John Coleman on the state of global warming

Hi Anthony,
You say: “All good Democrats believe in global warming, after all it is the science of one of their key heroes, former Vice President and Senator Al Gore”.
This kind of statement is very troubling to me! I am a Democrat (though not in the USA at the moment) and a “liberal”, and yet I am sickened by Al Gore and his like. Going by recent comments on the blog there are a large number of liberals who are totally in your camp. Please don’t lump us all together as warmistas and scare mongerers. Truth is greater than political ideology!
Malcolm

Mr Coleman: why do you accept the premise ‘clean energy’ versus, presumably ‘dirty energy’?
Modern technology allows particulates and undesirable gaseous elements to be filtered or scrubbed out, or reduced, where fossil fuels are burnt. Nuclear reactors produce relatively small amounts of waste which can in any case be readily handled and stored.
Of course ‘clean’ is code word for ‘no CO2’ which is increasingly becoming perceived as a pollutant, since this premise is accepted and unchallenged by the likes of your good self.
There is however another aspect to consider. How can it be known that alternative “clean” energy will not in time form the basis for some future environmental cause célèbre? We cannot say where it would lead.
So the notion that a change to alternative or ‘clean’ energy will be beneficial only applies if it is more readily available and more efficient than what we have currently.
Change for change sake is no benefit.
And by the way what means ‘clean’? I guarantee its definition will change to suit the enviro-argument du jour. Have we forgotten the enviros were all for oil in place of coal and either was better than nuke?
Fire and the wheel were innocent enough to our ancestors; they did not know that one day these would lead to ‘the destruction of the Planet’.
What could be ‘cleaner’ than electricity as a form of energy? Yet it is precisely that and our need to generate it that is at the root of the supposed demise of the Planet.
Coal saved us from a totally deforested Europe which consequently would have meant a lack of construction materials, a lack of a source of energy for heating, cooking and smelting iron. Coal saved us.
Then came the ‘clean’ alternative to coal, oil.
Environmentalism (= people-control, like any religion) then claims absolute prescience that the “clean” energy (which is, currently, anything other than fossil fuel or nuclear) will save the Planet. How can they possibly know?
It takes us back to how you opened your article, whether Environmentalists will ever be satisfied; the answer is no because their aim is to control and propagate their religious cult.
Scientific debate with them is as valuable as one with the adherents of any religion. Faith requires no evidence, that is its virtue and reward, and since no evidence exists to support the Faith, that means no evidence can exist to undermine it. Whenever science explains one particular pillar of Faith, the Faithful merely erect another or challenge the science.
It is time to stop regarding climate change either as a scientific matter or even a political matter, it is religious.

John Coleman is reporting some of the problem and it is not simply bad science. When I read about the different world governments and their almost identical methods of pushing their claims to the urgent need for control of CO2, I wonder.

@John Coleman (“I cannot testify that this event actually occurred”)
Are you thinking of this BBC radio program?, link to the transcript downunder
———————————————–
Broadcast Date: 25.01.10 2030-2100
Repeat Date: 31.01.10 2130-2200
CD Number:
Duration: 27’ 24”
Taking part in order of appearance:
Solitaire Townsend Co-founder and Chief Executive
of Futerra Sustainability Communications
Professor Mike Hulme Founding director of the
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Professor of Climate Change, University of East
Anglia
Lord Anthony Giddens Sociologist
John Gummer MP
John Sauven Greenpeace director
Jonathan Porritt former chairman of Friends of the
Earth, the Green Party and the Sustainable
Development Commission
Andrew Simms policy director of the New
Economics Foundation
“TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.”
———————————————————–
(direct link to textfile)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt

As one “alarmist”, I will stick my hand up and say, “Yes, if you can wave a magic wand and global warming won’t happen, I’ll be happy”.
Sadly, you can’t do that. All you and your band of 31,000 scientists can do, apparently, is to be part of the problem.
Picture the frogs sitting in the pot on the stove.
“Hey guys, anyone want to jump out, I think its getting hot.”
“Hell no, I’m having a lot of fun here! What makes you say its getting hot?”
“Well, I’ve taken some measurements – here they are.”
“So you want me to jump out of this idyllic pot because you and your mates have faked some dodgy measurements? Anyway, I like it hot. Get real.”
“Based on those measurements and my understanding of stoves, pots and water, I’ve constructed a model which predicts we’ll all be dead in half an hour.”
“Models schmodels! You can’t prove it to me, and even if you do I’m not listening, so there.”

I think the story you keep thinking about comes from a remark by Professor Ross McKitrick regarding one of the IPCC’s climate conferences. He asked,
” Suppose at 10 AM this morning, the IPCC announced that scientists had discovered rock-solid, 100% incontrovertible proof that CO2 cannot affect the climate.Would this room react with: Joy, jubilation and relief? or Shock, disappointment and despair?
He reports this in ‘Questions for a Journalist. It is well worth reading.
Questions for a Journalist
In fact, if Freedman Dyson had read these questions, maybe he could have held his own with Steve Connor.

Wall-la? = Voilà ?
I would love to have a YouTube clip of this (apocryphal?) environmentalist meeting. If it does not exist could someone please try it at their local Greenpeace meeting? Much as I want to believe it, I am not sure I do!

