Global Warming Fraud — This should be interesting.

Finally, efforts are being made by the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, to sue Al Gore and his cohorts for perpetrating “the greatest scam in history” — the fraud of global warming. Thirty thousand others, comprised of scientists and experts, are also willing to join in that lawsuit.

So how did this fraud all get started? It all started in Chicago shortly after Earth Day, April 17, 1995, when Al Gore went to Fall River, Mass., to give his green sermon speech. He was soon joined by Maurice Strong and Peter Knight, a registered lobbyist and Gore’s former top Senate aid.

It didn’t take long before the Chicago Climate Exchange was formed and “a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism” was formed. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs, and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman. The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange, also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiative. John is the brother of William Ayers who was one of the founders of the Weathermen.

Obama, at the time, was active in this scam and knew darn well what was going on, but three years later that did not stop him from funding these leaders in the man-made global warming movement. The first attempt to improve the environment was a grant of more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for research and development. That turned out to be a failure, so they were awarded another $8 million in federal taxpayer’s cash. That, too, was a failure. Present major funding is courtesy of Edward Rothschild’s World Bank.

Found by Mike Hutchins.

  1. jescott418 says:

    These weather guys cannot predict from one week to another. Don’t think I will ever believe their BS about global warming. A lot of these idiots were predicting a Ice Age about 20 years ago. Which is it? Anyone who believes this stuff must believe the sky is falling too.

  2. Mr. Fusion says:

    I hope they do file this suit. That way it can be dismissed with costs.

    It has been said many times before, there is really no need for me to repeat all of it. Deniers like to ignore facts and then make up their own bullcrap. Nothing is going to change their minds.

    Is it is also coincidence that a huge number of them are also adherents to the “Invisible Dude in the Sky” cult. No rational, logical, or scientific thought required.


    #2 – You’re absolutely right about the IPCC – Blind leading the blind.

    #11 – “peer review”. In the world of climate science, this phrase is empty and meaningless because the “peers” have been infiltrated.

    Climate science peer review is like Stalin and Mussolini reviewing Hitler. The results are preordained.

  4. Dan Pangburn says:

    Climate change is natural.

    The on-going temperature decline trend was predicted.

    All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.

    The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in this October 16 pdf. (Replace all references to PDO with ESST which is short for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).

  5. Wretched Gnu says:

    It’s unbelievable that the children on this forum, including John, believe that the corporate funding of anti-warming scientists is *less* than the grant money that real scientists get for their research.

  6. The0ne says:

    I’m still waiting for volunteer’s. Call me ASAP for proof!

  7. ArianeB says:

    #35 is exactly right.

    Here’s an interview with James Hoggan, author of “Climate Cover Up”

    You run a public relations company. Why write a book about climate skeptics and their strategies?

    It has always annoyed me when people are deceitful about important public issues. Climate change is a very serious problem and we need to be exploring solutions. So when I saw people in the public relations industry—my industry—creating doubt about climate science, I felt I had to tell people.

    Who are the people behind what you call the ‘climate cover up’ and what is their agenda?

    Industry front groups and compliant scientists, who are creating the impression that there is scientific controversy about climate change. Right wing groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the U.S. or the Cato Institute are some of the biggest players.

    You also have public relations companies setting up new organizations like The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). It was seen as strategically smarter to set up groups that look like concerned scientists and use them to hammer away at what they call ‘junk science’.

    One of the most recent examples is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) that tried to convince Americans in electoral swing states that coal is clean. The budget for their campaign was somewhere around 40 million dollars during the last presidential election, and it was very successful.

    Why do these organizations fight the idea of climate change?

    The answer is very simple: there are hundreds of billions of dollars to be protected in the fossil fuel industry and these people are very interested in protecting their bottom line.”

  8. Mr. Fusion says:

    #34, Dan,

    Your link was posted by yourself. There was nothing referenced except this.

    The following description of sunspots was selectively extracted from Wikipedia:

    Note the words “selectively extracted”.

