With the mantra now changed from Global Warning to "Climate Change" to reflect the growing awareness of less solar energy radiating the planet, can we soon expect government credits to *increase* our carbon footprint?

He must be taking money from organizations which profit from contradicting global warming.

This makes him evil - totally unlike the people who take money from organizations which profit from promoting global warming.

I dont pretend to know either way whether or not man made global warming is occuring, whether or not there is natural warming occuring or whether no real warming is occuring at all. What I am incredibly suspicious of is politicians pretending they know about a science they have never studied and the way in which scientists (such as David Bellamy)who disagree with man made global warming are treated.

I think this guy is incredibly brave to stand up to the masses and give his opinion which some people will see as controversial.

I think these people will hang onto AGW as long as possible as probably their wages, grants and lifehood depend on it. However science will win in the end but it probably will take another 2-3 years for complete demolition of AGW by data LOL

PH Says: He must be taking money from organizations which profit from contradicting global warming.

REPLY: Yeah, that's it. He's one of Dick Cheney's cronies. LOL!!! Love it man!!!!

Save the planet from hot air. FIRE HEIDI CULLEN!!!!!

The cracks in the foundation are getting bigger for Al Gores camp. Where has be been the past few weeks? If we have a few more good old fashion winters here in the north east like we have this year (currently looking at 50 inches of snow pack when we normally have around 2 feet), most of new england would be off the bandwagon.

Dave, you bring up a great point about "climate change". I have noticed the phrase change now that you mention it.

jon

I think that's an interesting point VG. Now that most of the environmental charities have made and are continuing to make so much money from climate change campaigns, can we really expect them to support research from scientists who might question the overall theory?

Hi Greg Jenkins. Don't remember seeing your name here before. Welcome. Hope to here more from you. Best regards. Dave.

"If the lawyers will take the case � sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore."

Al Gore doesn't sell carbon credits. But, hey, why let a fact get in the way of a smear? This guy is a pure crank.

So, the whiny skeptics who can't get an article published are going to start suing. Wow.

And, Greg, Bellamy is a botanist, not a climate scientist.

Hi Boris,

Hansen is a space physicist, not a climate scientist. Gore was too busy inventing the Internet to be a climate scientist. The vast majority of climate modelers are software hacks, not climate scientists. Ban and Boxer are politicians, not climate scientists.

John Coleman understands weather, which is at the core of climate science. He is at least as qualified to comment as Heidi Cullen.

"I think the question you're asking is who's behind the scare," Monckton said. "There's been a long history of scares recently and scientific frauds of various kinds. It began, I suppose, with the eugenics movement in the 1930s which led to Hitler. It followed on with the lyceum movement in Russia under Stalin. It went on with the great leap back under Chairman Mao which led again to tens of millions of deaths. The point you're making is that this kills people if you get the science wrong."

Lord Monckton

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303154249.aspx

Yes, Al Gore does sell carbon credits. He sits on the board of at least one company that's in that business. Gore also buys carbon credits from that company (himself, essentially) to offset his many mansions and the rest of his jet-setting lifestyle.

Gore's so-called documentary is best categorized as an infomercial. He's promoting himself and the various green businesses he is affiliated with.

Boris:

Algore doesn't sell carbon credits just as Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions.

If I were you, I wouldn't be bragging on 'climate scientists'. At the present time their credibility is about as high as that snake-oil salesman on Josey Wales.

As you well know, the biggest danger to 'consensus' is 'dissent', so the Hysterics have circled the wagons. Got to keep those wild Indians on the reservations.

I don't hear anybody whining.

I totally agree with John Coleman. People like Al Gore are promoting global warming because it is the latest band wagon.

Here are the words of NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin.

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

His idea of a lawsuit makes sense. If the Sierra Club and other whacked out environmental groups can stop the government in court from implementing common sense solutions on the basis that they will disturb the habitat of spotted owls and snail darters then why not sue Al Gore and others who are spreading lies and profiting from them.

I propose that the ICCC start a Junk Science Defense Fund, hire teams of lawyers and challenge every nutty idea that these greenies come up with, in court. Make them prove their claims or cease and desist from their scams.

Is this guy a climatologist? Reply: No, he is not a climatologist. If global warming deniers are relying on him to save their cause, then the debate truly is over.

Oops sorry, Boris, you are so wrong. Al Gore does sell carbon credits through his company, Generation Investment Management, where he is the Chairman. This has been all over the news. He basically buys his own carbon offsets from himself. And his company sells carbon credits. It is kind of a scam.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist either, his background and education is in journalism and some law credits, basically a liberal arts degree. So why should we believe anything he says either. Plus most of the people on the IPCC study were not technically climate scientists either so that means that is flawed also??

When I lived in San Diego, I use to watch John Coleman on KUSI, I had no idea he started the Weather Channel. He seemed to be a very intelligent weather person, kind of funny too, and highly regarded, which was the consensus by the media in San Diego at that time. Apparently, he is financially well off and does not have to worry about money for the rest of his life, i.e., he isn't worried about grants and getting funding. He just genuinely cares and is concerned about where this global warming alarmism may go if left unchecked. If he is a crank, then we need MORE cranks!

Here is the NYT report on the NIPCC.

Revkin fails to mention or quote anything said at the conference, chosing instead to ramble on with his own semi-incoherent thoughts.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/the-never-ending-story/?hp

Here is the predictable Washington Post hit job. The author was more interested in quotes from people who did not attend.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302781.html

Well, there's a gadfly in every conference. In this one, it was Dr Pat Michaels. With a 0.17 degree of warming/decade we can expect an inhospitable climate in a few hundred years. As we go through permutations of temperature, this is going to be one notably insidious climate change from anthropogenic gas!

