No, or I should say, not inherently.

The question arises because Weather Channel founder John Coleman wrote a recent article claiming global warming is “the greatest scam in history.” [Not! Everyone knows the greatest scam in history is the whole moon-landing nonsense.] But I digress. Coleman writes:

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

Oh well, then, case closed. A weatherman read a bunch of papers and thought about them.

In fact, one of the climate scientists I interviewed for my book told me:

Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service] certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change.

Asking a meteorologist to opine on the climate — or even the cause of recent extreme weather – is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a mid-West sheriff the prospects for nuclear terrorism. The answer might be interesting, but not one I’d like to stake my family’s life on.

As but one example of how meaningless it is to read a few scientific papers — especially the wrong ones — consider what Coleman said on CNN’s Glenn Beck:

Read more

I suppose no one should be shocked that Fox had a 5-against-1 (Greenpeace’s John Passacantando) panel to savage Hillary Clinton’s terrific climate and energy plan. The video (here) is worth watching to see just how much some conservatives hate the strategies that are crucial to avoiding catastrophic global warming.

I was surprised to see that Wayne Rogers of M*A*S*H fame has morphed into another Fox wacko. He labels Hillary’s plan “idiotic,” calls her a “crazy person” and mocks her — I kid you not — for putting forward “an aggressive, comprehensive energy efficiency agenda … by changing the way utilities do business.”

Of course, anyone who quits M*A*S*H after only three seasons, shouldn’t call anyone else crazy! Equally bizarre, Rogers gave Bush $3000 in 1999 but gave Kerry $1000 in 2004 (and Orrin Hatch $2000 last year — hey, Wayne, pick a party and stick with it already!).

Yes, you can find out the complete campaign contribution history of all your favorite stars at this website (where you learn truly pointless things like Cher likes Joe Biden to the tune of $4200!)

Well, at least Alan Alda remains as thoughtful as ever!

Hat tip to Lots O’ Thoughts for finding this video.

If you liked this post, subscribe to the ClimateProgress feed.

E&E Daily (subs. req’d) reports:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wants to strengthen global warming legislation over the next three weeks before her panel holds a vote on a measure already subject to significant compromise. But the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee also knows she doesn’t have a lot of room to maneuver….

Several other members on Boxer’s committee want more out of the climate bill, as well. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) must deal with White House rivals critical of any move she makes that would stop short of her presidential platform. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) hopes to force stronger pollution cuts from power plants. And Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would like to see more aggressive overall limits that square with scientific recommendations….

The bill’s other co-author, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), said he was open to tightening the 2050 target and also to moving forward the final 2036 phase-out date when industry can expect free allowances.

“We want to create a process that allows as much input and improvement of the bill,” Lieberman said. “We want to make sure we have the votes to get it out of the committee. Those two things may go together.”

Lieberman also said he didn’t think it would be possible to strengthen the legislation’s 2020 targets, which now sit at about a 20 percent cut below 2005 levels….

Several Republicans on Boxer’s committee want significant changes to the Lieberman-Warner legislation, including the deletion of any mandatory cap on U.S. emissions.

Good for you, “Several Republicans on Boxer’s committee”! The Senator from the state most affected by global warming has her own way of gutting the bill:

Read more