    I guess Dan Panghorn is so desperate to find someone to listen to him he has to go around the internet making advertisements. Sorry, I didn’t see anything refuting AWG in your link.

  9. Mr. Fusion says:

    #37, ArrianeB,

    Good post. Thank you.

  10. Awake says:

    #34 Dan Pagburn

    Using the RAW data referenced by YOUR OWN LINK, take a look at the numbers yourself. If you have one iota of a brain you will notice the trend immediately.

    Here is the raw data for your useless fake chart in case you have the balls or honestly to actually take a look at it.

    It should take about 15 seconds to “wake up”.

    Since whatever ‘cooling’ we are seeing in the last decade can be directly tied to the solar minimum, yet we still see a strong uptrend in temperatures, just how do you explain that?

    I’m still waiting for one single denier to give me one reason for the fast uptrend in temperatures… one single actual reason beyond “natural cycles”… what the F is causing the “natural cycle”???? An actual reason please, based on facts. You can’t give me one… you have no reason…

  11. Angel H. Wong says:

    The question here is if global warming is a hoax, why the Bush jr. Administration was so adamant in stifling and censoring the scientists at NASA about it instead of looking for evidence it was a fraud?

  12. Hmeyers says:

    Reduce pollution.
    Be efficient with the use of resources.
    Don’t waste all the oil and natural gas.
    Develop clean energy.
    You can debate, question all you want and the above remain true.

    Oh … and the US federal government is the largest polluter in the world (1.9 million civilian vehicles) and largest waster of natural resources in the world (think of the paper wasted alone) and is inefficient beyond imagination.

    Make them be efficient too.

  13. soundwash says:

    (-now this article was full of clues in plain sight) 😮

    The Mirror Image Rule applies.. (-plus the “Distract -and hide it in plain sight” rule)

    -oh such irony in that the AGW crowed are the “deniers” and the deniers either scientifically knew better or just trusted their instincts.
    -the real truth was opposite the “consensus truth”

    Now, as #1 about a brief history lesson in just who “Bill Ayers” is.. (remember the controversy during the election campaigns of obama’s relationship with Ayers?)

    The webs favorite “authority”.. -from a rather well referenced Wiki on Bill Ayers:

    William Charles “Bill” Ayers (born December 26, 1944)[1] is an American elementary education theorist and a former leader in the movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

    He is known for the radical nature of his 1960’s activism as well as his current work in education reform, curriculum, and instruction. In 1969 he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group[2] that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s, motivated by US involvement in the Vietnam War.

    He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.[3]

    During the 2008 Presidential campaign, a controversy arose over his contacts with candidate Barack Obama. He is married to Bernadine Dohrn, who was a leader in the Weatherman organization.

    He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.[3]


    -This behavior gets you a Distinguished Professor award?? -and some still wonder what is driving the now-insane, “radical” behavior of the current congress, whitehouse and the laws they are trying to pass?. (along with at least half of the “higher academia” types that are in charge of this country–and

    Think about / extrapolate the long term outcome of the last paragraph in the “radical history” section of the wiki:

    Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the “War Council” meeting in Flint, Michigan.

    Two major decisions came out of the “War Council.” The first was to immediately begin a violent, armed struggle (e.g., bombings and armed robberies) against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public. The second was to create underground collectives in major cities throughout the country.[16]

    Larry Grathwohl, a Federal Bureau of Investigation informant in the Weatherman group from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970, stated that “Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman”

    Note: The second was to create underground collectives in major cities throughout the country.[16]

    Find a dot yet?

    -Do you think people this dedicated to a cause, an ideology, -just “stop” one day? -never to have another thought [or action] on the matter again? -ever, ever?

    -They adapt strategy with the times.

    Is it any wonder where all the ‘radicals’ that to decided to participate in a global “weather” scandal came from? (or were “seeded” from) They have effectively forced their ideology onto the entire planet’s populous “mind”.. AND, they are charging us for it..and your continued loyalty to “the cause”


    Now, -if this isn’t a Bloody F*kin Brilliant Plan, I don’t know what is.(!)

