MichaelJ

John Coleman - Founder of the Weather Channel condemns Global Warming

34 posts in this topic

I found this to be an absolutely incredible article.

It is by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel publicly speaking out against Global Warming. It is long, but I strongly recommend reading the whole article straight through until the end.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was amazing! Thank you for sharing it B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, not only does Coleman debunk global warming to its core, but he also does in a way in which he praises our Western and developed society. God, just letting you guys know, this guy is a haus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I thoroughly enjoyed the article. My favorite part was:

On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

Always music to my ears! I never feel so outnumbered as I do during an Election Year. B)

But while I never tire of seeing these exposes and principled "stand up for ourselves" type of articles on environmentalism (and I still enjoy a nice shot at religion every once in a while), I have yet to see one get it right, in completely explicit terms. The problem with environmentalism isn't the science and it never has been. It is with the underlying issue of altruism. Mr. Coleman came very close to the point where he would have to make that statement, but he obviously didn't see the necessity.

To me, pieces like this wonderful one are incomplete until they take the next step and ask, "Why?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

Always music to my ears! I never feel so outnumbered as I do during an Election Year. B)

For the record, I'm one of those who signed the petition. Though not one of the Ph.Ds., I'm one of just over 200 signers who have a degree in computer science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But while I never tire of seeing these exposes and principled "stand up for ourselves" type of articles on environmentalism (and I still enjoy a nice shot at religion every once in a while), I have yet to see one get it right, in completely explicit terms. The problem with environmentalism isn't the science and it never has been. It is with the underlying issue of altruism. Mr. Coleman came very close to the point where he would have to make that statement, but he obviously didn't see the necessity.

You and I see the necessity, but Coleman doesn't. Since we Objectivists are the only ones who understand the essential issues, it is up to us to make the moral arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and I see the necessity, but Coleman doesn't. Since we Objectivists are the only ones who understand the essential issues, it is up to us to make the moral arguments.

Too true. I loved the article, but I also read Coleman's letter to environmentalists that tells me he doesn't grasp the real issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But while I never tire of seeing these exposes and principled "stand up for ourselves" type of articles on environmentalism (and I still enjoy a nice shot at religion every once in a while), I have yet to see one get it right, in completely explicit terms. The problem with environmentalism isn't the science and it never has been. It is with the underlying issue of altruism. Mr. Coleman came very close to the point where he would have to make that statement, but he obviously didn't see the necessity.

You and I see the necessity, but Coleman doesn't. Since we Objectivists are the only ones who understand the essential issues, it is up to us to make the moral arguments.

In a short argument I had with an environmentalist recently, the 25-year old woman was quick to move to morality. She proclaimed her "right to clean air," to which I replied, "There's no such right."

I came off stronger at the end of the overall exchange, partly because of personal charisma and a better grasp of the nature of rights. Yet, I found my response to that particular question weaker than I would have liked. Has anyone on THE FORUM ever had to respond to this "right to clean air" charge? And how did you respond?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and I see the necessity, but Coleman doesn't. Since we Objectivists are the only ones who understand the essential issues, it is up to us to make the moral arguments.

Absolutely! I have since sent him an email via his website, and in it I give a brief explanantion of the quicksand that is the environmentalist claim to "science," and close by indicating that altruism is at the root of the problem. I included referrals to both Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and to Ms. Rand's essay "The Age of Envy."

For me personally, I struggled for a long time to hold my own against altruist arguments. I had read a lot of Ayn Rand's work, but I still had difficulty understanding the motives of altruists. I could say why, but I really didn't get it. The missing piece for me was filled completely by "Age of Envy" and the explicit definition of hatred of the good for being the good that she gives there. What I was missing was the conviction that not only did the evil of altruism exist, but that it truly was a form of hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a short argument I had with an environmentalist recently, the 25-year old woman was quick to move to morality. She proclaimed her "right to clean air," to which I replied, "There's no such right."