I have heard that summary of the talk before. It suggests that the real agenda of these people is control over others, not the simple bannishment of CO2 as a dangerous greenhouse gas.
I am of the firm view that this scam is so deeply rooted and in bedded in society that the only thing that will break its grip is a prolonged period of cooler weather. If we have 10 to 15 years of cooling as each year passes, it will become ever so more difficult to explain why if CO2 emissions are going up, the temoperatures are falling. The ‘Team’ may be able to slightly adjust the record but one cannot hide copious amounts of the white stuff and washed out BBQ summers. This coupled with the financial pressure put on individuals by the recent economic problems plus increasing green taxes and subsidies which are beginning to come into play which will squeeze individual budgets even more, will cause ever increasing numbers of people to question the AGW mantra. Especially, if one can throw into the mix electricity generating problems caused by the ever increasing use of unreliable sources of power generation such as wind and solar. This will cause a reality check and perhaps enough people will wake and smell the coffee.

There is a segment of population which hold as a religious belief that industrial development and market capitalism are incurably evil.
This group finds developments like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty of Cuba, and the growth of wealth in India and Brazil and China to be upsetting and confusing developments.
For these people, the Man Made CO2 Causes Climate Catastrophe meme is a perfect antidote to their cognitive dissonent distress. Modern industry and capitalism requires burning fossil fuels; burning fossil fuels leads to disaster; therefore modern industry and capitalism are evil. QED.
Of course they are not interested in entertaining the idea that maybe burning fossil fuels is (or could be) harmless.
And those that use the meme to obtain tax money and donations are not interested either.

I was a guest on our local radio, and had a open minded interviewer. I can say it is thoroughly enjoyable getting some facts out there to the public.
I read up on varoius blogs everyday, and hope to do another broadcast again.
Here in Australia we also have ‘an inconvenient truth’ feed to school children. Utter abuse.

Sounds like hell would have to freeze over (literally) before many change their mind. This I don’t get because at this point, the earth would be worse off.
The world is truly going crazy.

Keep up the great work Mr. Coleman !!

CAGW is a political argument. Political arguments are mostly a battle of conspiracy memes. Actual scientific evidence (both good and bad) is used as a tool by each side to fortify a position. Keep working to establish the truth of the evidence, but don’t make the mistake of thinking it will keep you out of policy debates. That horse is long gone.

LOL! Of course they didn’t raise their hands. It’s naive to think that the majority of environmental activists give a fig about CO2. CAGW is only a means to an end which is the reversal of modern industrial society. If CO2 were no longer useful to this end it would not please them. Many see man as a blot on the earth and would be happy to see humanity gone or back to some mythical state where we were at one with nature. While some pay lip service to nuclear or fusion energy, many are aghast at the thought (even if it were proven perfectly safe) because that would allow modern society to continue as it is.

I’ve often tried to discuss the AGW with people, for the most part people just get angry with you. Other will make fun of you. I actually find it embarassing, not for me, for them, its like discussing something with an ill informed belligerent child whose views have been created in the playground.
To begin with most people lack a basic knowledge on the issue. They will also get basic facts wrong and when you correct them they probably don’t believe you or they get angry or make fun of you. This makes having an informed discussion on the real issues next to impossible.
In my view, the way the debate will be won is by educating the public (or as I call them ‘the mindless masses’). But it is hard to do that when dealing with closed minds. The ‘debate is over’ trick has probably been the most effective propoganda tool in history.
I would be interested in any thoughts people have on how to educate the public. I would be equally be interested in ‘success stories’ when people have made a sceptic out of a believer.

Here’s an educational tool I use when discussing CO2 based climate change.
It’s called the CO2 Screen Saver.
It involves a little work and some basic math…so that cuts out a lot of true believers but it’s pretty straight forward.
Step 1. Find out how many pixels there are on your computer screen. This number is usually available in the hardware/display section. Assume that this number represents the entire earth’s atmosphere.
Step 2. Assume that CO2 is currently at 400ppm in the earth’s atmosphere.
Step 3. Divide the number of pixels on your computer screen by 1,000,000 and multiply by 400.
Step 4. Find the square root of this number. So for example if you had exactly one million pixels on your screen, the number would be 400 and the square root would be 20.
Step 5. Go to Google Images and use advanced search to download a square image whose dimensions are the number you calculated at Step 4. In our 1,000,000…400 example above this would be a square 20×20.
Step 6. Clear the screen of all other images and stare at the tiny speck before you.
Then ask yourself this question, could something that is so evidently a ‘trace gas’ ever have a sudden destabalizing/catastrophic effect on something that clearly is so ‘vast’.
You can carry this game further by generating specks to represent ‘the increase in C02 or ‘blocks’ representing the amount of Water Vapour or anything you care to illustrate.
Now I know this may come across as a bit folksy and simplistic for the folk who are into spectral absorbtion bands etc etc but it does have a remarkably calming effect on some people who in their mind’s eye see Carbon Dioxide as a stifling, overwhelming toxic presence in our atmosphere.
A lot of these people have been brainwashed and this is a good place to start their re-education.
Step 3.

Your comments strike a BIG chord with a blog piece by Zeke over at Lucia’s ‘The Blackboard’ posted yesterday titled “Agreeing”. The thing you and Zeke both discuss is what we can agree on (in various shades of grey) AND you go the extra step and address the Magic Genie sollution and the problem thereafter. I have a strong feeling that most at WUWT agree with your assessment. It presents the mind-warfare problem so well. What most call Warmers and Denialists are two huge groups of people who fundamentally “agree” about what we know for certain and what we think we know, in very general terms. It ain’t the “science” that divides us, it’s the “political, economic, and social” objectives and solutions the other side wishes to impose. The problem that we on this side of the frontlines face is that our infernal internal enemy is only using what they claim to be are Huge, Outlandish “SCIENCE” Differences as their excuse to conquer the world and impose their own rules and system. If we all agree on the essential “science” (pretty much) then what is it really that they want? Why? Who pays for their brave new world? Who gains? Who loses?