    See how the game works now? -He cashed in his bombs for a College Professorship..

    Brilliant!, he can now “teach the gospel” from his pulpit in his Credited, College Educational Class.. (!)

    (and some parents wonder why they dont understand what happen to “their” kids, after they come back from college.)

    Now look back in news articles to all the references to “Chicago thugs in the White House” and the like, then go look up the background of top advisers and players in and around the White House and the current session of Congress, -and only a dead rat would not see the connections and possible current (flows) of the “power of suggestion” -and do not mistake this for an “original idea” -it’s ancient.

    I ask you this: Why fight from the bottom when you can “educate from the top”?

    With Global Warming as the [front man] distraction, you get to mold both, young and old minds to your ideological will via the college system, -and make them feel good about it to! Spreading “the word” from there is a cinch, esp when you control education.

    Talk about patience.

    Bloody F’n Brilliant, especially since 3/4 of the planet fell for it hook, line and sinker. That why these people and the core design-plan must be re-exposed. Once thrust into the light, all the rest becomes instinctually academic.

    What was part of what an old president said again? “..America can only be destroyed from within.”

    /me blinks.

    Wise up.


  14. jccalhoun says:

    What kind of crap article is this? This has to be from a letter to the editor or something. There’s no facts here. What is the basis for the lawsuit? If the Al Gore can be sued for climate change not being 100% accurate in its predictions then couldn’t the founder of the Weather Channel also be sued for telling me that it would rain yesterday when really was sunny?

  15. Skeptic says:

    Is yelling fire on a crowded earth is not cool.

  16. Skeptic says:

    That was a question statement. You don’t know whether to answer or question it.

  17. soundwash says:

    The big Hoot was..

    Oh, btw, the irony [clues] that nudged me into the long rant above, was that the Founder of the Weather Channel (a Weather Man) -was essentially going after the Founder of The Weather Underground (also a Weatherman). AND, that this was brought to light in the very same article.

    That we find the largest shareholder in the Chicago Carbon Exchange is none other than Goldman Sachs, (the firm wall street loves to hate) -who pretty much owns or manipulates *every other exchange* on the planet (-not to mention TheFed)

    -Along with the DoE and Rothschild funded WHO..

    Well, lets just say, Dvorak’s article snippet above was just too juicy not to comment on.

    I guess i should have prefaced the first post with “Never mind who Maurice Strong is, look who was working the strings at the University level”



  18. MikeN says:

    >Winters was very cold this time in India, which is my country. There was rain where there is a desert.

    Meaning what? That it is colder because of global warming?

    Sometimes people throw this out as well, that it will get colder as well as warmer, because the warming will just throw everything out of whack.
    However, there is no theory that says you will get more volatility of climate without first getting a higher mean temperature. Global warming will not jump directly to haphazard climate around the same mean temperature.

  19. Skeptic says:

    We wouldn’t even have global warming if the temperature wasn’t so mean.

  20. amodedoma says:

    Wow, amazing there are still people that think that climate change is a hoax! Of course there are people who want to make money from it, and people who want to use it for political reasons, and people that want to know who’s responsible, and people who want to know what can be done, etc., etc., ad nauseam … were humans, we all want to have our own unique perspective on the world, but I have a hard time accepting that there are still those that doubt that climate change exists at all.

  21. Fluffy Rabbit says:

    The facts:
    1 – Man’s activities do not generate increased levels of CO2.

    2 – And even if they did, more CO2 does not trap heat in the atmosphere.

    3 – Glaciers, permafrost and the polar ice cap are not melting.

    4 – The earth’s overall temperature has not increased at all during the last few decades.

  22. Serious says:

    I can’t believe the amount of fallacies in arguments i see in this thread and the amount of made-up mainstream junk people tout as facts to support the AGW agenda. I really feel like creating a website with only hard facts.. no assumptions, no fallacies, no wrong premisses or conclusions, just hard evidence. But no matter how many times you try to prove someone wrong with pure facts and the scientific method, AGW has become fanaticism to the point of religion – where the followers cannot and will not accept anything that goes against their mantra. Not even a sceptic is permitted, to them, anyone that disagrees is a “denier” regardless of the part of AGW the individual is sceptic about.