I came off stronger at the end of the overall exchange, partly because of personal charisma and a better grasp of the nature of rights. Yet, I found my response to that particular question weaker than I would have liked. Has anyone on THE FORUM ever had to respond to this "right to clean air" charge? And how did you respond?

The burden of proof is on her to demonstrate this "right". I would first challenge her claim by asking what evidence she had that industrial waste was harming her. Then I would ask whether she had a right to compel businesses to stop producing even though it wasn't harming her in any way she could prove.

You could also argue that technology is about trade-offs, and there's no way to get rid of pollution without also getting rid of its benefits. Does she think industrialists are building smoke stacks out of spite? All of the life-saving benefits in medicine and science we have today are due to various polluting technologies. Without the pollution, we'd still be living in Dark Ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and I see the necessity, but Coleman doesn't. Since we Objectivists are the only ones who understand the essential issues, it is up to us to make the moral arguments.

Absolutely! I have since sent him an email via his website, and in it I give a brief explanantion of the quicksand that is the environmentalist claim to "science," and close by indicating that altruism is at the root of the problem. I included referrals to both Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and to Ms. Rand's essay "The Age of Envy."

For me personally, I struggled for a long time to hold my own against altruist arguments. I had read a lot of Ayn Rand's work, but I still had difficulty understanding the motives of altruists. I could say why, but I really didn't get it. The missing piece for me was filled completely by "Age of Envy" and the explicit definition of hatred of the good for being the good that she gives there. What I was missing was the conviction that not only did the evil of altruism exist, but that it truly was a form of hatred.

I suspect many people feel likewise. Ayn Rand commented somewhere that Americans don't really believe in evil, and I think she's unfortunately right. We'll come up with all sorts of excuses -- poverty, misunderstandings, child abuse, etc. -- rather than accept the simple idea that someone could choose evil.

Without grasping that idea deep down, the motivation for altruism gets obscured and altruists can get away with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect many people feel likewise. Ayn Rand commented somewhere that Americans don't really believe in evil, and I think she's unfortunately right. We'll come up with all sorts of excuses -- poverty, misunderstandings, child abuse, etc. -- rather than accept the simple idea that someone could choose evil.

Without grasping that idea deep down, the motivation for altruism gets obscured and altruists can get away with murder.

I think there's good news and bad news. The good news is that environmentalists discovered that Americans need a selfish reason to do their work for them. If they just said, "Mankind is evil and a blight on the Earth. The only good human is a dead human. Do the world a favor and kill yourselves." then they would be openly denounced. That's why they need things like the DDT scare, the myth of scarce resources, overpopulation and Global Warming. They need to convince people that killing themselves is somehow in their best interests. It must be so frustrating that Coleman and other experts have the independence and intelligence to see the inanity of it.

Most people don't need a lot of convincing, though, and certainly don't recognize the contradiction in what they're being asked to do. They've accepted hook, line, and sinker the principle that if they don't sacrifice themselves they're sacrificing others (even if they don't see how). Even if they aren't ready for the big sacrifices yet, they are willing to compromise. They'll recycle, use low energy light bulbs, and carpool. Hardly anyone challenges the so-called benefits of these changes. That's not the point, though, because it makes them feel good to sacrifice; they think it means they've proven themselves and earned their wings (and in many cases it may be just the approval of their peers they're seeking). They don't recognize that this is just the first step of conditioning, where the final order will be to bring a knife to their own throats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a short argument I had with an environmentalist recently, the 25-year old woman was quick to move to morality. She proclaimed her "right to clean air," to which I replied, "There's no such right."

I came off stronger at the end of the overall exchange, partly because of personal charisma and a better grasp of the nature of rights. Yet, I found my response to that particular question weaker than I would have liked. Has anyone on THE FORUM ever had to respond to this "right to clean air" charge? And how did you respond?

