Great Article About The Hoax That Is Global Warming

[Lincoln30]

You might have heard about this guy before...he used to own the Weather Channel and is disgusted by the fact that it's been twisted into a eco-nazi (my words) organization. I'm not against anyone who want to be more eco-friendly and I think we all could do better but my reason is not global warming (it's saving money on energy, reducing landfill waste, etc)...You will be offended by this if you pray at the Church of Al Gore (and I hope you are offended if you are a follower of his bogus religion). The link is the same as the text below it, I'm just posting it here to give appropriate reference to the author.

 

Please pass this along to everyone you know that is effected by high gas prices

 

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

 

John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce

 

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas

by John Coleman

 

 

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

 

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

 

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

 

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

 

Here is my rebuttal.

 

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

 

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

 

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

 

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

 

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

 

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

 

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

 

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

 

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

 

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

 

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

 

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

 

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

 

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

 

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

 

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

 

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

 

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

 

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

 

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

 

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

 

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

 

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

 

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

 

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

 

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

 

 

 

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

[rvsahs]

A long read, but a good one. I had heard that Coleman is at odds with TWC's current programming format and it's slant towards global warming. Maybe he and others like him can swing the pendulum back so that we can have a more intellegent discussion of the facts and the not scare tactics by the tree huggers out there.

[Jackson]

 

[Lincoln30]

A long read, but a good one. I had heard that Coleman is at odds with TWC's current programming format and it's slant towards global warming. Maybe he and others like him can swing the pendulum back so that we can have a more intellegent discussion of the facts and the not scare tactics by the tree huggers out there.

 

This is insensitive but I wish this article would have hit on any other day but today. Tim Russert's passing is obviously bigger news even though this is more important to mankind. I have no opinion, good or bad, about Russert just commenting on the bad timing...RIP.

[hubbycap]

I wrote what follows below in Oct. '06. It was a letter to the local newspaper in response to its unchalenged crusade for Al Gore et al. Of course it was unpublished. I later wrote a simular rebut to Scientific American and its obvious and total disregard of the scientific process of peer review. You guessed it, unpublished. Not as lengthy as the OP but a non-scientific observation of the path that the environmentalist want us to follow on faith alone.

The US Supreme Court recently heard arguments on whether the US Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Environmentalists argued that the byproduct of heat and energy production, and by extrapolation, the exhalant of life itself is poisoning our atmosphere. Imagine if you can, that we are witnessing what may be the beginning of US criminalization of capitalism and every mechanism of its employ as well as the life-sustaining function of breathing itself. All this, while a UN-published study states that cattle farming's output of CO2 and methane far outpaces that of the contribution of all the world's transportation sector. I find the lack of a consensus very troubling, particularly as the media is pressing an urgent call to action against a "man-made" global climate emergency.

 

 

Now that the US elections are over and we're back to the normal fever-pitch noise floor, I would like to comment on what has become the very vogue topic of global warming. Not a scientific finding, but a reflection of a few items that I find incongruent. I have no letters following my name except "Jr.," but, for a layman I have studied the subject at length and I've noticed an obvious lack of a unified theory concerning the state of Earth's climate. Inasmuch as proponents report that it is all but a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of scientists (as well as us unwashed masses) believe that man should bravely answer the call to save the planet from us, a surprisingly high number deny outright a change in our climate, though journalists rarely report dissenters except in ridicule. Others agree that Earth is experiencing a warming period, but still debate the level and/or the human contribution to it, if any.

 

 

There seems to be great concern by some that Earth will warm one to three degrees over the next century; that our current climate is or was normal and that we must strive to maintain it; that the polar ice caps should continue to be an obstacle to arctic shipping routes and any climatic variation is bad, caused by and consequently controllable by human kind. This warming is of concern irrespective of climate swings prior to the existence of SUVs or even humans. Many of those swings have been of much greater magnitude than the currently forecast "catastrophic global warming" as well as retracted "ice age" and warming predictions made throughout the 20th century and before.

 

 

No computer models have been able to dissuade me from believing that we may be in the beginning of an age much like that of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) when it was warm enough to grow wine grapes in England and the Vikings settled Greenland. Greenland, some may be surprised to hear, was not named after someone named "Green." There the Vikings enjoyed agrarian settlements for 500 years until 1500 A.D. when the Little Ice Age (which lasted until the 1800s) froze them out. And now, everyone is hysterical that Greenland may again support agriculture. What could anyone have against Greenland?

