMS doesn’t cite any sources. NASA states that evidence for climate change is unequivocal, but says little about human causes. When it does mention human causes, it goes back to the IPCC report from a few years ago. That report was NOT unequivocal (90 percent confidence of anthropogenic climate change), and it has been questioned by many climate scientists who left the project. There was a lot of confirmation bias in that report, and it’s really the only one of its kind. That alone doesn’t make the study wrong, but there simply does not exist the level of certainty on this topic which you claim.

    Mr. Serpick, please check your sources before you cite them. This makes you look like an angry high school blogger.

  • http://twitter.com/gothaggis Geoff

    The problem is that TV guys need ratings. Saying something ‘crazy’ like climate change doesn’t exist drives ratings up because people want to argue with them. They also study the weather, not climate….and I think sometimes get confused ;)

  • Evan Serpick

    The AMS’s statement is a “An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society” based on the expert judgements of its council, which voted on and approved it. I didn’t say it cited specific sources, just what it states as fact. And if you think NASA has been less than clear about AGW, you should read what James Hensen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (yet another koolaid drinking Physics PhD, I guess) says in the article linked to in the second-to-last paragraph. He’s been arrested multiple times to raise awareness of AGW.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

  • Mike M

    Have to assume you’re referring to James Hansen, who was amongst a group of NASA experts who predicted “an Ice Age w/in the next 50 to 60 years” in 1971: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

  • Evan Serpick

    Yes, Hansen, sorry for the typo. And that’s the most ridiculous third-hand puffed-up claim I’ve read in a while. No, Hanson did not predict “an Ice Age w/in the next 50 to 60 years” – he’s not even directly quoted anywhere in that long trail of quotes that attempts to tie him to the statement… it links to a story that says Hanson “appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.” pathetic.

  • Jim from CA

    Follow the M-O-N-E-Y – all those Professors that get grants from the
    government to study Global Warming – it is a constant flow of money – and it is
    not just in the US – These people get grants all over the world – if they write
    a good report – they get another grant – it’s a money train of tax dollars to
    support Global Warming…

  • Mike M

    I did not say Hansen predicted anything. I said he was amongst a group who did—NASA scientists, who you point out as the experts who “state unequiv­o­cally that anthro­pogenic (human-caused) cli­mate change (ACC) is absolute fact.”
    Do some research, lay off the reactionary rhetoric, and spend some time on editing.

  • eb1225

    Those
    who claim that Earth isn’t warming ignore that besides the temperature record
    that shows that each decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the previous
    decade, sea levels are rising, arctic sea ice is diminishing in area and
    thickness, arctic tundra is thawing, glaciers and ice sheets are melting, days
    of record-breaking heat that occur each year now outnumber days of
    record-breaking cold by 2 to 1, ocean and lake temperatures are rising, the
    growing season in many places is lengthening and Spring is coming earlier, and
    many species of flora and fauna are migrating to cooler habitats (north or
    higher altitudes). The data shows
    unequivocally that Earth is warming.

    The question is not whether past
    warming periods over the last several million years were caused by human
    emissions of greenhouse gases, but rather whether the current period of warming
    is. The known natural causes of previous
    episodes of warming cannot explain the current warming. Solar radiance has actually been less rather
    than more intense, so the warming is not caused by more solar radiation
    reaching Earth. We are at a point in the
    Milankovitch cycles, which are thought to be the main cause of the cycle of ice
    ages and interglacial periods, when Earth should be cooling rather than
    warming. And the speed of warming,
    lightning fast by geological standards, is not consistent with natural causes,
    which operate slowly over the course of thousands and tens of thousands of
    years. Finally, the fact that the lower
    atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling is inconsistent
    with natural causes but is exactly what is to be expected if greenhouse gases
    that trap heat in the lower atmosphere is the main cause of the warming.

    Scientists have known about the
    natural greenhouse effect for 150 years.
    The tiny amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keeps Earth’s
    average temperature about 60 degrees F warmer than it would be without these
    trace gases. (Why is the moon’s surface
    so much colder than Earth’s? No
    atmosphere. No greenhouse gases.) We have increased greenhouse gases by about
    40 percent since the 1800s. If that were
    not causing warming, it would be a miracle requiring explanation.

