Weather Channel Founder "climate denier"

[Gary K]

The founder of the Weather Channel is openly skeptical of man-made climate change.  He debunks the claim that 97% of scientists agree with it.  He also says only 53% of meteorologists in the American Meterologists Society agree with it, even though the leaders of the society actively push their members to endorse it. 

This is an interesting man.  He's nobody's fool, and he thinks for himself.

http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2017/08/17/weather-channel-founder-denies-climate-change-so-put-me-to-death/

[LifeHiscost]

Was there not a program instituted some years ago of seeding clouds in order to cause rainfall? Would that not be considered climate change?

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[CyberGuy]

When Leaf Erickson the Viking explorer discovered Greenland and then North America it was a lot warmer. Viking colonists came to Green land to settle. Just opposite Vineland as Leaf Erickson called it was full of forests and grapevines. Later about 1350 AD it got colder and the Viking colonists disappeared or went back to Iceland. northern Europe could no longer grow grapes only Spain and Italy could grow grapes. So only Beer from Grains could be made.

This Cold snap lasted until the mid 1800's when it got warmer again. Just as the industrial revolution happened.  20 years ago we discovered a hole in the Ozone layer over the antartic and the alarm was raised that Freon was destroying the ozone and it would be gone in 30 years.  Now the Ozone hole is no bigger or small. It does grow bigger in winter and smaller in summer. Seems to be a natural thing. But the left wants to silence those who disagree. It was even a democratic platform to investigate those scientists for fraud who did not go along with the climate viewpoint of manmade climate change. Yet one volcano can spew out more CO2 in one day than all of mankind can do in a whole year. So much for Man causing Global warming. 

Just off the coast of Cuba is cities under 40 feet of water that were abandoned several thousand years ago when the seas rose when the glaciers receded. So who was to blame for the global warming back then. Man???

Come on people open your eyes. Man alone cannot be causing this warming and freezing of the planet. I suspect it is a natural thing happening in our solar system with the sun or orbit of the earth. We should look closer at that rather than blaming man and trying to silence all who say disagree with that notion.

 

 

 

[Gary K]

9 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

Was there not a program instituted some years ago of seeding clouds in order to cause rainfall? Would that not be considered climate change?

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

No, that would not be considered climate change in the context of global warming/global cooling etc.....  LHC, was this a "for real" question", or are you being sarcastic?  I know you aren't normally that way, but just had to ask because the question in the context of the politicized issue of global warming just seems odd to me.  

There is so much fraud associated with all the alarmism associated with this issue that it's hard to believe that anyone buys into the Al Gore storyline.  

[LifeHiscost]

2 minutes ago, Gary K said:

 

There is so much fraud associated with all the alarmism associated with this issue that it's hard to believe that anyone buys into the Al Gore storyline.  

It was an honest question, however considering that climate change had to start somewhere maybe Al Gore has something to be concerned about.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!        

[Gary K]

14 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

It was an honest question, however considering that climate change had to start somewhere maybe Al Gore has something to be concerned about.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!        

OK.  No problem.  I was just wanting to understand. 

Climate change started approximately 2400 years before Christ's day.  That little thing called the flood precipitated massive climate change.  At the time of the flood the earth tilted on it's axis around 25 degrees away from vertical.  Was that the cause of the flood or the effect of the flood?  I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.  But it is a fact that the earth tilted at that time.  It was after that that the polar icecaps came into existance.  Since that time the earth has changed it's axis a few times, and every time it has the earth's climate has changed.   As Cyberguy points out there have been varying ocean levels due to earth's temperature changing since then.

I would recommend Rene Noorbergen's book, Secrets of the Lost Races, to you as much of that book deals with the flood and its aftermath.  You might be able to get it from a library, but it is also available on some of the websites, such as thriftbooks.com, that sell used books.  I bought a used copy from thriftbooks for around $5 as the copy I bought back in 1980 got loaned out and never came back.   If you buy more than $10 worth of books the shipping is free.  It's a good resource for those of us who like to read and learn who can't afford to pay the price Amazon or Barnes and Noble want. 