  23. Global Warming is a Communist Plot. See the overwhelming proof here:

  24. Obamaforever says:

    From: Obamaforever
    To: Johnny (aka John (No Burn Marks) Dvorak) per Coleman

    A fool and his money are soon parted.

    per Johnny

    Johnny, Johnny, Johnny …. It looks like you pulled another anti-Climate Change article out of your ass. Where did you find this article? I am betting on some right-wing nut case blog.

    Speaking of fools, Johnny, how much money did you lose when you betted against Obama in 2008? I am thinking you are still holding a grudge. Get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. Obamaforever says:

    From: Obamaforever
    To: pedro per #53

    pedro, you are the one that needs to be FIXED!!!

    RIM SHOT!!!!

    pedro, you are making it too easy for me.
    Keep it up, please!!!!!!!!!!!!

  26. Skeptic says:

    #52, Fluffy Rabbit, I know you are attempting to be sarcastic, but I also know from your post that you don’t understand what AGW skepticism is all about.

    I happen to agree with the opposite of your points 1 and 3.
    However, the opposite of your posts 2 and 4 have not been proven.

    The notion that CO2 could trap heat in the atmosphere is not being contested. What IS being contested is the lack of scientific analysis on how CO2 affects the atmospheric transfer of heat to and from our atmosphere. The IPCC admits this, and yet no one has made a news story of it. That fact in itself begs the question WHY?

    QUOTE from the IPCC AR4 report, end of section 8.6 entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
    “A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”/i>

    Until this was pursued by skeptics, the IPCC community of climate scientists have simply ignored it. Finally in December of 2009, Roy Spencer… a skeptic meteorologist and recipient of NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites… was asked to present to the AGU meeting in San Francisco in mid-December 2009. They were to give him a mere 15 minutes to teach them what he knows as an expert in the area.

    A rather short summary from Dr. Spencer:
    “The effect of this partial cancellation is to result in diagnosed net feedbacks being smaller than what is actually occurring in nature, unless any forcing present is first removed from the data before estimating feedbacks. Unfortunately, we do not know which portion of radiative variability is forcing versus feedback, and so researchers have simply ignored the issue (if they were even aware of it) and assumed that what they have been measuring is feedback alone. As a result, the climate system creates the illusion of being more sensitive than it really is.”

    I’m not going to waste my time on explaining the intricacies of atmospheric feedback analysis to you. If you don’t wish to remain gullible and ignorant, I suggest you research Dr. Spencer and get the facts.

    That is but one small area of skepticism. There are many more you should learn about before you profess to have a reason to accept AGW as scientific fact.

  27. Skeptic says:

    Editor, will you please fix my italics code, end of paragraph 4 (after developed.”)

    Thank you.

  28. dcphill says:

    If we all stop breathing out CO2 that should
    solve the problem.

  29. Michael says:

    Regarding the claims that scientists are making a lot of money… it might be that it is not in large profits that could easily be questioned, but more likely is money effectively spread through government grants. Who is looking at the general grant distributions to scientists who spend grant dollars on assistants and supplies and lab space, and transportation costs, and even the base pay of the scientists working to prove global warming.

    Equally important I think we would need to apply the same investigation to those who are not believers in this warming theory.

    On both sides, the science appears like it requires more “faith” than understanding. More “belief” in certain assumptions, than hard facts that are not being spun to make a point within their side’s argument.

    My final comment regarding this sad episode of science showing it’s collective weakness – an inability to handle disagreement once money gets involved – is that this arguement is science proving that high IQ’s and miles of research do not represent the wisdom people have used in the past, to get along and make the world a better place to live.

    Lawyers… yeah that’s the ticket… they always make things better for everyone. Maybe that is the real motivation for all this weird science… lawsuits on the taxpayer dimes. EVen the great and good scientists are getting played. (Sigh)


Bad Behavior has blocked 13591 access attempts in the last 7 days.