I would suggest asking her where this right comes from. I suspect she takes it as self-evident, challenge that. Ask her what she means by "clean"; that is to say ask for an actual definition not examples or characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a short argument I had with an environmentalist recently, the 25-year old woman was quick to move to morality. She proclaimed her "right to clean air," to which I replied, "There's no such right."

I came off stronger at the end of the overall exchange, partly because of personal charisma and a better grasp of the nature of rights. Yet, I found my response to that particular question weaker than I would have liked. Has anyone on THE FORUM ever had to respond to this "right to clean air" charge? And how did you respond?

The burden of proof is on her to demonstrate this "right". I would first challenge her claim by asking what evidence she had that industrial waste was harming her. Then I would ask whether she had a right to compel businesses to stop producing even though it wasn't harming her in any way she could prove.

You could also argue that technology is about trade-offs, and there's no way to get rid of pollution without also getting rid of its benefits. Does she think industrialists are building smoke stacks out of spite? All of the life-saving benefits in medicine and science we have today are due to various polluting technologies. Without the pollution, we'd still be living in Dark Ages.

That's a great point you raise: I didn't ask her to demonstrate how she arrived at the "right to clean air." But, the rest of your points are, in essence, those I raised and explicated. Yet, I felt I had not swept the rug from under her feet.

In oral exchanges, I prefer to state a proposition which encapsulates my view, at a level of abstraction appropriate to the discussion - and then to proceed from there. It is, I find, more effective when the first line is a powerful, devastating summation of my case. I felt I had not met that standard, hence the sense of a structural weakness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a short argument I had with an environmentalist recently, the 25-year old woman was quick to move to morality. She proclaimed her "right to clean air," to which I replied, "There's no such right."

I came off stronger at the end of the overall exchange, partly because of personal charisma and a better grasp of the nature of rights. Yet, I found my response to that particular question weaker than I would have liked. Has anyone on THE FORUM ever had to respond to this "right to clean air" charge? And how did you respond?

I would suggest asking her where this right comes from. I suspect she takes it as self-evident, challenge that. Ask her what she means by "clean"; that is to say ask for an actual definition not examples or characteristics.

[italics mine.]

Your point - in italics - is significant. However, how would she make her case without reference to examples or characteristics? A definition needs to be supported, and examples are the way to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet, I found my response to that particular question weaker than I would have liked. Has anyone on THE FORUM ever had to respond to this "right to clean air" charge? And how did you respond?

Environmentalism is not, and never has been about, cleaner air. That would be the first point to make. It is about a systematic effort to destroy industrial civilization for the purpose of destroying humanity. There should be no mincing of words about it.

Actual poisons affecting you on your own property, or on "public property", *are* an issue of rights violations. Nobody has the right to dump tons of arsenic into a stream that runs through your property or into water that becomes drinking water. That has nothing to do with environmentalism. To the extent there is a real issue, it's resolved by reference to property rights. Somebody certainly *does* have a moral right to dump toxins on their *own* property if it stays there and clearly demarcate their property line. (That doesn't mean current law conforms to that statement.)

CO2 is not a toxin in the context of emissions currently required to run industrial civilization that keeps many billions of humans alive. Without CO2, life on earth would swiftly be extinguished, because all plants would die, quickly followed by all animals, including humans. The most common protein on earth (e.g. the most mass) is RuBisCO, an enzyme required by plants as part of the process of converting CO2 into usable sugars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Environmentalism is not, and never has been about, cleaner air. That would be the first point to make. It is about a systematic effort to destroy industrial civilization for the purpose of destroying humanity. There should be no mincing of words about it.

That is always my opening statement in any discussion of environmentalism, and this particular exchange was no exception.

Actual poisons affecting you on your own property, or on "public property", *are* an issue of rights violations. Nobody has the right to dump tons of arsenic into a stream that runs through your property or into water that becomes drinking water. That has nothing to do with environmentalism. To the extent there is a real issue, it's resolved by reference to property rights. Somebody certainly *does* have a moral right to dump toxins on their *own* property if it stays there and clearly demarcate their property line. (That doesn't mean current law conforms to that statement.)