So, is climate change human-caused?  Only indirectly and only because we became so wicked God had to destroy the entire population, minus eight, and the earth.  Climate change is actually God-caused as He created it as a punishment for the sins of humanity.  There is nothing we can do about it except wait for a new heavens and new earth.

[LifeHiscost]

2 hours ago, Gary K said:

OK.  No problem.  I was just wanting to understand. 

Climate change started approximately 2400 years before Christ's day.  That little thing called the flood precipitated massive climate change.  At the time of the flood the earth tilted on it's axis around 25 degrees away from vertical.  Was that the cause of the flood or the effect of the flood?  I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.  But it is a fact that the earth tilted at that time.  It was after that that the polar icecaps came into existance.  Since that time the earth has changed it's axis a few times, and every time it has the earth's climate has changed.   As Cyberguy points out there have been varying ocean levels due to earth's temperature changing since then.

I would recommend Rene Noorbergen's book, Secrets of the Lost Races, to you as much of that book deals with the flood and its aftermath.  You might be able to get it from a library, but it is also available on some of the websites, such as thriftbooks.com, that sell used books.  I bought a used copy from thriftbooks for around $5 as the copy I bought back in 1980 got loaned out and never came back.   If you buy more than $10 worth of books the shipping is free.  It's a good resource for those of us who like to read and learn who can't afford to pay the price Amazon or Barnes and Noble want. 

So, is climate change human-caused?  Only indirectly and only because we became so wicked God had to destroy the entire population, minus eight, and the earth.  Climate change is actually God-caused as He created it as a punishment for the sins of humanity.  There is nothing we can do about it except wait for a new heavens and new earth.

   especially the last paragraph. I don't think God had combustion engines planned for man's use and it wouldn't surprise me if the pollutants caused by them has a larger affect on climate than we might at first believe. 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

 Climate change is actually God-caused as He created it as a punishment for the sins of humanity.  

It is such statements that reek of heathen beliefs, "The gods caused it", that has lead many people away from Christ. A fear based 'religion' that Christ came to show the untruth of!

Quote

There is nothing we can do about it except wait for a new heavens and new earth.

A rather defeateist attitude!!

[CyberGuy]

3 hours ago, CoAspen said:

It is such statements that reek of heathen beliefs, "The gods caused it", that has lead many people away from Christ. A fear based 'religion' that Christ came to show the untruth of!

A rather defeateist attitude!!

The gods caused it. Satan can and does cause weather changes. Satan is responsible for much of the bad weather. Volcanos cause massive weather changes as in the year 1816 the year summer never came. 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/09/1816-the-year-that-winter-never-ended.html

 

[CyberGuy]

2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 

Ephisians 2:2 one of the powers on this earth that causes weather changes to the detriment of man.

[Gary K]

6 hours ago, CoAspen said:

It is such statements that reek of heathen beliefs, "The gods caused it", that has lead many people away from Christ. A fear based 'religion' that Christ came to show the untruth of!

I see you still haven't started to read the Bible.  Well, that isn't true.  You just haven't started to actually believe the Bible and what it says. 

You're actually more of a humanist than anything else.

Quote

Hebrews 10:  26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
  27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
  28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
  29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Quote

Genesis 6:  5 ¶And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
  7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Quote

Numbers 16: 25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.
  26 And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
  27 So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children.
  28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.
  29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the Lord hath not sent me.*n3
  30 But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord.*n4
  31 ¶And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:
  32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
  33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

Quote

Mark 14: 17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
  18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. 
  19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
  20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. 
  21  The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 

Quote

Leviticus 26:  14 ¶But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;
  15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:
  16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
  17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.
  18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
  19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
  20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
  21 ¶And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.