I have enjoyed viewing and showing John Coleman’s previous global warming Internet videos, and would like to view his most recent production (2/22/2011). Does anyone the website for the most video and where can I get a DVD of all three videos on debunking the global warming theory?

John Brookes says: February 26, 2011 at 5:05 am
As one “alarmist”, I will stick my hand up and say, “Yes, if you can wave a magic wand and global warming won’t happen, I’ll be happy”.
That’s not what he said. Go back and read it again. You both miss and make Coleman’s point.

Noted in passing is the fact that the Sierra Club is currently engaged in organizing some of the state government union protests according to the WSJ. And here I thought they were all about preserving the wilderness. /sarc

Just keep pointing them towards the developing world and telling them the facts such as 67% of global coal production is burnt in Asia and the proportion is increasing year by year. China on its own burns nearly 50% per year and planning to construct another 400GW of coal fired generation by 2020. New vehicles sales in China have just exceeded 1 million a year and 120 new airports are planned.
Without serious commitments to cutting emission by the developing world, our planned efforts are all pain and no gain, just tokenism and futile.

Count me as another member of your team. I was on the petition mailing list to which 31000 scientist responded. I didn’t respond, but I did start analyzing the data upon which the CAGW “myth” is based. I have presented my results at
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf,
http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf,
http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf.
I conclude that (1) burning fossil fuel is having no significant effect on natural climate changes, (2) these changes are measured in combinations of cycles of varying wave-length, and (3) these wave-lengths may be identified using statistical techniques. I find the three most significant wave-lengths are around 308 years, one year, and 19 years (ENSO?). The 308 year cycle will peak out around 2070. Between now and then, we may expect lesser peaks around every 19 years.

“Global Warming” and the said goal of reducing CO2 emissions has nothing to do with science or saving the planet. It is a Socialist political agenda. Old School Socialists believe that the government should control the means of production because they know better than the free marketplace. Today’s Socialist’s call themselves Progressives and realize that they don’t have to take control of privately owned corporations and businesses. They can simply act as if they own them by regulating their supply of energy (EPA). If you control the supply of energy with a “smart grid” you control the means of production.

I too am socially liberal (damn the ban against stem cell research, damn the effort to make abortion illegal and uninsurable, damn the Marriage Act and all that), but fiscally conservative. For some, that is difficult to imagine.
In my mind, liberals are of two “ends of the continuum” kinds; democrat-ish libertarian independent on one end, and hippy dippy nanny statish on the other end. Conservatives are of two “ends of the continuum” kinds; republican-ish libertarian independent on one end, and socially religiously nanny statish on the other end.
What warps peoples minds is when a person has a foot on both continuums. I hold beliefs and convictions from the libertarian-independent end of both continuums and am sometimes called a fence sitter. But trust me, I ain’t no fence sitter. It’s just that the two party system does not work for me. No party truly represents me. Which means that stereotypical political statements kinda rile me.

Paul:
‘I would be interested in any thoughts people have on how to educate the public. I would be equally be interested in ‘success stories’ when people have made a sceptic out of a believer.’
It is a funny situation these days.The poachers have turned into gamekeepers.
Taking a few tips off them as to how to undermine ‘the establishment’ would be good.
And unlike their rise to the top,the majority of people would actually like what you are saying.
In theory it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I’m increasingly disturbed by the “collective think” in which otherwise intelligent people on this blog are engaging. The “Warmistas” consist of a vast number of constituencies, it is not a monolithic bloc. There are honest scientists like Dr. Currey, who are beginning to doubt, there are commercial groups who have a vested interest in their investments, there are politicians looking for power, there are the professional misanthropes – yearning for a non-existant “Golden Past”, other vested groups, and yes, oh yes, there are the young and old Lemmings. Continuing to use collectivist terms will hinder our ability to target the reachable. Crony Capitalists are mostly unreachable – forget about educating GE. Many investors are reachable, and need to have serious effort put into making sure they understand the fraud that is being perpetrated – they don’t invest “Other Peoples Money”, they invest their own, and understanding that long term, natural gas, atomics, and oil are viable, they are reachable. Wall Street invests OPM, and they don’t care about long term, they want traders anyway. Midsized O&G companies are reachable, the Super Majors aren’t until we reach a general understanding that they aren’t cows to be milked. This is not to say that the average employee of a Super Major believes in CAGW, they generally don’t Upstream (Exploration & Production), Downstream they are just like Joe Average, some do, some don’t.
Those of us who can do public speaking should work that and bring a clearer message. Anyone can give books to friends and relatives – we’ve got a great selection here on WUWT. Let’s be gracious, smile, and leave the listeners with just three points – more confuse. What three points, depends on the response of the listener within your dialog – and it must be a dialog, not a sermon.
We can win this, we will win this.

“Climate science” is to climatology as astrology is to astronomy. The reason 99.99% of “climate scientists” believe in man-made climate change is because “climate science” is the supposed science of analyzing man-made climate change. It isn’t climatology or meteorology. It’s an invented “science” that starts with a premise (man-made climate change is real), then presents “evidence” to support this premise. Climatology and meteorology are observational, empirical sciences; “climate science” is a belief system anyone can claim to “practice.”
That “climate scientists” have been able to trick the public, and especially the media, into confusing them with climatologists and meteorologists says a lot about the power of money and dubious academic credentials, and especially about the stupidity of many, many journalists. The average “climate scientist” knows less about climatology or meteorology than the average grade school teacher knows about advanced maths. Learning a smattering of this and that does not a scientist make.
John Coleman probably knows more about actual climate AND weather than 99.99% of “climate scientists.” However, his left/right division of believers vs. non-believers isn’t entirely accurate, and certainly not in other countries. Here, we can blame the craven self-interests of the Republican Party for pretending to carry the banner of skepticism, and the craven self-interests of the Democratic Party for pretending to carry the banner of reason , both both parties are utterly dishonest. Unfortunately, those who belong to them can only see fault in the reasoning, and members, of the opposite.

