Global Warming: The Other Side


John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled “Global Warming: The Other Side,” presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman’s blockbuster five-part series can be seen here.

The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D’Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.

Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake.

Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing “green cars.” General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become “carbon neutral.”

Then there’s Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.

It’s deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They’ve taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to “impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

What would all the beneficiaries of the global warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind’s activities have very little to do with the Earth’s temperature? I don’t know but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. But I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.

  • http://theglow.110mb.com doubting Thomas

    The universe is a violent and extreme place. At times we will be further from the sun, at times there will be dust between us and the sun, and so forth as the solar system spirals around the black hole in the middle of the milky way. One day billions of years hence, the sun will engulf us. One day a supernova will irradiate us. One day a large meteor will hit the earth. Right now, Global warming, as Larry Elder says, has become a financial jackpot (as well as a religion according to some). All we have to do is change our ways and we save the world. We have to give up our riches, change our lifestyle, be green, and all will be well. This really sounds suspicious, especially the way the left has latched on to it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      I agree with you, Thomas. We are at the mercies of a universe which could care less about our happiness, our safety, or our future. Only we can do that.

      The Left is going after capitalism through its primary tool – AGW. Make no mistake about it: The counter-evidence will be ignored by them. Their goal is global government, and the suppression of individual freedoms.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        I know what you mean. As the biggest polluter on the planet, the United States should do absolutely nothing and we should watch as the rest of the undeveloped world develops…industrializes and starts pollutiing even more. China will surpass us at some point soon as the biggest polluter…and we can't allow there to be a pollution gap. We have to start polluting even more if we are going to stay on top of this thing.

  • ciccio

    I don't know if there is global warming or not, unfortunately I can't even find out, there is so much passion on both sides of the debate that the facts seem to get lost in the process. As I sat freezing my butt off this winter, feeling positive that it has been getting colder, I decided to check the Canadian met office, they have a site which gives temperature data for every hour of the day at all weather station going back to 1953. I did just that for Toronto for one day in December at lunchtime and since there are cold winters and warmer ones I averaged every ten years and surprise surprise, the 90's were one degree warmer than average, this decade is a fraction of a degree colder. What surprised me even more was that 75% of all weather stations are at airports, all of which are situated in wide open places away from the lakes, two things having a large influence on the local weather. Another thing that has an influence is these miles of runways which act as a heat sink. If the measure CO2 as well at these places, there is no better place in the country to find it. As far as I have been able to find out, most other countries also have most of their weather stations at airports. In other words, I am in as much doubt as ever.

    • dbguru

      Almost all global reporting stations are located at airports since weahter conditions are a crucial factor in fkight operations. Airports are also significant heat islands as are all metropolitan areas and therfore ALL temps measured at these locations are going to be higher than the surrounding countryside. Furthermore as air traffic increases over time so also will airport temperature reading.

      I am a retired scientist (not in climatolgy but trained to evaluate data) and it is my opinion that all such airport readings no matter where collected should be adjusted downward by at least .75 degrees C for thelow traffic airports and by at least 1 degree for metro airports. Iit's just a rule of thumb and is probably just as rough an estimte as that which the CRC uses. The problem is that no one really has a clue as to how such a correction should be applied, including the climatoligists.

      Also you are partially right about runways but they are heat islands within heat islands; to the runways you need to add taxiways, hardstand parking and auotmobile parking lots as well as the terminal area itself and don't forget the access roads.

      • I am not who I am

        .03 degrees C is the urban island heat effect correction factor. James Hanson quotes his own research paper in justifying that "correction". You can look on the Nasa site to find his "research". Apparently UIHE is not a factor, only CO2. They have "corrected" the numbers for UIHE.

        • dbguru

          Who says that Hansen is right, I sure don't. .03 C is manifestly an insufficient correction for UHI's not when a difference of 3 to 5 degrees F exist between a downtown reporting station and a suburban station both being influenced by the same air mass. Since CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas its contribution reletive to water vapor has come under serious question lately.

  • solemnman

    The oil empowered Islamists and toxic polution are sufficient reasons to change our fuel .even if the global warming concept(and i;m sure it is) is false.

    • http://kathyleicester.com Kathy L.

