As the first director of meteorology for TV’s Weather Channel, Hudson resident Joseph D’Aleo, 61, knows a lot about skepticism and mistaken long-range forecasts. When the fledgling cable outfit started broadcasting in 1982, skeptics forecasted that it wouldn’t last.
Almost 30 years later, “the Internet has become people’s primary source for weather information,” D’Aleo says. He operates his own Web site, www.icecap.us, containing 2,500 articles that contradict claims by Al Gore and “mainstream media” types that carbon-dioxide emissions are threatening our—and the polar bears’—existence.
CNN talk host Lou Dobbs interviewed D’Aleo at his Hudson home this week. In early March, D’Aleo will address 1,000 scientists and fellow global-warming skeptics at an international conference in New York City. In the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac, he authored a six-page article, Is Global Warming on the Wane? D’Aleo makes this long-range prediction, based on his study of natural solar and oceanic cycles: Last winter, the world embarked on the coldest two-decade stretch in 200 years.
Q: When you started at The Weather Channel in 1981, did you know how popular it would become?
A: A lot of critics laughed at us when we first started, saying people weren’t going to watch weather for 24 hours. But the important thing was, we gave people weather when they wanted it. This was before the Internet. So that worked in our favor.
Q: Does New England really have the world’s quirkiest weather?
A: I travel around the country a lot, and often hear people say, “We have a saying around here in Oklahoma: If you don’t like the weather, just wait a little while.” So we think it’s a New England quirky thing, but in much of the country they say the same thing. But we do have lots of extremes here, and it’s one of the toughest places to forecast for.
Q: Why did global-warming proponents change the preferred phrasing to climate change?
A: Because there’s been no warming for eight years. Since 2001, temperatures around the globe have cooled off by a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit. Climate-change advocates know it, but the mainstream media won’t report it.
Q: Except for Lou Dobbs of CNN? Is that what he came to your house to talk about?
A: His point, and I agree, is that we have to get the science right before spending all this money, before we invest a trillion dollars to combat “global warming”—especially in this economy. People are pushing, especially Al Gore, that we have to spend the money now. And it is not necessary.
Q: What’s the percentage of meteorologists who believe in global warming versus skeptics?
A: Global-warming proponents would have you believe it’s 99 percent in favor. It’s much smaller than that. The skeptics may even be in the majority.
(Oscar note: My own informal unscientific view is that the 'global warming' skeptical meteorologists outnumber the global warming alarmists by 2 to 1 - and is growing.)
Certainly, the believers include the university professors and those people in the federal-grant gravy train. Also, the environmental groups have done very well (in capitalizing) on this issue. You’ve got politicians on the national and local level espousing it. The scary thing is, the people who end up paying are low and middle-income folks, the consumers.
Q: President Obama is in the believer camp. Are you dismayed by that?
A: President Obama wants to decrease carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States by 80 percent by 2030. Let’s say he got very aggressive about that in his first term. It would basically shut down our economy, because sufficient alternative-energy sources are just not there. Just the growth in the rest of the world would replace all the carbon we’d saved through very punitive measures on our own industry. We’d certainly not be a world leader anymore—China and India would be. Our economy would have suffered a great deal of pain for no gain.
(read more at icecap.us)