Don R says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:23 am Satellite data ??
Here is Dr. Roy Spencer’s site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
There you can find “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly … ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
This shows the 1979 beginning as cooler, 1980 at about zero, and the January 2011 value at -0.01 C.
The same chart and discussion is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative/
And the next day there was this report about the other (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) regularly reported data set.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/rss-global-temp-drops-version-change-adjusts-cooler-post-1998/

While Coleman’s characterization of the debate in terms of political identity is perhaps uncomfortable, it is nonetheless factual.
Having spent a good deal of adult life outside the US (I lived for 20 years in Canada and have worked and studied in Russia and Mexico), I was never all that comfortable with the way politics in the US is defined. I therefore consider myself to be neither a democrat or republican.
I like to think of myself as an independent, but that doesn’t mean I don’t pick sides. I think one would have to be blind not to see that the democrats have chosen the AGW side and the republicans (at least for now) the skeptic side of the climate debate.
The problem with both parties and the AGW debate though is that each can cherry pick facts to adequately support their position. In politics one does not need a strong factual position to get support – one only needs to have a plausible set of “facts”.
My own position on AGW is not a political one. I have weighed the science and found the technical foundation for AGW to be flawed. For that reason I cannot support the massive societal disruption that is being promoted as the solution to what I know to be a non-problem.
Five years ago, by which time I had already arrived at my current understanding of the science of AGW, I was truly saddened that both political parties were following the same path toward societal destruction. Sure there were some democrats and republicans who doubted, but the majority of both parties supported the IPCC and were poised to impose some form of taxation to wean the US from CO2 producing hydrocarbons. They only differed in the degree of pain and destruction they were willing to impose.
Now it appears that a majority of republican politicians have reversed themselves on the issue. I welcome the change and will support them so long as they continue.
I still consider myself an independent, but the republicans are the political path currently present in the US that will, at least in the short term, prevent the destruction of our civilization.

Verity Jones says on February 26, 2011 at 7:34 am

John,
a very true analysis, sadly (and I have not even watched your video yet, but I will do)
‘Solving’ the CO2/warming issue won’t help; the next crisis is already waiting in the wings with some wanting to put badge on everything with how much water it takes to produce it.
In the meantime even if we should reduce CO2 it is such a pointless exercise. I have put up a guest post on this very issue a few days ago:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-futility-of-trying-to-limit-co2-emissions/

And in Victoria, Australia, the various water authorities/companies have now switched from telling people to save water to now use water. Why? Because the previous stuck-on-stupid government (leftist, but I repeat myself) spend $5.xB on a desalination plant. Now that their damns are overflowing, the only way to pay for the profligacy and stupidity is to encourage people to use the now abundant water from the heavens.

Cold fusion provided experimental confirmation of the anecdote of the Carbon Fairy. As I recall, one environmentalist reacted to the prospect of unlimited, pollution-free energy by saying, approximately, “This is dreadful. Now people will never learn to conserve.”

Anyone who questions the political aspects of CAGW should visit the Green Agenda website and read the long list of quotations from various leaders of politics and environmentalism. There is another page on the site with exact citations.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
They will be defeated not by rational science, but by the developing Dalton Minimum analog. If you add an analog to the Tambora explosion, a VEI 7, from Katla or a combination from the ‘ring of fire’, then we will see another year without a summer, as an analog to 1816.

It seems to this observer that the problem was identified early one and then changed into a political discussion. Not the underlying reality however. AGW for or against and some of the other catch phrases or ideas surrounding climate are little more then religion. Question, what is the difference between AGW and “The Demon Rum?” Answer, about 100 years. These thing are social movements. Large social movements take on a life of their own because they contain all the trappings of religious belief.
Political parties line up in the direction the wind is blowing and choose what ever side they believe is likely to win. Democratic, Republicans, Libertarians, Vegetarians and any other group are all just people looking to promote themselves and the expense of other. None are worthy of your trust.
Keep a skeptical eye and remember Mother Nature plays with loaded dice.

In regards to john brooke’s simplistic explanations: they appear simplistic to Us, but to the likes of him, they are nuanced and complicated, almost beyond his ability to put into words.

I am a Democrat.
And I am an environmentalist.
And I have been for 30 years.
Have CO2 levels increased in the past 100 years? Absolutely.
Have humans caused serious damage to ecosystems worldwide? Yes.
Are human population levels part of the problem – in places like Haiti and Chad? Yep.
But I take exception to the extreme scientific and policy extrapolations from the Mauna Loa data.
And I take even greater exception to the violation of the tradition of liberal examination within scientific debate which has been muzzled in the Global Warming debate. I am a left critic of global warming.
So there ARE Democrats and environmentalists who disagree. FYI.

Mr. Coleman was one of the very first people to convince me to become skeptical about AGW. Thanks, Mr. Coleman!

@John Brookes
We’ve been hearing that “half hour” junk for 30 years now. It’s not happening and, based on 30 years of hysteria not coming true, isn’t going to happen. At what point do you turn on your prophets?

“Paul says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:17 am
I would be interested in any thoughts people have on how to educate the public.”
Here in Edmonton, Alberta where several mornings lately have been -25 C and with the windchill values of -35 C, I like to tell people global warming has been canceled due to cold weather. Few people argue. (According to today’s paper, our airport recorded -33.4 C as a low yesterday. But it was not a record. The record low was -36.1 C in 1881.) I also tell people that according to the satellite record, which can be trusted more than other sources, the 1998 record still has not been beaten.