      Disagree. The "toxic pollution" from petroleum use is of minimal impact to our health, and virtually no impact to the environment. The answer to "oil-empowered Islamists," a very legitimate concern! is to DRILL in our own backyard to provide all we need from our own resources. This means both oil and natural gas. Coal is also a valid option.

    • johncarens

      Oh, yeah, sure. Just "change our fuel". To WHAT?? Swamp water? Lollipop drippings? I don't know where all this crap comes from that we have a plethora of different fuels out there just waiting to be used, but that The Evil Oil Companies keep them off the market. If there is one amazing and beautiful thing about mercantile capitalism, it is that, like air trapped in water, better consumer alternatives always rise to the top.

    • jlori

      To say that CO2 is a pollutant, let alone a dangerous pollutant is just plain wrong. In 1800 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 275ppm, by some estimates. Today it is about 390ppm, a 42% increase. In spite of this, I challenge Gore or anyone else to name me just one photosynthesizing plant that has been directly harmed in any way by exposure to the increased concentration of this gas. CO2 is not an air pollutant. Anyone that thinks it is is a moron.

  • USMCSniper

    the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched–to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

    It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

      Arctic oil reserves? WTF are you talking about. They can drill all over Alaska….what was at issue is a PRESERVE called ANWR, which you and FPM took to distorting to some wierd issue. You ever seen ANWR on a map? Probably not you moron. Go look at it. Is it really an extremist issue preventing oil companies from drilling the arctic or is it a small PRESERVE that was set aside to not develop. Du-oh!

      Your entire frame of mind is a strawman…the old "environmentalist want us to revert" schtick. When your momma called you for supper you probably screamed at her "stop trying to micromanage my life!".

      Vast untouched wilderness…..give me a break you idiot. Go shove your imaginary physics degree up your pooper.

  • bardefa

    stop sending $$ to jihadists and create jobs here – drill! Drill!! DRILL!!! DRILL!!!!
    D R I L L U S A ! ! ! !

  • William Smart

    It's shocking how the whole climate change business has become politicised and anti-science. But there is a real problem out there with the amount of CO2 getting into the atmosphere and it's very important the investigation goes on.

    • Wideband

      "there is a real problem out there with the amount of CO2 getting into the atmosphere".

      I think that's the point of the debate. What is the "very real problem"? If it's not "man-caused climate change", as there seems to now be abundant evidence that it is not, what's the problem? It also is apparent that the anti-science and politically motivated side to the argument is the one that claims mankind is harming the earth, and possibly itself in the process.

    • mamapajamas

      Wideband gave a good response to your comment, "there is a real problem out there with the amount of CO2 getting into the atmosphere".

      I'd like to add this: There is zero evidence that CO2 is causing any harm at all. It is NOT a pollutant, it is a necessary gas in our atmosphere. Basic 3rd grade science… plants can't live without CO2. An alternate way to look at CO2 is as airborne plant food.

      We don't know if CO2 even IS a problem, never mind whether or not we should destroy our worlds' economies by cutting back.

      Don't ever forget… airborne plant food…

      Think about it that way before you go off half-cocked.

  • Stephen D.

    Being a good steward of our resources is/should be a priority of any responsible person. We should care to not waste or polute or abuse our environment. But to suggest that my burning fule to heat my home is “wrong” and that now, somehow, paying Al Gore and his ilk “carbon credits” will make everything ok is absurd. The mere fact that water vapor (clouds) cause more “climate change” than all the CO2 emissions is enough to convince me to take these “studies” with a grain of salt and to watch my wallet once these folks start telling me how much they care for our future and the environment. Snipper is right. and bardefa is also. Mr. Smart, again you need to look into this “real problem” of CO2 and compare with what I just said about clouds. You say you’re interested in “real science” but espouse the same B.S. as Al Gore without the impenence of the facts.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

      Who is suggesting that heating your home is wrong? No one.

      Step one is stop pretending someone wants you to feel guilty. Set aside the fact that celebrities and Al Gore buy "carbon credits" to offset a tremendous amount of use (jets and multiple homes in some cases, etc). That is as much for show and to set an example than actually preventing pollution. No one expects you to buy carbon credits. The average person in this modern, complex society can do little or nothing personally that will make any difference. If people would just not do stupid things like pouring oil down the drain, or littering, that is as much as one can expect.

