This blog is not news.

I feel like lately in the media, if enough blogs take up a position, it's newsworthy. The problem is, blogs are OPINION, not facts. The number of bloggers on either side of, say, the issue of global warming does not contribute to the factual nature of that issue. Sometimes, news outlets get overzealous in their reporting of blogs and give them more credit than they deserve. It's very tempting, because you can almost always find some blog to back up your particular position. However, the amount of scientific evidence on either side of global warming does contribute to the facts.

Now, begin my opinionated rant. Perhaps my first mistake was to be on the "Newsbusters" site (subhead: "Exposing and combating liberal media bias"). This is the same site advertising t-shirts that picture Hillary Clinton and read "Re-defeat Communism 2008"...??? At any rate, I read a blog by Noel Sheppard:

To sum up: John Coleman, the first weatherman to appear on Good Morning America and the founder of The Weather Channel has come out to say that "Global warming... is a SCAM." Incidentally, he announced this in his own blog. Blog² = credibility.

I would like to comment on some specific points in this blog/quoted blog.

1. "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives
   manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of
   rapid global warming."
   • Dastardly? You mean, like Snidely Whiplash in a lab coat? And what are their heinous motives, exactly? He probably thinks they were invested heavily in solar cells.
2. "Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild 'scientific' scenario..."
   • My question: if the media are so easily swayed, why should we be listening to the guy who was on Good Morning America and founded The Weather Channel? Those aren't scientific credentials.
3. "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."
   • OK, so how are these actions any different from those scientists who have come to agree that the is man-made climate change?

4. "In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious." and Noah finishes with "Let's hope so, John; let's hope so." I couldn't agree more with the latter.

5. Not related, but is anyone else frustrated with people (especially conservative morning radio show hosts, which we seem to have plenty of in Lansing) who make a point of when there's a particularly cool day in summer and quip: "where's your global warming now?" I notice that they don't retract their statements on particularly hot winter days.

Why does a scientific issue have to be political? When it interferes with someone's political goals, I suppose. Some of the issue at heart appears to be people casting aspersions on those who are supposed to be least affected by motive and opinion: our scientists and media. Facts are supposed to be their primary goal. And knowing scientists, I find it difficult to believe (though not impossible) that so many are falsifying research to some dastardly end. In peer-reviewed journals and under careful scrutiny of the scientific community, it's not likely to happen.

A massive global warming hoax? Occam's Razor, my dear nay-sayers. I don't want to imply that something is true because enough people say it is (come on, if we can get 1 million bloggers on board!), but which is the simpler answer:

• There is a vast worldwide conspiracy creating the illusion of global warming to some nefarious end (Dr. Evil will pop out of his mountain lair and laugh maniacally).
• There actually is scientific evidence to show that humankind is changing the planet's environment, and possibly making it less habitable for ourselves.

But let's not mistake opinion for fact. This is a blog, after all, and just one man's opinion. Do your own research, look beyond the blogs, and formulate your own conclusion.

In case people continue to muddle the point, here's a relevant question: is it better to do something about global warming and find out it's a hoax, or do nothing and discover that it's real? (see: "Pascal's wager", thanks to Micha)