John B says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:48 am

Every word a gem, John. The goalposts are that only “pixie dust” energy qualifies. The grotesque rape of landscape that wind and solar cause, both on-site and because of the vast support infrastructure of service roads and transmission corridors, is actually starting to bite Greenies in their aspirations. We see green-on-green lawsuits and such springing up to protect “fragile” lands and ecosystems. (Parenthetical note: have you ever heard a green-cologist describe a landscape or ecosystem as “not fragile?)

John Coleman’s essay is an exercise in the obvious. Yes, people without the adequate scientific training, expertise, and time to evaluate the science will tend to make judgments more on the basis of their ideological and political beliefs. However, the fact is that this will occur on both sides. Thus, people who are free market fundamentalists and see socialism behind every corner will tend to dismiss the science of AGW for the same sort of ideological reasons that a liberal / environmentalist might reflexively support it.
Hence, the question that must be asked to arrive at the best understanding is where the scientists working in the field and the scientific mainstream stand. And, the answer in report after report issued by scientific organization is that they quite clearly that they find AGW to be a serious issue.

While childless greenies from developed countries self flagellate themselves, the world moves on. The Wall Street Journal reports today on the new ‘cities of the skies’ like Dubai that are centered around airports that have become world transit hubs. The ‘metropolis’ of Dubai has become the commercial hub of the new Silk Road connecting the rapidly developing nations of the Middle East and Asia.
I am trying to bring awareness of climate change on a local basis. I am concerned about the rapid drop in winter temperatures in the US over the last 12 years. When I tell Greenies that US winter temps have dropped three degrees over the last twelve years as compared to the twentieth century increase of one degree they at first do not believe it and when confronted with the truth write it off as cherry picking and a short term trend. However this trend is happening now and has major implications on US energy use for heating and agriculture. While global temps have been merely flat, likely being held up by the thermal inertia of the oceans I fear that in the near future we may see winter temperatures in the US not seen since the instrument record in 1880 began.

red432 says:
February 26, 2011 at 5:26 am
There is a segment of population which hold as a religious belief that industrial development and market capitalism are incurably evil.
This group finds developments like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the extreme poverty of Cuba, and the growth of wealth in India and Brazil and China to be upsetting and confusing developments.

Anent which, Poverty halved in half the time targeted. Mostly due to those CO2-spewin’ behemoths, India and China.

to R. Gates
If you don’t mind, I would like to use your post as an example of how ‘beliefs’ work.
It is pretty obvious that you ‘believe’ in some AGW. After all, humans are ‘doing something’, and that ‘doing something’ must be having an effect on the environment.
Then you look around and find and point out any data that supports your initial belief: that AGW is happening.
But, that ‘belief’, or ‘assumption’ you made, has blinded you to other data that doesn’t support it. You simply don’t ‘see’ it. To you it doesn’t exist.
The reason I am picking on you is your statement here:
“Polar amplification of global warming is, to me, the center of interest in the global warming debate, as it has both been predicted to occur first, and is happening.”
Now, personally, I agree with you, the poles are the place to look.
However, in your rush to support your AGW belief, you chose only to look at the Arctic. One polar region. We have two polar regions.
That is partial ‘blindness’ of focusing on the Arctic is caused by your actual belief in AGW.
The Antarctic is far more important.
The data there is far more pristine, especially inland in the actual pole areas (Amundsen-Scott, Vostok, etc).
And the data from Antarctica shows increasing CO2 on the same level as Mauna Loa.
However, the surface temperature record from Antarctica shows flat to actually decreasing temperatures from 1957 to present. Personally, the data shows me that temperatures are declining there, rather than flat, because of a continuing trend of new lows (temperature lows) being made. Those ‘lows’ represent data points with the least amount of atmospheric ‘noise’ to ‘signal’ effects.
If I look at the temperature records for the actual poles, for the Arctic, the temperature data is very contrived. There simply is no reliable temperature record for the Arctic. You look at the ice records, but they are very spotty, and subject to ‘noise’ other than the pure CO2 atmospheric effect.
For the Antarctic pole, there is an excellent temperature record from 1957 to present.
So, I ‘believe’ in the Antarctic pole data far more than the Arctic.
And to me, despite CO2 increasing in the atmosphere above Amundsen-Scott and Vostok, THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES ARE GOING DOWN.
AGW predicts that they should be going up in Antarctica. But they are not.
But I can see that data because I don’t assume any AGW. I am neutral on it.
I try to look at everything with a clear mind and no pre-conceived beliefs.
I don’t mean this post as a criticism about you. Everyone has ‘beliefs’ that color their reality.
But you must learn to step back from any ‘beliefs’ you have and look at everything with the wide-eyed wonder that you had as a child when looking out at a new world.
Do that first.
And then decide.
That is the only way to learn what is really out there.

Joel Shore says: February 26, 2011 at 10:40 am
[—–Thus, people who are free market fundamentalists and see socialism behind every corner will tend to dismiss the science of AGW for the same sort of ideological reasons that a liberal / environmentalist might reflexively support it.——-]
Joel Shore. What is the science of AGW ?

richcar 1225 says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:44 am
The informal temperature record prior to the 1880’s (lost/misplaced/stashed away) shows what is now labeled Climate Disruption. Warming out of the Little Ice Age after the Dalton was spiky and extremely haphazard. Cooling into the next Little Ice Age will be a similar rocky road to traverse, as was the descent into the Sporer and Wolf Minimums.