    Carbon-intensive industries such as
    oil and coal stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars if the world weans
    itself from fossil fuels. Consequently,
    they are spending as much money as they can to persuade us that Earth isn’t
    warming or if it is, it’s purely natural.
    Follow the money.

  • iwanttovoteforobama

    All this end of the world alarmism is what makes skeptics rubbish this off as much ado about nothing. Besides, when they got their 10, 15 year predicions wrong, they resorted to making 80 to 90 year predictions…. Yeah, enough time to keep getting their grants and an excuse for a salary while not being around to be held to account.

  • windy2

    More past Kyoto participants walked away fron CO2 reduction committments in Doha. Those who have been defending Kyoto cap and trade got a shock when a new paper in Nature made the rounds showing that only two nations actually reduced emissions in 2011, Germany and the USA. Germany is a Kyoto participant while the USA is not. The shock is that none of the Kyoto cap and trade participants lowered emissions in 2011. I’m not sure what further proof that cap and trade is a useless and failed tool for mitigation of CO2e.

    The other shocking revelation is that Asian Pacific Nations are now far and away the largest contributors to global warming now. It was reported in Doha that the USA emitted 5.9GtCO2e in 2011 which is 15% of the 38.2GtCO2e global total reported. It was also reported that the Asian Pacific nations have funded 1200 new coal plants to be built over the next few years while the USA plans to close 175 more by 2016. This new reality means that nothing that the the developed nations can do with respect to lowering their own emissions will offset the exponential growth of Asian Pacific emissions.
    Given these revelations what does it matter what TV weather people think?

  • http://www.facebook.com/forest.fairbrother Forest Fairbrother

    ‘and refer­ring to ACC as a “theory.”’ You should realize that event the” theory of general relativity” is called a theory, in science it takes much more than an “argument by consensus fallacy” to call something a fact.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mhaseler Mike Haseler

    Anyone quoting the “97%” figure as proof of a consensus is either an idiot or a fraud. I’m a sceptic – I too would have answer yes: it has warmed since the little ice age and yes: CO2 is a greenhouse warming gas causing 1°C warming for a doubling as is expected over the next century.

    What I’ve always wondered is who were the two idiots who answered no? Were they just incapable of ticking the right box? The debate is not about whether it has warmed or whether CO2 is a gas but whether rising CO2 from 1958 caused the 0.48°C rise from 1970 to 2000 (then it stopped). The answer is simple … it also rose from 1910 to 1940 by 0.48°C when we were producing far less CO2.

    So is CO2 harmful? Do plants curl over and die if it goes up? NO! Even as high as 1000ppm (0.1%) plants just thrive.

    Do plants hate heat? Is the equatorial rainforests a desert devoid of any plant life because being at the most intensely heated part of the globe the sun’s heating is so catastrophic that …. plant thrive!!! The name’s in the “greenhouse” effect. You don’t need to be a scientists to know that a “greenhouse” is a way to increase the heat because PLANTS LIKE IT HOTTER.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-Mizla/100003258513930 Peter Mizla

    TV weathermen are employed by corporations whose man goal is ad revenue and profits. Most TV stations today are owned by conservative conglomerates that want to increase profits. Telling the public the truth about AGW might change their consumption habits, then of course decrease advertising by corporations. I would take the scientific research of those like James Hansen, Michael Mann and a cadre of others before any TV weatherperson with a mere BS in Meteorology. The science on AGW is no longer a question of it being ‘real’ it is and the science is air tight- the only question remaining is how fast we will be effected by increasing green house gases (and thus far the scientists have been too conservative in their estimates. We have but a few years left to peak our emissions- after that it will be very difficult to prevent catastrophic climate change.

  • windy2

    @ “Why is the moon’s surface so much colder than Earth’s?”

    Just so you know, the Moon’s surface facing the Sun is 253 degrees Fahrenheit.