But, how does one demarcate the "air"? What if the "air" is where the "dumping" occurs?

I did raise property rights with her though. I told her that if she wanted to "preserve nature," she could do so on her own property. Which is what, if I recall correctly, led to her "right to clean air" charge.

CO2 is not a toxin in the context of emissions currently required to run industrial civilization that keeps many billions of humans alive. Without CO2, life on earth would swiftly be extinguished, because all plants would die, quickly followed by all animals, including humans. The most common protein on earth (e.g. the most mass) is RuBisCO, an enzyme required by plants as part of the process of converting CO2 into usable sugars.

I never get this far (global-warming "science") with viros. I think it grants too much credibility to their inanity. I reject them strictly on philosophical grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, how does one demarcate the "air"? What if the "air" is where the "dumping" occurs?

It's the exactly the same issue in principle. Your rights would certainly be violated if your neighbor created hydrogen cyanide gas and released it on his property, but upwind of your property where you breathed it in, which could make you sick or dead if the concentrations were high enough when you breathed it. Same with other toxins in your water or your food.

The issue is more complex if it's a noxious but otherwise not harmful chemical; say animal manure from a farm - or perhaps noise from an nearby airport. All of these factors can negatively affect both your enjoyment of your own property and the property value. If you were there first, you have a strong case to argue against the introduction of uncontrolled odors or high noise levels, at least without compensation from the newcomer who's creating the problem. If the farm or airport was there first, you know, or should know, that the probem already exists, so buyer beware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is more complex if it's a noxious but otherwise not harmful chemical; say animal manure from a farm - or perhaps noise from an nearby airport. All of these factors can negatively affect both your enjoyment of your own property and the property value. If you were there first, you have a strong case to argue against the introduction of uncontrolled odors or high noise levels, at least without compensation from the newcomer who's creating the problem. If the farm or airport was there first, you know, or should know, that the probem already exists, so buyer beware.

This makes sense to me. But, given the premises assumed here, how does one argue against the environmentalists' views on "smog," e.g., their constant carping about China's emissions. I usually state that industrial development - the end - cannot be achieved without "pollution" - a consequence of the means.

Does the individual's right to enjoyment of the air above his property trump the requirements of industrialization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue is more complex if it's a noxious but otherwise not harmful chemical; say animal manure from a farm - or perhaps noise from an nearby airport. All of these factors can negatively affect both your enjoyment of your own property and the property value. If you were there first, you have a strong case to argue against the introduction of uncontrolled odors or high noise levels, at least without compensation from the newcomer who's creating the problem. If the farm or airport was there first, you know, or should know, that the probem already exists, so buyer beware.

This makes sense to me. But, given the premises assumed here, how does one argue against the environmentalists' views on "smog," e.g., their constant carping about China's emissions. I usually state that industrial development - the end - cannot be achieved without "pollution" - a consequence of the means.

Does the individual's right to enjoyment of the air above his property trump the requirements of industrialization?

How does he demarcate "his" air? Or, when the environmentalist says he has a right to clean air, which air? where? And, what exactly IS clean air? Can he prove it is not clean (whatever the standard used) right now? How? Is he having trouble breathing? Where are the airs of yesteryear to compare to the airs of today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the individual's right to enjoyment of the air above his property trump the requirements of industrialization?

Yes!

How does he demarcate "his" air? Or, when the environmentalist says he has a right to clean air, which air? where? And, what exactly IS clean air? Can he prove it is not clean (whatever the standard used) right now? How? Is he having trouble breathing? Where are the airs of yesteryear to compare to the airs of today?

There are legal precedents for determining such things. For instance, if someone else's activities interfere with your reasonable or customary enjoyment of your property and you can prove it, then you can get an injunction to make them stop and collect damages for any harm they have done you.