John A says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:26 am
All good Democrats
…
self-described Democrats

See the difference? The “good” Democrats are the ones who agree with The Narrative™, and Adore Gore. Challenge: find a public statement by a senior Democrat denying the apocalyptic visions of the Goracle.
Take your time, I’ll wait.

Brian H says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:41 am
“For a powerful collection of observations and statistics and “projections” to counter the overpop meme, check out http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ1
”
That’s the most wonderful resource! Thanks!

AGW is indeed simply a means to an end, explicitly…
‘Mike Hulme (Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia):
‘Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.’

John F Hultquist and Harry Dale Huffman
Thanks for the websites. I’ll pass them to my physicist friend though he won’t accept their validity, for he knows that he is right because whatsoever the Royal Society says is true.
My Dad used to say
” If the Missus says it’s black, it’s black
And it’s no use me answering back.
Though the sky above is blue and we know it, me and you
If the Missus says it’s black – it’s black
Thanks again

So what would happen (specifically) if CO2 had no effect on atmospheric heat retention? Can anyone please advise.

Domenic says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:52 am
to R. Gates
If you don’t mind, I would like to use your post as an example of how ‘beliefs’ work.
_____
Use whatever you want, but let me say just a bit about Antarctica and the Southern Hemisphere sea ice, since you seem to think that I am purposely not looking at this important polar region. We have discussed at length here on WUWT the differences between the North and South poles, especially focusing on why they might react differently (at first) to global warming. If you do the research (really look at the journal research) you see exactly why polar amplification happens first and most intensely at the north pole. The south pole is a continent of ice, thousands of feet thick, surrounded by the large southern ocean. Both of these represent huge heat sinks that will offer some initial buffering to the early onset of global warming. The North pole is opposite to the South in terms of being an ocean with only a maximum of 10 or so feet of ice, and is surrounded by land. All global climate models show the northern polar region warming earlier and to a greater degree than the southern polar region. It is for this reason that I focus on the north pole. To use an rough metaphor…both polar regions will be early indicators of global warming, but the north pole is the more sensitive and will be the first to ring…

Brian H says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:20 am
…
So there ARE Democrats and environmentalists who disagree. FYI.
Then the same challenge to you as to the “moderate Muslims” — you have some house-cleaning to do. Get to it.

Brian, well put and I agree, but unfortunately, just as with the Muslims (and many other groups), I would not hold my breath as they are very unlikely to step out and disturb the apple cart. To them, it is the Agenda that is important. While they may have a certain belief, non-conforming to their group, they are not willing to upset the overall ideology or Agenda for sake of Truth.
The sad reality of it all….

CO2 is my friend.
I owe him everything I have! GK

Hey R. Gates, you like computer models so much, how about this one?
Faulty CIA ‘Computer Models’ Failed to Predict Egypt Uprising
My PlayStation 3 probably would have done a better job, and more fun too!

R. Gates,
And I love this little gem of computer model use.
Attempt To Discredit Cosmic Ray-Climate Link Using Computer Model
Hey, I know, let’s throw out empirical and physical experiment results because I found this new game called “Sim-Climate” that refutes the science.
I have a toaster that is more intelligent.

R. Gates,
Let us reflect a little on computer models, shall we?
* The World Bank computers did not forecast the Global Financial Crisis.
* The British Met computers failed to forecast Europe’s frigid winter.
* Computers have proved unable forecast the spread of swine flu or volcanic ash clouds.
* The Australian Weather Bureau cannot forecast next month’s weather.
Yet we are asked to believe that the IPCC computers are able to forecast global temperature, sea levels, hurricanes, droughts and diseases for a century ahead. They promise that, if we just stop using coal and oil, everything will be rosy.
That is like betting our jobs, our industry and our food supply on a roll of the dice in the casino.
There are about 20 Global Circulation Models using variable assumptions that claim to represent climate processes. Every one uses suspect data, disputed processes and is tweaked to reflect the biases of the builder.
Not one has yet made a correct forecast. Moreover, no two forecasts agree.
But we hope one gets it right soon so we can scrap the other 19 and so save a lot of money. Until then, all IPCC forecasts should be written in pencil.
And we should ignore them.

R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:08 am
“Not sure you really read all my post…yes, water vapor is a more potent GH gas, but it is a CONDENSING gas, and if you took away CO2, as the earth cooled, the atmosphere would get very dry and very cold, all the water would condense out and be frozen on the surface of the land and oceans,”
Even if all water condensed out, – this would lead to a very clear atmosphere so insolation would hit the surface unhindered – sublimation would always enforce a certain atmospheric water vapor content; an equilibrium of sublimation and condensation that leads to a non-zero atmospheric water content. As GH effects are logarithmic with regard to the concentration of the GH gas, the water GH effect would be significant. During the day, > 1kW/m ^2 hit the surface and must be re-emitted even in sub-zero conditions. Instant thermal runaway in the absence of CO2! IOW, a snowball Earth can not sustain itself only through the lack of CO2; something else must contribute, for instance significantly lower insolation.

The founding fathers of the movement is the US was once a bipartisan and centered on conservation. Teddy Roosevelt, Walace Stegner and Joeseph Wood Krutch were founding fathers. Stegner and Krutch were the intellectual backbone in the 1950’s.
Unfortunately the movement was hijacked by extreme leftists who recognized its potential as a tool to achieve their political goals such as ‘environmental justice’ and now the ‘decarbonization’ of society’.