    I think that in the USA people understand the need to reduce their use of fossil fuels to reduceg GHG emissions. As I noted below the USA lowered GHG emissions in 2011 while 98% of the Kyoto participants increased their emissions. The problem is that there are nations pretending to be doing something with no result, like Kyoto participants. The USA is lowering emissions and closing coal power plants and based on trend will drop from 15% in 2011 to less than 10% of the world’s emissions of CO2e by 2020. The UN has finally accepted that the Chinese and the Indians are on a trajectory to represent 70% of global CO2e emissions quite soon and that that is the real threat. There are land use changes, which poor and edeveloping countries are emitting at much higher levels than the USA, that also need to be addressed. The scientific estimate revealed in Durban last year was that 40GtCO2e/year from land use change is also being emitted. So Fossil fuels is not the only problem we have to address.

  • GAI

    Sigh,
    The 97-98% were actually 75 scientist out of 77 but they had to survey 10,257 to find them and then start eliminating. The survey was biased and the feedback comments from the scientists were interesting to say the least. For example
    “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

    Weathermen are aware of what is actually happening unlike the people sitting in an Ivory tower manipulating computer models. Both are well aware that there has been no statistically significant warming for almost 17 years.

    NOAA states: “…The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    Dr. Santer states: “…Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”

    So by their own statements and by the fact there has been no statistically significant warming for almost 17 years. CAGW is DEAD!

    The bullheadedness of politicians intent on not only forcing renewable energy on folks so their cronies can clean up have also forced agricultural regs that are wiping out small farmers world wide, destroying national strategic grain reserves and consolidating the food supply into the hands of about ten companies. In both cases the poor are DYING!

    The rest of us have moved on from the scam and are trying to figure out just how bad the cooling cycle is going to be with people dying from fuel poverty and starvation.

  • http://www.geckoandfly.com/ Ngan Tengyuen

    global warming is a scam, cann anyone please explain why the Ice melted during the last Ice Age? Mammoth on hummer? or what causes the ice to melt during the last dino ice age? Dinosaurs with their factories?

    Or more important of all, what causes earth to cool down prior to the ice age?

    It is a natural cycle.

  • David S. Leaton

    Mike, Peterson (2008) reviews global warming science published between 1968 and 1979, finding that only 10% of the science predicted global cooling. Sixty-two percent predicted global warming. The 70s “ice age” was a media event.

  • David S. Leaton

    Ngan, wiki “Milankovitch”.

  • David S. Leaton

    GAI, are you seriously going to claim that global warming has stopped based on the least representative surface temp time series, while ocean heat content shows no corresponding “hiatus” and global ice mass loss has accelerated during the “hiatus” period?

    Well, you go!

  • klem

    “Saying something ‘crazy’ like climate change doesn’t exist drives ratings up ..”
    Or they simply say it because it is true.

  • klem

    “We have but a few years left to peak our emissions- after that it will be very difficult to prevent catastrophic climate change..”
    You must be referring to the mythical climate tipping point. The tipping point that seems to be moved ahead every few years. I remember when it was supposed to happen in 2005, then it was bumped to 2009, then to 2012, now you say we have but a few years left, I interpret that to be around 2016. Ok…sure…whatever..

  • DaBilk

    C’mon Ngan, every warmist knows they all switched to eating only beans.

  • klem

    “This new reality means that nothing that the the developed nations can do with respect to lowering their own emissions will offset the exponential growth of Asian Pacific emissions.”
    Wahoo!!

  • klem

    This is true, they make all kinds of predictions and some of them actualy come true, most don’t. The lefty greenies simply ignore the wrong predictions and cling to the correct ones. That’s why many skeptics say that climate alarmism is based as much on faith as it is science.

  • Pingback: Local Weathermen Say Global Warming is a Conspiracy, “Scam” | BirchIndigo

  • Tony Pann

    Wow! Talk about cherry picking information…whew! I suggest everyone go
    back and look at that Facebook conversation. Let me just say this again: I am an
    environmentalist that just happens to disagree with a scientific theory (not a
    fact)! I am all for strict environmental controls and finding alternative fuel
    sources ASAP…not because the Global Warming monster is coming to get us, but
    because it’s common sense to do so. This is NOT a left vs right political issue,
    it’s a scientific opinion. If I told you I did not agree with String Theory
    would you care? Anyhow, there was a lot of solid evidence offered to back up my
    opinions in that FB discussion….if anyone cares to look. Best…Tony
    Pann

  • Rusty Shackleford

    Ah, Newsbusters, the paragon of journalism run by the mentally unstable L. Brent Bozell III.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    “I don’t drink the lib­eral coolaid [sic].”

    No wonder WMAR is a perennial ratings doormat. They can’t even hire people who can spell.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    If you asked Mike Masco what a low pressure system was, he’d tell you it’s that giant blue “L” on the map.

  • Clock 24

    Did you read the study? The sample of the survey was cut down to eliminate those who didn’t have at least 20 publications in the area (ie, ruling out early-career individuals or post-docs). The N size was reduced from 1372 to 908 (not 77). Not sure where you got those comments (as feedback wasn’t reported in the paper) but I wouldn’t expect a climate researcher (used to quantitative data) to understand an experiment of expert opinions. The charts in the paper are telling. As with any paper, I am sure there are some experimental flaws, but you have greatly exaggerated them.

  • Clock 24

    The survey was about whether they were convinced by the evidence that climate change due to anthropogenic (man-made) sources. It was not about whether warming had occurred or not.

    Further, CO2 in the atmosphere appears to cause global warming by creating a greenhouse effect at the atmosphere, but that has nothing to do with plants. The impact of CO2 and global warming on plants is not the concern with climate change. Climate change is more of a concern in terms of weather-related events (hurricanes, etc), increased sea levels that threaten cities like NYC (due to melting ice at the poles and elsewhere), droughts in some areas, flooding in others, and so forth.

  • Clock 24

    Guess who else has a strong financial interest in supporting research? Companies that provide grants to prove climate change doesn’t exist. Just something to consider.

  • DaBilk

    Fewer droughts, fewer hurricanes, sea level rise is slowing, Antarctic ice growing, the droughts are not getting more severe. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • DaBilk

    You might want to check your figures there big ben.

  • DaBilk

    Maybe you should take a look at that too Dave.

  • DaBilk

    I agree, but the only problem is how strict should the controls be. I also agree that the alarmism is getting a bit stale…sounding a like the doom and gloom prophecies of Relevations. Bring back the solid scientific studies not the chest thumping whinings of groups not prepared for proper scientific debate…but, alas, the noveaux science has “been settled”.

  • DaBilk

    and you figure radioactive dating is going out with a disc jockey?

  • http://twitter.com/YankeeinNebr Keeley Heise

    Hate to burst your bubble…the Great Plains just experienced one of the worst droughts since the Dust Bowl. Hurricanes, though they may be fewer in number, are becoming more intense because they have oceans that are warmer (and warmer for longer) on which to feed and pull energy. Antarctic ice on the interior is growing, but the coastal edges are warming and experiencing severe calving and melting again because of the warmer ocean temperatures. Arctic sea ice is at it lowest areal extent and is becoming increasingly thinner. Mountain glaciers and icecaps are rapidly disappearing, and the permafrost is melting.

  • Alfie Leonard

    Climate change is just a ‘theory’, it could be wrong so let’s just keep on doing what we’re doing. What’s the problem with that. Why should I have to change my way of life over a mere theory. It’s far too much trouble to change. What would I do without my SUV, and my AC, and all those appliances that make my life so much better? All for a mere theory? No way…

  • BalmyBalmer

    Broadcast meteorology? Isn’t that teleprompter reading?

  • WorldCup

    I’m dismayed by all the deniers here. I convinced that the science is quite settled… global warming is happening, it is caused by human activity, and its impacts will be quite harmful to many people and plant and animal species, as well as economically devastating.

    However, let’s say you disagree, and you feel the science is inconclusive or biased. Shouldn’t we take a few precautionary measures just in case all these scientists are right? I mean, what if you and the deniers are wrong? There’s a chance that that is possible, isn’t there? What is the chance that you, as a denier, are wrong? Is it 10%, 20% or maybe you think it’s 50-50%. Are you _so_very_certain_ that you’re correct, you’re willing to risk all the cities and towns along the coastlines of the USA? What about the pine forests in the northern US and Canada? The pine beetle is usually killed off by the cold, but due to warmer temperatures, it has been able to survive the winters and has absolutely devastated huge tracts of forest. I’ve driven there and seen mile after mile of dead trees. So I’m convinced, but if someone said to you, “there’s a 10% chance that coastal US cities will get bashed by more intense storms due to human created greenhouse gasses, crops will fail due to drought or flooding, and hundreds of species will go extinct” wouldn’t you take some action to mitigate that possibility? If someone said there is a 10% or 50% chance a bomb will blow up in New York City, or Baltimore, but you can reduce that chance, I bet you’d be quick to take action and spend money to keep that from happening.