I guess you just have a real problem with the God of the Bible.  You know don't you, that the God who spoke these words is the same God who walked the earth as Jesus?  The same Son of God known as Jesus is the Son of God who communicated with the Israelites through Moses and dwelt with them in the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. 

[CoAspen]

The God of the Bible is different than the ones invented by humans and putting on the Biblical God our way of dealing  with others and sinful beliefs is wrong. In peoples desire to make God more like themselves they seem to be unable to find all His words about love for others, no condemnation and desire to find every lost sheep. The God of hellfire and brimstone was somewhat effective in the past for changing people, temporarily, but not long term. That was not Gods intention. He wanted followers motivated by love for others and Him, not motivated  by fear and cowering. The heathens belived their Gods caused them pain and suffering as well as goodness. That can be seen and documented well through out the Old T. Christ came to change that. Yes, I reject those teachings, that God wants to overpower and subservient us with an iron hand of retribution for all sinners. If we see God in that manner, is it any wonder that we find it so easy to treat others in the same way? 

People may choose to follow a God out of fear or one out of love. We all have choices. 

[Bravus]

The founder of the Weather Channel has a degree in journalism, not meteorology, let alone climate science. His opinion is his opinion, and he is entitled to it, but he has no expertise that would lend it extra weight.

[Gary K]

On 8/20/2017 at 9:05 AM, CoAspen said:

The God of the Bible is different than the ones invented by humans and putting on the Biblical God our way of dealing  with others and sinful beliefs is wrong. In peoples desire to make God more like themselves they seem to be unable to find all His words about love for others, no condemnation and desire to find every lost sheep. The God of hellfire and brimstone was somewhat effective in the past for changing people, temporarily, but not long term. That was not Gods intention. He wanted followers motivated by love for others and Him, not motivated  by fear and cowering. The heathens belived their Gods caused them pain and suffering as well as goodness. That can be seen and documented well through out the Old T. Christ came to change that. Yes, I reject those teachings, that God wants to overpower and subservient us with an iron hand of retribution for all sinners. If we see God in that manner, is it any wonder that we find it so easy to treat others in the same way? 

People may choose to follow a God out of fear or one out of love. We all have choices. 

So, in your opinion, the Bible is a purely human invention filled with falsehoods.  As I said,  you're more of a humanist than anything else.  One day you're going to have to make a decision which road to travel for humanism and Christianity are not compatible now, nor have they ever been compatible.   You cannot keep on trying to follow two diverging paths which lead in opposite directions.  It just can't happen.  It's a logical impossibility to think you can accept both ideas.  One must destroy the other in a sane mind.  And while I disagree with you often, I don't see you as being insane.   

The rationalism you display started with the Babylonians, was enlarged and refined by the Greeks, revived by the French Revolution, and still practiced today by secular educators and  organizations such as the Jesus Seminar and the emergent church movement.  In other words, it is pagan thought and pagan thought processes.  They are completely antithetical to Christian thought and Christian thought processes.

I really do hope you make the right choice.

[Gary K]

11 hours ago, Bravus said:

The founder of the Weather Channel has a degree in journalism, not meteorology, let alone climate science. His opinion is his opinion, and he is entitled to it, but he has no expertise that would lend it extra weight.

Really?  I guess Bill Gates is someone whose word is useless in the technology world, as he doesn't possess any college degrees in that area. He was, in fact, a college dropout. Same goes for many leading  people in the Linux world.  Their ideas are useless and are not to be taken seriously because they don't have a college degree in that field.  What ignorant fools to think they can actually participate in and add value to that industry. 

Your logic is rather flawed, wouldn't you say?  I don't see how an intellectual like you keeps on coming up with such flawed logic....  It seems you've never heard of self-education, either that or you hold self-educated people in disdain because you're the mighty one with a degree or two. 

The self-educated people I have known have been the smartest, most logical, and best thinkers I've ever met.  Abraham Lincoln was a self-educated man.  I guess he should have never thought himself to have anything to offer the world.  What a loser he was....

[CoAspen]

Maybe I should compaine to a mod......nah, 

Quote

So, in your opinion, the Bible is a purely human invention filled with falsehoods.

Wow, Amazing how people jump to con conclusions based on....?

My Words, 

Quote

He wanted followers motivated by love for others and Him, not motivated  by fear and cowering. The heathens belived their Gods caused them pain and suffering as well as goodness.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world........." Those are the words I live by, and guess what, it was humans He came to save. Christ/God could be called humanist!

Quote

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

Dogma, Superstition, sounds rather heathen to me. Christ gave us evidence of His love for us, death on the cross.

Now certainly there are aspect of humanism that conflict with a belief in God. And it has come to mean in our day and time as someone who doesn't believe in the value of God/religious based system. But it does place value on the person and individual and not dogmatic belief systems that harm and put fear into Gods climatic creation, humans! I stand by my post and am glad to bne seen as someone who values human life. Certainly in keeping with Gods desire for us.

Quote

 Yes, I reject those teachings, that God wants to overpower and subservient us with an iron hand of retribution for all sinners.

So I guess the disagreeing post sees God like the above?? I don't know.......

[CoAspen]

Bravus has 'flawed' logic??He stated the obvious.....

[Bravus]

The OP is an appeal to authority: if it wasn't, it would say 'John Coleman skeptical of climate science'. It attempts to suggest that John Coleman has expert knowledge.

I pointed out that he does not have expert knowledge. That is accurate.

He has taught himself how to describe weather on TV and how to build a business, and his achievements are impressive.

I did not say his views are valueless, I said they are not the views of a climate science expert. That is accurate.

My preference would be to focus on neither the individual or the qualifications, but on the science. And when I do that, it tells me that John Coleman is wrong.

(It is also offensively wrong and false to charge that I see others without formal qualifications as inferior. I see all human beings as of equal value.)

[LifeHiscost]

    I see all human beings as of equal value.)  

As does the Lord of glory..

8 But do not be called Rabbi (Teacher); for One is your Teacher, and you are all [equally] brothers....Matthew 23

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

 

[Gary K]

19 hours ago, Bravus said:

The OP is an appeal to authority: if it wasn't, it would say 'John Coleman skeptical of climate science'. It attempts to suggest that John Coleman has expert knowledge.

I pointed out that he does not have expert knowledge. That is accurate.

He has taught himself how to describe weather on TV and how to build a business, and his achievements are impressive.

I did not say his views are valueless, I said they are not the views of a climate science expert. That is accurate.

My preference would be to focus on neither the individual or the qualifications, but on the science. And when I do that, it tells me that John Coleman is wrong.

(It is also offensively wrong and false to charge that I see others without formal qualifications as inferior. I see all human beings as of equal value.)

That was not an appeal to authority.  It was a statement of fact.  The founder of the Weather Channel is in fact a climate denier.  He is proud of the fact. 

Your reply is a fallacy though.  It is the appeal to authority.  You assert that a man without a college degree in a field of knowledge cannot be an expert.  That is an appeal to authority with the "authority" being a degree.

Just how do you know he doesn't have expert knowledge?  Because you followed him around and so you know everything he studied on the subject?  Because he disagrees with you?  There are a bunch of scientists that disagree with you.  There is barely a majority, 53% to 46%, of meteorologists who agree with you.  Global warming is not a settled idea.  There are way too many other explanations for it.  In fact, rising levels of CO2 follow rising temperatures, not lead them.  The long term charts of CO2 levels from ice samples prove it.  Even Al Gores chart proved it, he just didn't point out the truth of his own charts.

The problem with equating knowledge with a college degree is that many people do not need, nor require, a degree to be highly educated on a subject.  They become experts in any field they choose to become expert in by studying that field on their own.  That's what books are for. That's one reason the internet exists.  The examples I gave prove my point.  At one time most Linux developers did not have a degree.  Yet they were, and still are, some of the leading computer technology people in the world.   Take me for example.  I have studied more history than any history major.  I've done more study than people with Masters degrees in history.  I've spent 5+ decades studying history.  But because I don't have a degree in it I don't know anything about it?  Only a fool would come to that conclusion.  Or do you think that only someone who is led around by the hand and told what conclusions they need to come to by a professor is an expert? 

The same goes for any other field.

The original change in earth's climate did not come from anything man made.  Before the flood there had never been rain, let alone snow and ice.  After the flood and tilt of the earth's axis all this happened.  We then had rain, winter and summer, snow and ice, etc.... The resulting ice covered a lot of the earth at one time. Then it retreated.  Then there was the Mini Ice Age.  Then it retreated to current levels.  That was global warming and global cooling repeating itself.  And it was associated with the wobbling of the earth on it's axis.  The earth is still wobbling on it's axis so we are going to continue to see climate change.

Global warming people have made one prediction after another that has failed.  They falsify records, cherry pick sites to use that confirm increases in temperature, "adjust" temperatures that  don't lead to the conclusions they desire, and refuse to release raw data.  Why is that?  Because they dare not release data that shows just how fraudulent they really are?  That's basically the only explanation that makes sense for refusing to release the raw data.  And, sattelite temperature readings do not verify published surface temperature readings. Moreover, global warming people have stopped taking high altitude temperature readings having dropped all those sites.  They have also drastically reduced the total number of temperature measuring sites.  All of this throws massive doubt on all the politicized global warming hysteria.  And, any time an issue becomes politicized you can bet there are people making huge money, and others making political capital, off of the scare, so they have a vested interest in continuing the scare. 

The UN itself is massively corrupt, and the UN is probably the biggest proponent of global warming in the world.  So, why trust what a very corrupt organization is pushing?  That makes no sense at all.  Only an idiot would look at a high level of corruption and then think, so what?  Who cares if they are corrupt?  I'll trust them anyway.  Being corrupt doesn't make them dishonest....

The stuff you global warming people expect thinking people to swallow without question is just incredible. 

[Gary K]

20 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Maybe I should compaine to a mod......nah, 

Wow, Amazing how people jump to con conclusions based on....?

My Words, 

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world........." Those are the words I live by, and guess what, it was humans He came to save. Christ/God could be called humanist!

Dogma, Superstition, sounds rather heathen to me. Christ gave us evidence of His love for us, death on the cross.

Now certainly there are aspect of humanism that conflict with a belief in God. And it has come to mean in our day and time as someone who doesn't believe in the value of God/religious based system. But it does place value on the person and individual and not dogmatic belief systems that harm and put fear into Gods climatic creation, humans! I stand by my post and am glad to bne seen as someone who values human life. Certainly in keeping with Gods desire for us.

So I guess the disagreeing post sees God like the above?? I don't know.......

I give you a bunch of texts that shows God does punish people from both the New and Old Testament.  Do you believe them?  Nope.  You call that a pagan belief.  Thus, the only conclusion possible is that you think the Bible is filled with error and is of purely human invention for if you didn't think that way you would accept whatever the Bible tells you.  You do not.  You cherry pick what you want to believe. 

If the Bible is truly inspired by God then the entire Bible is true for He is the author of all of it.  If it is of human invention than it can be filled with some truth but mostly error.  Your belief system says it is filled with error for you toss out everything you don't want to believe. 

I haven't stated anything other than what is true according to your own words, your own statements.

[CoAspen]

For God so loved the world.......difficult to refute that and find a God who controls with an iron fist and fear! You serve yours and I will serve mine!

[Bravus]

Meteorologists are not climate scientists, so a statistic about meteorologists is irrelevant to a question about climate.

As I said, it's not about authority, it's about evidence.

Climate is warming, that is simple, irrefutable fact. It requires willful ignorance to claim that that is not the case.

The causal relationship between warming and carbon dioxide is complex and bidirectional, not simple.

And carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.

The focus should not be on me, or on John Coleman, and it should not be on climate scientists. You will note that I am not making my arguments based on the '97%' claim.

I'm talking about thermometers and other ways of measuring temperature, and I'm talking about the actual measured gas mix in the atmosphere.

I'm talking about Rayleigh scattering, the phenomenon by which greenhouse gases retain heat energy in the atmosphere. 

[Gary K]

On 8/22/2017 at 0:49 PM, CoAspen said:

For God so loved the world.......difficult to refute that and find a God who controls with an iron fist and fear! You serve yours and I will serve mine!

Did your parents ever discipline you?  Did you ever break their rules and get punished for doing so?  If so, were they Nazi-like?

If a parent loves their child they will discipline them and punish them when it is required.  Otherwise that child grows up lacking in many attributes it needs to succeed in life. 

[Gary K]

On 8/22/2017 at 4:54 PM, Bravus said:

Meteorologists are not climate scientists, so a statistic about meteorologists is irrelevant to a question about climate.

As I said, it's not about authority, it's about evidence.

Climate is warming, that is simple, irrefutable fact. It requires willful ignorance to claim that that is not the case.

The causal relationship between warming and carbon dioxide is complex and bidirectional, not simple.

And carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.

The focus should not be on me, or on John Coleman, and it should not be on climate scientists. You will note that I am not making my arguments based on the '97%' claim.

I'm talking about thermometers and other ways of measuring temperature, and I'm talking about the actual measured gas mix in the atmosphere.

I'm talking about Rayleigh scattering, the phenomenon by which greenhouse gases retain heat energy in the atmosphere. 

Come on Bravus.  The global warming people have falsified so much evidence it's hard to take them serious.  Any rational person will doubt someone who lies to them time after time. 

Now, do I deny that there is some climate change going on right now?  Not in the least.  But, what is the cause?  That is the question.  The climate has changed again and again over the centuries since the flood.  Those changes happened during non-industrialized times. 

The environment of the earth is a self-correcting system.  When CO2 levels go up and there is a warming trend more plants grow.  And right now there is a lot of "greening" going on world wide.  The hole in the ozone layer.  Oh, wait.  That was a complete false alarm. 

Second, the number of sensors being used has been reduced to only a small fraction of what they used to be.  Now why is that?  Why get rid of all higher altitude sensors?  Because you immediately have a "warming trend" in the recorded temperature averages.  It doesn't mean the overall temperature is rising.  It's just nothing more than selection bias.  I really wish you guys would stop assuming everyone is an idiot.

The Inuits have noticed that the patterns of the stars over the Northern Hemisphere have changed, and in the tribal memory when this happens there has always been a change in their climate.  This tribal memory goes back far beyond the global warming hysteria. It goes back centuries. So, they called NASA to talk to them about it and warn of a coming change in the climate.  What did NASA do?  They confirmed the earth had changed it's axis again, but then they claimed it was due to climate change rather than the other way around.    Really?  Just how is a reduction in ice levels supposed to unbalance the earth?  Does the ice only melt on the west side of the ice fields so that they become unbalanced?  It's idiocy like this that causes people to ignore all the political furor and ignore the claims of man caused climate change. 

Climate change, as it has been put forth by the politicians, is simply another tactic for restricting liberty and stealing wealth from the little guy, the individual.  It's like the Paris Accord that everyone went so nuts over when Trump pulled the US out of it.  It was nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme.  Pure Socialism.  The big polluters, China and India, were to go on increasing the amount of the their pollution for another 30 to 40 years or so under that accord.  There was absolutely 0 reduction in pollutants due to that Accord  They would, in fact, increase..  Yet the US was to pay out trillions of dollars and export all it's coal mining jobs to India and China.  Oh, I understand why the world was angry.  But it wasn't because of the so-called lack of reduction in pollution.  They were mad because Trump said, I'm not going to pay you to pollute and screw over the US voter and worker.