R. Gates,
Behind AIG’s Fall, Risk Models Failed to Pass Real-World Test

R. Gates,
Computer Models of Evolution. by Brig Klyce
… silicon self-reproducing spaghetti of programs failed …

R. Gates,
Hurricane Felix Forecasts Mostly Failed, Experts Say

The computer models failed to predict how quickly Felix would intensify

R. Gates,
I will finish my little “modeler spamming” on one final note. Anticipating that you may have an argument back stating something like “well, but they put more time and money in to GCM’s than things like financial models” … to that I would say, you better go look that up, as much money that has been spent on GCM’s, it is nothing by comparison to financial models. Industries (financial and other) have been spending billions and billions on financial models for decades, much more than even GCM’s. And, the disturbing thing about it is, just how well has that all worked out so far? For Bernie Madoff pretty well, for you and I, not so much. But then again, Bernie is now in jail, so maybe not so much for him either. All in all, its the same game though, Al Gore is just another Bernie Madoff, using exactly the same vehicles to get there.

Good post sir and thankyou for your ongoing effort. I believe that the scientific method and uncommonsense will prevale, the religion of climatology cannot be argued with any more than true believers of any type can be convinced with logic. But the zealots have become their own enemies and will destroy themselves, the strategic mistake of cloaking their religion as settled science is apparent to most rational people and the rising tone of hysteria and righteous whining from the high priests is finally gaining the attention of trusting folk.The fallout of the CRU emails is far more insidious than most people suspect, in attempting to defend the indefensible science authorities are destroying themselves and the whitewash inquiries to date have been priceless. As every follower who says the team was exonerated is forced to read the incredibly inept inquiry reports and must ask themselves, why was this inquiry done so badly?Why avoid the question so blatantly?What are the inquiry members trying so hard to avoid? And when the penny drops the whitewashs only add to the disillusionment. As Aussie Dan(Fijidan?) said some time ago, millions of dollars spent, endless govt support , over 25yrs of searching and still no evidence of man made global warming . Its over and I suggest no mercy in the clean up.
These hysterical nitwits and those who have attempted to profiteer from this delusion are not smarter than the rest of us, nor can they be trusted with power and if in the near future we experience power outages because of the stupid policies that have been imposed by these hysterics , we should let them personally generate the required power, as a deprogramming from their cult. Running teams of true believers on huge hamster wheels driving generators would do wonders for reintroducing logic to these beliefs.And its enviromentally friendly power on demand, social justice is served and they won’t have the leisure to insist on running other peoples live for them. For the team climatologists we could hang a pre approved grant just ahead of them as they trample each other to attempt to seize it, for peak load requirements of course.No sarc intended here I was not party to issuing an ultimatum to society, give up your freedom, your lifestyle, your money to save the tooth fairy . The heavihanded power grab was part and parcel of the cult and now the useful idiots want to negotiate as their attack fizzles out and the taxpayers anger begins. As many have said before me , good luck with that.

Keep up the great work, John Coleman – you are one of the great ones!

Go ahead and speak at those GOP functions John. They need your wisdom too.

Why do otherwise intelligent people spell ‘Voila!’ as ‘Wall-a!’ ?

Domenic says:

You wrote in a more recent post: “……Without a large influx of CO2 (such as occurred to end the last snowball earth period), the earth would remain a snowball planet.”
Well, the actual conditions you describe for a ‘snowball planet’ exist right at the South Pole. It is the driest desert on earth. There is virtually no humidity in the entire atmosphere above the South Pole. It is too cold.
And yet, CO2 is rising there, tracking Mauna Loa data. But it is causing NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE. In fact, it could very well be causing the decrease in temperature there.
Your assumption (or belief) that CO2 ‘kick starts’ the warming is not being demonstrated at all there. And that is the real world data. Not speculation.

Before you decide whether a theory is supported or not by the data, it helps to understand the theory and what it predicts. Your posts indicate that you don’t understand even the basics of the theory. First of all, the atmosphere (the tropospheric part anyway) is a strongly-coupled system and one can’t get very far by assuming that all effects are local. A rise in CO2 causes a small energy imbalance on a global scale but how that imbalance is manifest in terms of where the greatest temperature rise occurs are influenced by a lot of factors, including (in the case of the difference between the arctic and Antarctic) the placement of land and ocean in the two hemispheres…and the short-term (“transient”) response can differ from the long term (“equilibrium”) response.
From early on, the first climate coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models have predicted that the Arctic would respond more rapidly than the Antarctic. The references for that are S. Manabe et al., “Transient responses of coupled ocean-atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part I: Annual mean response,” J. Climate 4, 785-818 (1991) and Murphy and Mitchell, “Transient response of the Hadley Centre coupled ocean-atmosphere model to increasing carbon dioxide. Part II: Spatial and temporal structure of response,” J. Climate 8, 57-80 (1995).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39632727@N08/4742544163

Domenic says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:48 am
To R. Gates
Thanks for your response. I am a thermal radiation expert. 20+ years in the field solving thermal radiation and heat processing problems in industry, medicine and science.
You seem to be focusing on sea ice. I do not because there is too much ‘noise’ in the data signals. I recommended looking inland at the actual south pole data, not the coastal data, sea ice, etc.
You wrote in a more recent post: “……Without a large influx of CO2 (such as occurred to end the last snowball earth period), the earth would remain a snowball planet.”
Well, the actual conditions you describe for a ‘snowball planet’ exist right at the South Pole. It is the driest desert on earth. There is virtually no humidity in the entire atmosphere above the South Pole. It is too cold.
And yet, CO2 is rising there, tracking Mauna Loa data. But it is causing NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE. In fact, it could very well be causing the decrease in temperature there.
Your assumption (or belief) that CO2 ‘kick starts’ the warming is not being demonstrated at all there. And that is the real world data. Not speculation.
_____
It is nice that you confirmed the nature of what a snowball earth was like…very cold and very dry, with very low atmospheric CO2 content. One must remember that earth was in this snowball state for millions of years (over many Milankovitch cycles) and over many solar cycles long and short. Just about any kind of external forcing that could shake the earth out of the snowball state was experienced, but nothing external could do it. It wasn’t until the massive volcanic eruptions hit (and/or other influences such as a slow down in the hydrological cycle that reduced rock weathering), pouring massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that the earth was shaken free from the snowball state.
Going back now, to the current situation over the South Pole. As you correctly stated, a very dry and very cold region, yet, why isn’t the CO2 causing melt, if it could melt the earth out of the snowball world? One has to remember that the amount of CO2 necessary to begin the process of melting was many thousands of times the level we see today.