    I could be wrong, and I could be wasting my money and time, but just in case a whole bunch of well-respected scientists are right, I’m trying to do my part to reduce my GHGs, and I’m offsetting the emissions I can’t avoid. If I’m right, I’m saving lives, businesses, jobs, plants and animals. If I’m wrong, I’ve wasted some time and money. I’m not willing to bet my hometown that a whole bunch of PhDs are are lying to themselves and the world so they can get more grant money. I’m sad that you are willing to bet my (our) hometown that your conspiracy theory is right.

  • WorldCup

    I’m
    dismayed by all the deniers here. I convinced that the science is quite
    settled… global warming is happening, it is caused by human activity,
    and its impacts will be quite harmful to many people and plant and
    animal species, as well as economically devastating.

    However, let’s say you disagree, and you feel the science is
    inconclusive or biased. Shouldn’t we take a few precautionary measures
    just in case all these scientists are right? I mean, what if you and
    the deniers are wrong? There’s a chance that that is possible, isn’t
    there? What is the chance that you, as a denier, are wrong? Is it 10%,
    20% or maybe you think it’s 50-50%. Are you _so_very_certain_ that
    you’re correct, you’re willing to risk all the cities and towns along
    the coastlines of the USA? What about the pine forests in the northern
    US and Canada? The pine beetle is usually killed off by the cold, but
    due to warmer temperatures, it has been able to survive the winters and
    has absolutely devastated huge tracts of forest. I’ve driven there and
    seen mile after mile of dead trees. So I’m convinced, but if someone
    said to you, “there’s a 10% chance that coastal US cities will get
    bashed by more intense storms due to human created greenhouse gasses,
    crops will fail due to drought or flooding, and hundreds of species will
    go extinct” wouldn’t you take some action to mitigate that possibility?
    If someone said there is a 10% or 50% chance a bomb will blow up in
    New York City, or Baltimore, but you can reduce that chance, I bet you’d
    be quick to take action and spend money to keep that from happening.

    I could be wrong, and I could be wasting my money and time, but just
    in case a whole bunch of well-respected scientists are right, I’m trying
    to do my part to reduce my GHGs, and I’m offsetting the emissions I
    can’t avoid. If I’m right, I’m saving lives, businesses, jobs, plants
    and animals. If I’m wrong, I’ve wasted some time and money. I’m not
    willing to bet my hometown that a whole bunch of PhDs are are lying to
    themselves and the world so they can get more grant money. I’m sad that
    you are willing to bet my (our) hometown that your conspiracy theory is
    right.

  • Pingback: Weathercasters on climate - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Jet

    Once upon a time there was an “absolute concensus” that the earth is flat. It only takes one person to be right, no matter how many others are wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000883561791 Alexander Mitchell

    Let’s see….
    “Follow the money!” is considered absolute gospel, unbreakable dogma, irrevocable truth when it’s levied by the “left-wing” against “big business,” “right-wing” politicians, “greedy capitalists,” and the like. “Money” explains everything. Don’t even ask about facts or veracity.

    But raise it as a legitimate possibility against left-leaning “save the planet” “tree-huggers” and their supporters in science telling us to dismantle Western civilization as we know it, and suddenly you’re a crackpot, a loonie, a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and all that…….

    Tony Pann is hardly the first, nor will he be the last, person with some knowledge of meteorology to raise the “follow the money” question, or to point out that every study of ACC ends with “More study is needed!”

