Global Warming: Meltdown by John Coleman @ KUSI

Recently I had a couple of friends tell me that the crazy snow storms going on around the world do not put into question the 'global warming' theory, but in fact prove that global warming IS occurring. One said that she heard 'there is always a cooling period before the great warming begins' and another said it's because the glaciers are melting, putting more moisture into the air, and then it's coming down as excess rain and snow. Personally I questioned those comments because for one, some areas like the UK are notorious for their high precipitation but it usually comes in the form of rain or a much smaller amount of snow - so the excess moisture due to glacial melting doesn't make an impression on me lol. The fact that the air was cool enough to change the moisture to SNOW is what interested me. So then I thought about the other comment: "there is always a period of cooling before the great warming".... I have seen and heard a LOT of global warming warnings over the past decade or more, but do not recall hearing about how things could go crazy with ice and snow first. I got the poo scared out of me with report after report about high temps ever-increasing at alarming rates instead. My recollections do not include learning that we will heat up, freeze, and then heat up again.

So then I stumbled across a 9 part report by a man named John Coleman and found it very interesting and more in line with my own thinking. You should take time to watch all nine parts, even if you think he is full of hot air. I think people need to give a serious look to all sides of this 'global warming, climate change' theory before betting all their eggs on it.

Here is one part that I found particularly interesting because it shows clips of a scientist saying things like 'we KNOW' that man is causing the warming, this is SETTLED science, and things like 'NO good scientist would dispute what I have just said', etc etc. Interesting stuff. He said it is all proven, etc etc, you know the score.

And then HERE is the list of all 9 segments.

Some of the prior segments were interesting as well, talking about how the IPCC claims the research they base their claims on are reviewed by independent, peer-reviewed scientists... however a lot of that has been coming to the forefront lately and we learn that some reports were not even based on science at all, but instead based literally on a COMMENT an activist made years ago, or done by organizations such as Greenpeace and WWF - hardly to be considered 'independent', as Coleman says. I have had a lot of friends suggest that it is silly for me to question SCIENTISTS who believe Global Warming is a real danger - but now I find that many of these reports were NOT DONE BY SCIENTISTS AT ALL. Talk about frustrating!! Some of them were not even peer-reviewed by other scientists because there was no actual scientific report for them to review in the first place! It is extremely aggravating. Our money is being used to fund crap like this. I would rather my money be used to beef up the science classrooms at my kids' schools so I know it's actually being used for REAL science, thank you very much.

But if I voice my concerns and questions, or my opinion, I largely get brushed aside as a fanatic. That would hurt my feelings if I let it - but I try not to let it get to me anymore. My bf and his cousin were recently called PSYCHO, CRAZY, DUM DUMS over expressing their concern for how our govts are spending our money.. that's what we are faced with when simply requesting that more proof is needed, more 'accountability', more 'transparency'.... so why is it that those new Fad Words only apply if you're not demanding better science for Global Warming theories? If we ask for more transparency and accountability, we get called psycho crazy deniers.

No, actually, I think it's a GOOD thing that we are asking for better proof before our livelihoods are destroyed. What the heck is wrong with that? I thought humans were supposed to celebrate their ability to rationalize, think independently, question, test, hypothesize and prove, use our voices, and use our Free Speech? Oh right - only if you go along with the status quo WITHOUT thinking and questioning, right?