If you read the link in the article which this article seems to refer to, it says:

Notice how it's not from "jcoleman@xxx.EDU". I feel comforted by the fact that the discoveries of climate scientists as well as other types of scientists have gone through peer review and thus less susceptible to bulls**t. eg:

I'm doubtful that there is a huge scientific conspiracy inventing global warming. The scientific community itself actually rewards huge up-heaving discoveries, like the proof that global warming doesn't exist.

I think a theory scarier than global warming is global dimming- the theory that we are shielded from the sun's rays even more due to our carbon emissions from nations undergoing industrialization. Apparently, it's shielding the effects of global warming making it seem like we're screwed whether we emit or not.
Source:

Oh god, that link was ugly.

I apologize for the crappy commenting. I haven't had time to play in the sandbox much.

Any lack of reference to scientific papers/research always drives me nuts. How can a scientist claim something without resonable evidence?

And that is not crappy commenting. All comments are welcome here at Plime!

This story was brought to you by NewsBusters, an MRC project (openly funded by ExxonMobil - check their annual giving statement for the past several years). John Coleman is not a climatologist - he's a broadcast weatherman, which he himself proudly proclaims. Sorry, but he is just another guy with an opinion (an opinion being brought to you by the oil industry), and not an expert in the field of climatology. The anti-warming crowd loves to trot out meteorologists as "experts" in climatology because the public is too unschooled on the subject to know the (sizable) difference. Go to to see what genuine climatologists have to say on the matter.

Given that a HURRICANE hit CANADA this NOVEMBER 3, I think something pretty weird is happening with the climate. This time of year, 50 years ago, it often became cold enough in my province to freeze gasoline. Now it's rarely below the freezing temperature of water. So some sort of climate change is occurring, and I think it's partially due to human activity and partially due to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field, increasing solar radiation.

right on.

Global warming is not something you choose to believe in - it is a fact and it has already been proven, times and times over. The probablility that it is caused by man is over 90 % accrding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (founded by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, which I doubt are in this for the monetary gain..) The chances for it being a "naturally occuring phenomenon" are pretty slim. Warming temperatures have happened before naturally, but this time around, it's becuse of the human races complete lack of consideration for anything but their own comfort and convenienence. It would be much more convenient if we had absolutely nothing to do with it and if there was nothing we could do about it, because all this EFFORT wouldn't be requiered of us then...

Now let's say the scientists WERE wrong - it wouldn't change a thing. If there are chances that we are risking every lifeform by not caring, it is inexcusable and then we indeed do not deserve this planet to live on. Lets say the scientists are wrong - global warming is not caused by humans. We are still putting tremendous strain on our environment by living the way we live. Landfills, deforestration, desertation, pollution, eutrophication... the list goes on and on. If believing in global warming is making some people live in a more environmentally friendly way, there is no harm done.

I for one do not feel comfortable making my own assumptions about things that some people have studied for years and years - I have no qualifications. However, it is my choice what to do with the knowledge they can give me - I can choose to try and help out or give up. Giving up on this planet is NOT something I believe in.

edited to add:

Taking a risk thats puts oneself at harm are fine by me - if you wish to smoke although there is a high risk that it will kill you, fine by me.

Taking a risk that puts all life in harms way, that I am not ok with. Especially because it does not take much effort to help.

I dont mean to rant and rave and convert people, I just want to make people consider the possible outcomes. I know people are annoyed with the preaching involved in global warming- but is not better to have a trend that for once isnt completely selfish, but one that is aimed at helping everyone?

I believe that human induced global wamring is true, but am ready to stay open and consider the outcome of "what if its not true". If it's not true, and we end up using all this effort to stay it - what is the worst that could happend?

What if we do nothing and human induced global warming does prove to be true? Aren't the risks in that quite a bit higher?

"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."

He sounds kinda like Tom Cruise takling about Brooke Shields... doesn't he?

Tip of my hat to you. I tried to be sarcastic about it because I didn't have the words, you put it beautifully, thank you!