  • Evan Serpick

    The “Follow the money” mantra among climate science deniers has always been so laughable to me because, ask yourself honestly, where is the REAL money in this whole situation? Is it in the academics who spend their life studying science to earn maybe 100K a year and seek out grant money? Or is it in the gas companies who reap record profits in the many, many billions every year, headed by billionaire CEOs, whose business model depends on creating uncertainty about climate science? Hmm, I wonder who in that situation would have more money, more power to influence the debate? Follow the money indeed…

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.bond.10 William Bond

    The REAL money in this whole situation is in Al Gore’s pocket, in his real estate agent’s pocket who sold him the 20mil Malibu estate, and in the cos. that sell jet fuel to his NetJet service so he can fly Larry David’s ex woman around to Tibet and India while being waited on by the Secret Service and 10 attendants bearing fans and moist towels . . .

    I always wonder why peeps gets so caught up in all this, as if either side is pure or good, or that God doesn’t already have his various answers prepared in advance — which is what God does for a living by the way. (I.e., All the oil spilled in the BP Gulf disaster has long ago been eaten by the preexisting bacteria which eats gulf oil, as said bacteria has done for eons.) Likewise, ice age, hot age, la da da, it comes and goes, but certainly, we have periods in history where the world literally ended, yet to be born again. And to say the academics who only make 100k (try 500k or more if they are tied to research) — multiply that by 10,000 academics — are no matter to individual billionaires is faulty logic, as they have every bit the agenda.

    Bottom line, as William Goldman said about Hollywood, ‘Nobody knows nothin’…’ The notion that one side or the other in this matter is ‘pure’ is pure ‘sophist’ shit.

    Apologies to the editor.

  • Evan Serpick

    The anti-science crowd tries to make this about Al Gore as a distraction. Who gives a shit about Al Gore or his fucking estate? The point is, lots of people (NASA, NOAA, etc.) know a lot about a lot and they’re saying climate change is probably already irreversable, but the damage can be mitigated with real reduction of the burning of fossil fuels. Bernie Sanders has a great bill on this, but it’ll probably never pass because people keep talking about a bloated ex-VP instead of the actual issue. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9F7EF1C1-466A-494D-8B51-A1530D78C5D4

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.bond.10 William Bond

    I’m with you that folks gotta’ stop pollutin’ — I always think of the old American Indian ad when we were growing up, the one with the tear running down his face — but to just dismiss Gore as a distraction (as he pretty much invented the movement) is as dismissive to his detractors as saying Bush the 2nd didn’t cause our current economic climate by plunging us into a factually wrong war . . .

  • Evan Serpick

    I’ll leave it at this: No, it is not at all like that. Al Gore certainly did not “invent” the environmental movement or the push to curb global warming. He is not even a scientist. Scientists have been talking about this for at least 70 years. Al Gore is a politician who spoke out about global warming, possibly doing the movement more harm than good. Either way, his personal choices are an absolute distraction from the science.

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.bond.10 William Bond

    I agree, and, if we disagree, it is one mostly of semantics.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000883561791 Alexander Mitchell

    “Shouldn’t we take a few precautionary measures just in case all these
    scientists are right? I mean, what if you and the deniers are wrong?
    There’s a chance that that is possible, isn’t there?”

    The problem is, “a few precautionary measures” simply won’t do it.

    You absolutely, positively HAVE to declare all-out war on Western civilization as we know it. China’s “one child per couple” policy would have to be imposed planet-wide, even in “third-world” places where having children is the only way to expand your wealth and provide for your old age. The U.N. would have to tell the entire populations of China and India and other such places that they can never, never aspire to owning a motorized vehicle, and go around and confiscate all those polluting mopeds, scooters, and trucks. Then do that to the entire youth of the United States, and Europe. Raise gasoline to $20 a gallon immediately, and watch what happens to the economies of the U.S., Brazil, Canada, Russia, etc. You can have power only so long as the sun shines and the wind blows. Goodbye, Internet, TV, recorded music, radio, etc.

    Then, and only then, might you stand a chance. And even THEN, you’re hoping that the fact that most of those studies ignored the very real impact of solar cycles and the sun’s irregular actions turned out to be irrelevant.

    If the folks that want Americans to dramatically change their lifestyles and scale back their standards of living will kindly “order” India and China to do the same thing, rather than “exempt” them because they’re “developing countries,” then the skeptics would take them a bit more seriously. As it stands now, however, I don’t think so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000883561791 Alexander Mitchell

    To give him the benefit of the doubt, he could be simply avoiding the use of a trademarked name.

  • Pingback: Get Facebook Likes