 

 

A funny thing happens at the end of an ice age. You guessed it. It gets warmer! It has only been a 100 odd years since the end of that ice age. Earth has warmed a little (about 1 degree F.) and Greenland still isn't green. In fact we are still a good bit cooler than during the MWP (about 2 degrees F.) and the Vikings didn't think that it was too bad then. It seems to have been warming up in that unpopulated environment known as Mars too. Despite its lack of a hydrocarbon-based economy, the Martian ice caps have also become a bit anemic. It would seem that man may not be the villain in this problem, but the Sun probably is. Can our feeble minds comprehend cosmic-scaled cycles whose lives extend beyond the invention of the thermometer; solar seasons that wax and wane over hundreds or thousands of years? Or is the Sun's role discarded as a mischievous variable? An inconvenient truth?

 

 

As a consummate skeptic, some would call me a "Global Warming Denier" which I am not. I do, however, feel that many (learned scholars, political activists, and protesters-in-search-of-the-next-cause) are "Natural Global Climate Change Deniers." After all, climatologists do have to eat and would have a personal interest in attracting as much as possible of the $5 billion per year that is now being spent on climate study worldwide. It's quite a rewarding time for such an otherwise mundane occupation. What better way to grab the attention of potential philanthropists, environmental groups and governments than sensational headlines? As time marches on however, we do become anesthetized to mere tepid sensationalism and it does become necessary to up the sensa-meter to maintain the same anxiety level. Headlines reading: "Earth's Temperature is Average" would not sell newspapers or incite action to a cause or grants to a study.

 

 

Research is funded, colorful graphs drawn, meetings held, and voila! The world is saved. Another headline, another grant. But somehow a willing media is allowing a mission of this magnitude to escape critical peer review. The very same information-gathering "4th branch of the government" that can sniff out the one casual letter, note, phone call, or conversation that brings down the fattest cat in the country can look at the entire global warming debate and declare it to be faultless. Truly amazing! If discovered to be unsupportable, decades of wasted effort, resources, and humanity could not be recompensed with a future "Page12D" retraction.

 

 

Obviously the state of Earth is the result of all the violent and subtle forces of the universe to this point. Unless the rest of the universe has ceased to be, it is unlikely that it has ceased to affect us. Universe BIG, man small. A stagnant climate has never existed and I feel is unattainable. Earth, the entire universe, has, is, and will be forever changing, and the existence of humans is of little consequence compared to our proximity to an open fusion reactor just 93 million miles away. How can the grandest undertakings of man compare to the slightest ripple in the Sun's output? Or on a more fathomable scale: If the oceans were to rise, how much could sea level be lowered if all swimmers returned to shore?

 

 

With the suppression of credible scientific peer review, the unchallenged idea that our insignificant species can or should try in vain to counteract the effects of the universe is both demagoguery and folly. The unprecedented and likely oppressively burdensome sacrifices proposed by the most radical self-appointed guardians of our climate require our unquestioning faith that their hypotheses aren't ignoring that the universe affects our climate and that their solutions do not have other than the most benevolent motives. The exceptionally large burden the US has been chosen to bear, contrasted by the "underwhelming" lack of sacrifice by other signatories of Kyoto, expresses that the real effort may be to handicap the world's greatest economy under the guise of crisis. If Kyoto were pure in its goal of tackling a genuine global emergency, shouldn't it apply equally to the entire world? On a burning ship, wouldn't everyone participate in the bucket brigade? Or just those in first class?

 

 

Since the "scientific community" insists that CO2 is the absolute demon in global warming, environmentalists have compounded the utter futility of the US's monumental share of its salvation for the last 30 years, by wrecking any advancement on the path to CO2 emission reductions through nuclear power, by limitations placed on the building of new reactors. Why is there no support for what would be a Godsend toward reducing CO2 emissions, if required--atomic power generation? What are we supposed to do? Live in teepees? What has happened to common sense?

 

 

Water vapor comprises 96%-99% of greenhouse gases, in volume and effect. CO2 is only a very small part of the remainder and compared to methane, an extremely insignificant contributor, but curiously, the only part for which evil humans are responsible and can apparently change. This change is possibly the most painful and damaging to human progress. Could a more benign villain be imagined and a more emasculating course be devised to correct it? And if it were possible to make this undertaking even more senseless, it would be to attempt this now, when the Sun is believed to be hotter than it has been in over 10,000 years, and quite possibly on the brink of beginning a cooling period anyway.

 

 

If the human race were to pick a climate or temperature that we felt was ideal and could and should in fact alter it, at what temperature should we set the thermostat? The climate of today? 1000 B.C.? When? What IS normal? What is just right? Before the attempt is made to change the World's temperature, I would like to be convinced as to what is wrong with Greenland being green. Frankly, I think it's still a little chilly.