This would include situations like the one's PhilO mentioned as well as smoke from a factory dirtying your wash drying in the back yard, aggravating your son's asthma, etc. If something physical -- particulate matter, poisons, dirt, noise at a certain level -- enters your property without your consent, your property rights have been violated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does he demarcate "his" air? Or, when the environmentalist says he has a right to clean air, which air? where? And, what exactly IS clean air? Can he prove it is not clean (whatever the standard used) right now? How? Is he having trouble breathing? Where are the airs of yesteryear to compare to the airs of today?

There are legal precedents for determining such things. For instance, if someone else's activities interfere with your reasonable or customary enjoyment of your property and you can prove it, then you can get an injunction to make them stop and collect damages for any harm they have done you.

This would include situations like the one's PhilO mentioned as well as smoke from a factory dirtying your wash drying in the back yard, aggravating your son's asthma, etc. If something physical -- particulate matter, poisons, dirt, noise at a certain level -- enters your property without your consent, your property rights have been violated.

I don't think the invocation of legal precedents, however sound, can constitute a complete defense against a moral injunction. The viros will simply say, legality rests on morality, and if it isn't moral, it shouldn't be legal. They will then seek to change the law. And, even on the view that the individual's right to "clean air" trumps industrialization, I can see many, many viro lawsuits against the construction of plants, factories, homes, apartments, etc, which will cause great damage to man's life.

Here's my very rough thinking on the matter, which I believe should satisfy both individual property rights and industrialization, thus supporting the legal precedents you have mentioned.

Man's rights are not rights to things, but rights to actions -- actions for individual survival. Rights are conditions of existence required for human survival, and a man's rights to actions for his survival end where they inhibit other men's rights. The right to clean air, like other rights, occurs in a given context. For "clean air," the rights infringement has to be demonstrable (as Brian brought up), i.e., measurable. To actualize the "right to clean air," we must contextualize it as we contextualize other property rights, which are the physical, measurable manifestation of all man's rights.

Property rights are principles and, as such, encompass a wide range of measurements. It is within these measurements that one may seek the protection of his "right to clean air." Hence, a factory or plant or construction site by individual/institution A may not be considered a violation of the right to clean air of individual/institution B, to the degree that B's clean air requirements are not known to constitute medical impediments to the life of the "normal" individual. If B is still able to perform as a normal individual, then no rights can be said to be infringed.

Medical impediments are a matter of measurement and thus a matter for medicine and the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my very rough thinking on the matter, which I believe should satisfy both individual property rights and industrialization, thus supporting the legal precedents you have mentioned.

Man's rights are not rights to things, but rights to actions -- actions for individual survival. Rights are conditions of existence required for human survival, and a man's rights to actions for his survival end where they inhibit other men's rights. The right to clean air, like other rights, occurs in a given context. For "clean air," the rights infringement has to be demonstrable (as Brian brought up), i.e., measurable. To actualize the "right to clean air," we must contextualize it as we contextualize other property rights, which are the physical, measurable manifestation of all man's rights.

Property rights are principles and, as such, encompass a wide range of measurements. It is within these measurements that one may seek the protection of his "right to clean air." Hence, a factory or plant or construction site by individual/institution A may not be considered a violation of the right to clean air of individual/institution B, to the degree that B's clean air requirements are not known to constitute medical impediments to the life of the "normal" individual. If B is still able to perform as a normal individual, then no rights can be said to be infringed.

Medical impediments are a matter of measurement and thus a matter for medicine and the law.

This is not as clear and well-defined as it would have to be in order to be the basis of objective law so I would like to propose another way of looking at this issue.

A property right is a specific type of right: the right to use and dispose of particular physical entities such as your house, your land, your car, etc. The only way a genuine right can be infringed is by physical force -- i.e., physical contact made by another person with your property without your consent. If someone else makes noise or odors or sends smoke or poison gases onto your property without your consent, he has violated your rights and physically interfered with your ability to use your property as you see fit.

Also note that this is an issue of civil and not criminal law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites