"Published on March 12th 2014: A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years."
"(...) Dr. Revelle and I continued to have professional interactions in the 1970s. He invited me to spend a few months as his guest at the Center for Population Studies at Harvard where he was a visiting professor, and Al Gore was to be one of his students. (...)" S. Fred Singer The Revelle-Gore Story Attempted Political Suppression of Science http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
To evaluate this issue of Roger Revelle one has to keep in mind that Harvard University (Boston) hosts also the geoengineer David Keith: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7021#Post7021 And as we know from the history of technological development science causes multiple ways to go. Science itself is objective but only in the way of giving the same results after repeating trials. As science causes multiple ways to go it causes also specific problems for each way. You may have a fanatic scientist who is convinced of his idea because it means that he or she will make an even greater carreer than with another idea. And therefore this same idea of the fanatic scientist becomes subjective what is everything else but scientific. And this way science is not even a religion or ideology it is diving board to personal advantages on behalf of the community.
Minute 5 Second: 15 John Coleman Memo The Scientists and organizations that take 4.7 Billion tax dollars a year to continue Global Warming Research (Snapshot below)
This is a lot of money. And for sure: to get it you have to fight like a ice hockey player. Maybe this is the real reason of the creation of the "hockey stick curve" (look to the IPCC-Chart below).
And therefore time doesn't play any role - at least for those who want to have a lifetime-job: "Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rt-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
To keep the emotional stress level high by scare is one of the tasks to stay in reach of the BILLIONS not only MILLIONS.
As we have seen in economics the mathmatical algorithms did not work because the ASSUMPTIONS were wrong. Nevertheless the mathmatical algorithms did their job: they reduced the numbers of possible critics because mathematical reasoning is not easy to comprehend. That way mathmatics served as an ideological tool to keep and build up an economic power structure around these algorithms. At the ende there was a damage of TRILLIONS - not just BILLIONS or even MILLIONS.
And it looks also that way with the ideological tool of Computer Climate Models: "Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rt-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
And as the whole globe is on sale there is a market of about 150 Trillions US$ on Assets worldwide which have to deal with the planned dictatorial (legal term: "obligation to contract" because of the public good "CO²") impact of the proclaimed Global warming, although the greatest uncertainty in the climate is the existance of clouds which make 97 percent of the greenhouse gases. But the amount of clouds depends usually on the space weather.
If we take in account that we live in a market-orientated societal system it is no wonder that for economic survival everybody is looking for markets.
We know the advantages of capitalism but - unfortunately - we forget always the disadvantages. Psychologically this is a natural behavior. Nevertheless, the follow-ups of the disadvantages of market-orientated behavior accumulate. And what does happen then? We get into a crisis - again and again. And after the crisis there are mostly some kind of recoveries.
On September 12th 2014 bloomberg news reports that the Weather Channel is considered to be sold.
"Weather Channel Owners Said to Consider a Sale
Tough for Individual Networks to Negotiate for Cable and Satellite Carriage
The buyout firms that own Weather Channel Cos. have spoken to JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs Group about strategic options including a possible sale, according to people familiar with the matter.
Weather Channel hasn't begun a formal process or hired a bank, according to the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. Blackstone Group, Bain Capital and Comcast Corp.'s NBC Universal bought Weather Channel Cos. in 2008 for about $3.5 billion.
Weather Channel Cos. includes the Weather Channel TV network, digital properties including Weather.com, Weather Underground and Intellicast.com, and Weather Services International, or WSI, a weather forecasting service.
The private-equity firms are interested in exploring the idea of selling all or part of the company, according to two people familiar with the matter. They also may decide to hold their ownership stakes rather than sell, the people said.
Spokeswomen for Weather Channel and JP Morgan declined to comment, while a spokesman for Goldman Sachs couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Representatives for NBC Universal, Blackstone and Bain declined to comment.
Weather Channel, which is distributed to more than 100 million U.S. households, could potentially be sold to a cable network company, while the company's weather data could be acquired separately, one of the people said. The businesses combined have a value of at least $3.5 billion, the person said.
Yahoo considered acquiring the Weather Channel in 2012 as part of a tax-efficient asset swap with Alibaba Group Holding and SoftBank, people familiar with the matter said at the time.
DirecTV dropped the Weather Channel for about three months earlier this year after failing to come to an agreement about how much the network should be paid in affiliate fees. The Weather Channel agreed to cut back on its reality programming to include more local weather updates when DirecTV agreed to a new deal in April.
The disagreement with DirecTV highlights the potential weaknesses of networks that don't negotiate carriage contracts in conjunction with other channels. While NBC Universal owns a portion of the Weather Channel, NBC's sales and distribution team doesn't work on its deals, giving the network limited leverage over pay-TV operators.
Fees dispute In February, DirecTV said it had lost a 'few thousand' customers because of the absence of the Weather Channel from its lineup.
DirecTV, with 20 million subscribers, had pushed for a reduction of more than 20% in the fees it pays the Weather Channel, which had asked for an increase of 1 cent a month per subscriber.
The Weather Channel, based in Atlanta, averaged 13 cents a month per subscriber in 2013 and in 2012, according to estimates from researcher SNL Kagan. It averaged 214,000 daily viewers in 2013, down from 264,000 in 2011, according to data provided by Nielsen.
With such an economic background in mind it is no wonder that the Weather Channel founder was "disavowed" by just the same Weather Channel. His opinion was not business-affine: For the stock exchange there are future businesses just around the corner as it is expected there may be an international treaty arranged in France at the end of 2015 for just the topic criticized by the Weather Channel founder John Coleman. There is no space for objective scientific discussion for economic reasons as the economy lives at least from 50 percent psychological motives. And where there is no space for objectivity there is no space for dissidents.
And therefore there are assumptions for climate models made nobody understands which are additionally disguised by informatic and mathmatical algorithms nobody understands again - accept by those few who know how to interpret those formulas.
And that way it is like with the Black Swan ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb ) who did care about the mathmatics in economics because the basic assumptions for the economic models were wrong. This cost Trillions in 2008. But what are a couple of Trillions when you have a lookout to hundreds of trillions - as it appears with an international climate treaty.
Addendum December 16th 2015: My comment to the following passage
"(...) John Coleman (co-founder of The Weather Channel) is also unfortunately cited (by many who claim to be fighting geoengineering) as "proof" that there is no global warming. First, Coleman's training and degree is in journalism, not meteorology. Next, Coleman has made it his mission to completely deny and "debunk" the geoengineering reality. Why would anyone claiming to be in the fight to expose and stop climate engineering use Coleman as a a source? Propagating disinformation from paid propagandists like those above is extremely harmful to the anti-geoengineering effort. (...)" http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/category/breaking-news/ http://phys.org/news/2015-10-boosting-efficiency-solar-panels.html
AMS=American Meteorological Society "Award for Extraordinary Scientific Achievement (...) 1983 John S. Coleman 'for his many years of service in presenting weather reports of high informational, educational, and professional quality to a national television audience, and for his pioneering efforts in establishing a national cable weather channel combining the latest advances in broadcast technology, weather science, and meteorological communications.' " http://web.archive.org/web/20120327112435/http://www.ametsoc.org/getpastawards/get_allawards.cfm : page 27 of the pdf-file below: "AMS All Awards Inquiry" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0171087/
"Current AMS Sealholders (those who earned or applied for the Seal prior to January 1, 2005 ) are not required to hold a degree in meteorology (or equivalent)." http://askville.amazon.com/John-Coleman's-educational-background/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=11910171
I don't believe in this CO²-stuff. This is my opinion. As long there is not empirical proof (not only computer models) there is no real proof for the allegations made around the CO²-myth. I don't need a "Coleman" to be convinced. I did not even know his popularity in the U.S. before I collected information about the CO²-topic. For me, it's all about money. Because you need new economic demand you have to create it artificially - by FORCED economic demand. You can observe this trend everywhere. Look to Larry Summers and his suggestion of creating forced investment by abolishing cash. It's same strategy.
"Next, Coleman has made it his mission to completely deny and 'debunk' the geoengineering reality. " (geoengineering.org) If you access a broader public audience you will get confronted with this kind of denial anyways. For me, this does not matter. Alone the creation of the CO²-myth shows that money is the topic above all. In this way you can create any story for the public - although it's lie - if you have enough "consciousness power" through the media. ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=16591#Post16591 ) In the end it all comes to money. And if the audience has swallowed this fact they will be also critical to the "events" in the sky. And who can say that he or she is always right? Nobody likes to admit that he or she is sitting by an error. If CO² is not the cause of the crazy weather, what could it be?
My suspicion is that Coleman acts similiar to Kachelmann (he has no degree in meteorology) in Germany. He used his attacks on the "chemtrailers" to profile his "power" of his image as a weather expert. Although the background of Kachelmann is probably different to Coleman nevertheless the function as a celebrity in this field is used as a value for itself. To say it in other words: To become more influential and to avoid an image as a "Conspiracy Theorist" (Crazy Person) the denial of geoengineering/climate engineering is the economic logic to earn money in the field of "weather". As the CO²-critical faction in the U.S. is more powerful than in most of Europe Coleman uses this market share of the public to get an audience. And probably he is convinced of his opinion regarding CO² himself.