      In Al Gore's case it is ridiculed because his critics distort what he is saying as if he wants us all to revert to playing with sticks. So they simply won't take him seriously until he stops using energy and is unable to run an office or his websites or continue speaking out against pollution. Then his message will be valid…lol

      The entire concept of "carbon credits" on a global scale is simple. Burning coal and oil is the cheapest and best thing we have going right now. We dig up the earth and burn it to release energy. It's cheap because it is the low hanging fruit. What we really need are alternative forms of energy production that don't exist yet. But our society is one of commodities and monetary value. The alternatives are currently much more expensive than just burning coal. Part of the reason coal and other dirty energy is cheap is that there is no monetary value attached to them dumping pollutants into the atmosphere, lakes, rivers, etc. So your energy is a certain price (sans the expensive or impossible measure of not polluting). You "pay" for it later when your kid has asthma or you get sick, or your ship runs into the massive island of garbage floating in the ocean.

      So the movement is to start attaching a monetary value to polluting so that alternative forms of energy can have funding and maybe it becomes cheaper to actually pollute less. Energy producers and oil companies in the United States are the worst offenders simply because we have advanced further, industrialized decades and decades ago, and produce more energy and drive more cars….so naturally they(we) are the biggest critics of any cost being added to them doing business. But what it is designed to do glabally is to make sure that as 3rd world countries industrialize and China continues to develop…it is a good value to develop clean instead of taking our route. It's not that what we did was bad or having your car is bad…it's that we need to begin to move in a new direction and that just can't be left up to the energy companies and the oil industry.

  • Jim Stuart

    There is scientific evidence that suggests that current co2 levels are sub-optimal from the perspective of the proliferation of life. That in the past, higher levels of co2 coincided with a more thriving environment.

    • mamapajamas

      In other words, CO2 is airborne plant food.

  • http://findairports.net/ Wideband

    “there is a real problem out there with the amount of CO2 getting into the atmosphere”.

    I think that’s the point of the debate. What is the “very real problem”? If it’s not “man-caused climate change”, as there seems to now be abundant evidence that it is not, what’s the problem? It also is apparent that the anti-science and politically motivated side to the argument is the one that claims mankind is harming the earth, and possibly itself in the process.
    Should write good post. Can’t wait to reading your next post!

  • ciccio

    There sure is a hell of a lot of CO2 getting out, CO2 permits that is. 250,000 Of them have just been stolen in the EU where there is a booming carbon trading market worth some $ 135 billion and that is just the start of it. That alone does more than anything else to explain the massive concerns of governments about CO2. The derivative market was child's play in comparison. There are just a few questions that I would like those very concerned scientists to answer. The CO2 level is supposed to be 387 ppm, a little more than the the level of nitrogen dioxide, but only a fifth of that of a far more lethal gas, methane and less than a tenth of that of water vapour. So of the supposedly dangerous contaminants in the atmosphere, the whole world is going gung-ho to battle all 6% of them, totally ignoring the other 94%. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that it is very easy to identify sources of energy and tax them, it is not quite that easy to find the sources of water vapour, methane and NO2 and even more difficult to tax them. Here is a handy hint. Sue California. The recent wildfires there put more CO2 and NO2 into the atmosphere than all the cars in the state. Here is another question for those very concerned scientists. The weight of dry air is 1.2 g/L, that of CO2 is 1.977 g/L. Does their CO2 defy gravity? Does it rise above the lighter air? Collecting air samples in a jet plane is possible not the best way to get atmosphere samples uncontaminated by the environment, the Japanese have sent up a weather balloon to collect them and they have found an astounding thing.
    Once you enter the stratosphere, the CO2 levels drop. Even the jet planes have found that.
    Considering the amount of air in the troposphere is only about half of the total, and considering that the upper atmosphere is almost empty of CO2, does that mean the figures have been grossly inflated? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • tramky

    It has become quite clear recently–as though it was not clear much earlier–that 'global warming' has been nothing but an enormous flim-flam, a fraud perpetrated by a cabal of social engineers who would stop at nothing to obtain a certain power over the world. And then there is the matter of the ginned-up, bogus market in so-called carbon credits. That is nothing less than a scheme to get people to literally PAY for the air they breathe.

