In a recent interview with CNN, Coleman stressed that there is no scientific consensus when it comes to global warming. Noting that science isn’t a vote, but needs to be based on cold, hard facts, he stated firmly that climate change simply is not happening.
“There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future,” he stressed. “That’s a whole lot of baloney.”
When asked by the CNN interviewer how he would explain away the fact that 97 percent of scientists with the government, NASA and other institutions all accept global warming as settled science, Coleman claimed that it’s all about the money. Apparently, the government makes $2.5 billion in funding available for climate science each year, but will only fund studies that support the global warming hypothesis. Climate scientists who actually want to work, therefore, have no real choice: If they want to get the money, they have to support the global warming position.
“It’s real simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s right; that doesn’t make it true,” Coleman said. “That only makes it bought and paid for.” [RELATED: Discover the true scientific facts at Environ.news]
Coleman also made reference to the Global Warming Petition Project, a petition launched in 1998, and signed by 31,487 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.’s in atmospheric science, Earth science, climatology and the environment. None of these highly respected scientists accept the theory of global warming.
In fact, these scientists insist, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
In promoting the petition, the highly respected scientist, Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, noted, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2016, pointed to the beneficial effects of increased carbon dioxide production. That study determined that the Earth has greened “significantly” over the last three and a half decades. In fact, between 25 and 50 percent of our planet’s plant life has been subject to this effect, which is only logical, since carbon dioxide boosts photosynthesis, facilitating increased growth. [RELATED: Carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule for re-greening the planet.]
Back in 2007, two scientists, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer, analyzed the work of over 500 scientists and determined that any current warming of the Earth is likely not caused by greenhouse gases, but is part of the natural cooling and warming process our planet has gone through every 1,500 years for millennia.
Avery and Singer noted that in 2,000 years of recorded history, colder periods like the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age were far more likely to be harmful to people and the environment than the warmer periods. They pointed to historical floods on the Nile, wine production in the U.K. by first century Romans, and ancient paintings with sunnier skies, depicting what is known as the “Medieval Warming,” as evidence of these consistent temperature fluctuations.
So, before accepting all the bought and paid for doomsday global warming “science,” it is well worth looking at all the facts and drawing your own conclusions.