Stop global warming now!

Revkin's notebook was full of quotes from people trying to discredit the conference, but almost none from people involved the conference itself. Why is the opinion of some random Greenpeace demonstrator even mentioned? Why is Revkin's personal belief system relevant?

Reply: I was looking for different viewpoints of the conference, and as of this morning there were very few. So I linked to the Revkin one and for balance I posted the heartland day 1 and day 2 updates. If you found any others feel free to link to them.

Revkin isn't interested in reporting on the conference, rather he sees his column as an opportunity to push his own personal biases. The very reason that papers like the NYT are sinking into oblivion.

Coleman was just on Glenn Beck's radio show talking about the Heritage Conferene in NYC. Reply: I think you meant the Heartland Oz. (GASP!!!! GLENN BECK???? Why he's nothing more than another Bush apologist!!! He's another Limbaugh wannabe!!!! huh huh huh huh) Thank GOD for alternative media like Beck! Otherwise you would never hear about anything contrary to this scam's agenda. Or anything contrary to the left's agenda overall. But, it won't matter once our next "President" is elected, for each one of our wonderful candidates will re-instate the Fairness Doctrine, in an attempt, yet again, to thwart free speech!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!

Boris, I hope you plan on replying to what Mary posted. Or would you just like your credibility to be lost completely?

Patrick Henry:
Thanks for the links to the NYT and The Washington Post with articles on the conference. I think it's useful to see how AGW alarmists react to such activity. The Post takes some pot shots at the conference and denigrates the number of attendees and countries represented while boasting about the numbers and time spent by the IPCC "scientists". Never mind that that group has had many defectors and many who have very suspect credentials. I think that one thing it points up is that the AGW alarmists simply cannot stand scrutiny and will resort to any tactics to silence any who don't agree with their conclusions.

So, uh, what BIG OIL company paid for John Coleman's statement?

That surely will be the cry heard from the AGWers I'm positive.

Just think how Coleman must feel. He essentially created the 24/7 weather industry as a and now has seen it turn into a bunch of hacks promoting a screwed up ideological theory. Beyond that, their forecasts suck rotten eggs and more of their programming time is devoted to ideological concerns then forecasting. Maybe they have a couple of good forecasters, but frankly, I haven't seen it.

I know, let's create a whole series on hyping weather events in which people, who probably were watching TWC for their weather information, nearly get killed because the TWC forecast was wrong. That's a great idea. And let's run it in the middle of a major severe weather outbreak. That way, people can be informed of how they can get nearly killed because we messed up the forecast.

Want to have some fun? Turn it on in the middle of a severe weather event (of course if storm stories or Dr. Heidi isn't on telling you that you are a bad CO2 emitter). They run a base undertone under the people speaking to give the impression of impending doom and danger.

Oh and Brett:

I know you linked to Revkin to get a different viewpoint, Thanks. For nothing. Revkin's article is meant solely to demean every single thing about the conference. His, and I am certain, the NY Times bias is not hidden, it is on his shirt as a pround green logo.

Now why would you "balance" his take on the conference with the conference itself? Reply: That's all I could find as of this morning.
That's not balance, that is the conference presenting the info and someone lambasting it. You would have needed to find someone who agrees with the conference reporting on it like Revkin.

Frankly, I don't think that reporter exists since most reporters seem to buy into the Gore's faith.

Every public school child in America has been taught that the polar ice caps are disappearing fast.

So why is polar ice right at the 30 year mean?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

What kind of people would propagate lies to children in order to alter their behavior and turn them against their society?

So happy to see everything is OK with the Heartland! Makes me feel so good I think I'll take up smoking again. Hey, anybody got any asbestos I can snort? That'll show all those alarmists. Now I can go back to something important, like trying to decide what an oiznot is.

Coleman's comments sound more like the typical angry paranoid rantings of the right wingnuts than anything befitting a credible scientist. I can see why he was booted from WCBS in NY years back after about three months on the job. The fact that he's going on Glenn Beck's show to espouse his views rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals or on editorial pages tells you all you need to know.

Only a handful of the ICCC presenters have presented their data and results at conferences like AGU, etc. let alone opened them up to scrutiny in reputable published journals. If they were really interested in presenting a scientific viewpoint, maybe they would open themselves up to an audience of real scientists.

Here's the problem...this is a politically motivated conference as evidenced from this statement from the Day 2 press release. "Parallels were being drawn between this conference and the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947--which led to the creation of an institution that played a key role in the resurrection of classical liberalism world-wide and the intellectual defeat of socialism." Very scientific.

I feel bad for John Coleman. He's one who still can't get over the fact that they kicked him out of the Weather Channel. And he can't get over the fact that the channel only started gaining prominence after they kicked him to the curb.

Now he lives in some retirement community in San Diego and wants someone to pay attention to him.

"Apparently, he is financially well off and does not have to worry about money for the rest of his life, i.e., he isn't worried about grants and getting funding."

Apparently, Mary, you are very naive. He might live a "comfortable" life, but he, to this very day, harbors a lot of rage and bitterness of what could have been had they not kicked him out of the Weather Channel. All the fame, wealth and influence that should have accompanied the position never materialized for him, and he speaks openly about how devastating it is to think about. He got nothing for giving up 75,000 shares of his company and most people don't know who this guy is.

But, hey, he just genuinely cares and is concerned about where this global warming alarmism may go if left unchecked.....right, Mary? No axe for him to grind, nope. LOL.