    In the U.S., we have Al Gore as the most famous proponent of these schemes. He has been revealed as nothing other than a cheap flim-flam artist, a con man.

    Figures don't lie, but liars figure. That IS the lesson of the entire global warming episode.

    • jlori

      The AGW crowd is comprised of two groups. The first group (the followers) includes the uninformed, the gullible, the well intentioned but naive, the sincere but mislead, many journalists and researchers, and yes, the just plain stupid. I would think it safe to say that these people all believe that most of the recent global warming must have been or was caused by human activity – primarily CO2 emissions and that wind farms fix the problem. These people are not evil, they are just wrong. How anyone could rationally think that the IPCC fairytales prove their position is beyond hope and not worthy of debate.

      The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, Pachauri, and the rest of the extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries.

      There are legitimate environmental issues. Surly we must continue to fight for and to find a way to protect our environment, reduce stress on fisheries, manage water, land and forest resources, protect endangered species if possible and were practical, and a myriad other environmental issues and crises we face. The real tragedy of the AGW shibboleth is that it will destroy the credibility of legitimate environmental movements, divert needed funding away from them, and make the efforts of those movements even more difficult. And this is why the people of the first group, if and when they ever figure it out, should forever condemn those of the second.

      The rest of us already have.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        The movement to reduce stress on fisheries is just another environmental scam. Fisheries are not stressed and there are plenty of fish and there always will be. We don't face any crisis…they are all imagined by people trying to take something from you.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Remember the acid rain hoax? That’s why I never bought the global warming fraud. Be aware of the anti-capitalism crowd. Any angle necessary for them. As far as giving money to terrorists I say nuclear power and drill baby drill.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

      Yeah and remember that Ozone hole scam. All just to take away your Aqua-net.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

    Here is the outline for a FPM Climate Change article:

    Assertion by someone
    Assertion by someone
    Hearsay Evidence by someone
    Author agrees
    Earlier Assertion by FPM article
    Earlier Assertion by FPM Article
    Author's surprise conclusion

    Then pepper it with worthless links that go back to "Discover the Network" or just silly ones like the word "financial" which links back to this article.

    The Weather Channel guy has discovered that pandering to certain ideologies makes you popular and people become interested in what you are saying (because you are saying what they want to hear). Just like the Democratic Senator that put forward an anti-abortion bill and was suddenly a National political figure instead of another obscure politician…it's sometimes profitable to go with a splinter group.

    If you were an author or just trying to make some cash what would you write a book on right about now?

  • Daner

    Im sure alot of intellects on here will dismiss the NWO as a consircy.
    However, the global warming hoax is pushed by the elite to force global carbon tax.
    The main purpose behind the "Global Warming" is a one world government.

    I see alot of people here and at Jihad watch are not aware of the huge scheme by internattional bankers and governent elites to usher in a one world government.

    Don't dismiss me as a "conspiricy theorist". That label is used to discredit and end any debate. Do the research for yourself. google, NWO
    and go from there

  • Theolonious

    I've been watchin this shit fior years. Lets cut to the GD CHASE. WE ARE BACTERIA IN THIS UNIVERSE. Smudges of shit on the cosmos's shoe. All you ENVIRONMENTAL WACKOS are laughable. Fucking HI-LARRY-ASS

    HOW IN THE HELL CAN ANY HUMAN BEING BE SO ARROGANT TO ASSUME THAT OUR PRESENCE CAN EITHER CHANGE NOR CONTROL OUR PLANET, HELLO PLANET SAY IT AGAIN GD HUGE PLANET'S ENVIRONMENTS CYCLICAL CHANGES.

    GROW THE FUCK UP WOULD YOU PEOPLE. Better still ask the folks in HAITI about MOTHER EARTH.

    GOD DAMN RIGHT I AM YELLIN LOL. FUCKIN A RIGHT BUBBAZ I ALSO OWN GUNS . You creeps make me want to puke/

  • Smarteez

    I’m doing a recearch report on the other side of global warming. You guys should check out:
    http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/environment/global-warming/4674-global-warming-the-other-side-of-the-story.html
    and “The Sky’s Not Falling! Why It’s Okay to Chill about Global Warming” by Holly Fretwell.