R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Well, RGates, there you go again.
I believe Domenic said “CO2 is rising there, tracking Mauna Loa data, But it is causing NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE”.
Every day we learn more about the presumptions necessary to support AGW.

ShrNfr says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:48 am
“And the Liberal party in Australia will use the “carbon tax” as a wealth transfer mechanism”
Sorry ShrNfr. I don’t get the connection. You link to an article in the “Age” newspaper, Australia, which is known for it’s rock-solid left-wing bias, and is about trying to sell the proposed carbon tax as a financial advantage for low -income families!
Andrew Bolt answers it best in his post: Carbon Tax sold as a free-money blowout.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
To quote:
“The Age doesn’t realise this makes little sense:
LABOR is preparing a multibillion-dollar carbon tax compensation package that could leave up to 2.6 million low-income households better off and a further 1.7 million middle-income households no worse off…
A government source said it was likely the impact of the new tax – and the level of compensation – would be roughly similar.
This suggests several things. First, that the tax is in effect a giant exercise in income redistribution, above and beyond the income tax scales that already are heavily skewed against higher-earning Australians. Secondly, it’s being sold as a financial winner for Australians when self-evidently the money must come from somewhere, which means other taxpayers. Third, the more that people are compensated for the carbon dioxide tax, the less incentive they will have to actually stop using coal-fired power, which is the whole aim of this futile exercise.
Can’t people see through this giant folly? ” end quote

R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:03 am
“There’s just too much warming go on in the Arctic, and this warming has nothing to do with the natural variations of the PDO, AMO, or solar cycles.”
From Alaska Climate Research Center
Decadal Climate Change in Fairbanks 2010
“The best linear fit of the data points of the last decade displays a fairly strong cooling of 1.8°F. Recent cooling has also been observed in other parts of the world, and some climatologists have attributed this trend to the low solar activity we have experienced over the last few years. Another symptom of this can be seen in the aurora activity, which has decreased over the few last years here in Fairbanks. It is worthwhile to point out that during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), a time period of very low solar activity, Greenland froze over and the Vikings had to leave, as agricultural activities became more difficult.”
For Antarctica go to Gistemp Station Selector at James Hansen’s NASA GISS site.
Click Mawson, Davis, Syowa, Mirnyi,Vostok,Novolazarevsk, and Casey and see if you can detect any sign of AGW or that Antarctica is melting.

Peter Pearson says:
February 26, 2011 at 8:50 am

Cold fusion provided experimental confirmation of the anecdote of the Carbon Fairy. As I recall, one environmentalist reacted to the prospect of unlimited, pollution-free energy by saying, approximately, “This is dreadful. Now people will never learn to conserve.”

And what that environmentalist is fearful of is actually happening in unlimited, pollutioni-free energy (much to my delight)!
This reports that the E-Cat’s energy isn’t coming from a combustion source:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
And this explains the consortium of companies that are building a 1MW plant using the E-Cat:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3091266.ece
May the scientific community that was so scathing in their rebuke of Pons and Fleischmann be forever ridiculed.

“R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
One has to remember that the amount of CO2 necessary to begin the process of melting was many thousands of times the level we see today.”
If that is the case, please tell Phil Jones and the others that any concerns about CAGW are over!
If we assume a round number of 400 ppm now, then 2.5 thousand times as much gives 1 000 000 ppm or 100% CO2. Of course it can only theoretically get about 150 times higher, even if Earth was solid carbon. The reason is that if CO2 reaches 6%, then O2 must decrease to 15%. If I remember correctly, fires cannot burn if the oxygen is less than 15%, so no cars could run and the CO2 could not get any higher.

citizenschallenge says:
February 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm
John Coleman says: “And, for all of them, the Agenda is what is important. Their Agenda is to eliminate fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine from our civilization.”
~ ~ ~
“OK, ok here we go. Are you here to discuss what climatology has to tell us about what is happening within our atmosphere, with its cascading climate effects? Or are you here to champion a political line of reasoning?”
Comrade,
You must read more carefully. This man Coleman wrote an article about the religious and political opposition to his efforts to debunk some claims of climate science. He did not say he was here to present the science. Be very careful, Comrade, these Americans will discover your errors and they will humiliate you! They will call you child, Bozo, Ignoramus, or climate scientist! They are very watchful. They will detect that you have not read the article that you hope to criticize. Comrade, you must not begin your presentation by stepping on a banana peel and landing flat on your back. They will never let you get up. Believe me. I know. /sarc /ophagus

Wiki: “The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere.[54] Since the Earth was almost completely covered with ice, carbon dioxide could not be withdrawn from the atmosphere by release of alkaline metal ions weathering out of siliceous rocks. Over 4 to 30 million years, enough CO2 and methane, mainly emitted by volcanoes, would accumulate to finally cause enough greenhouse effect to make surface ice melt in the tropics until a band of permanently ice-free land and water developed;[55] this would be darker than the ice, and thus absorb more energy from the sun — initiating a “positive feedback”.”
OK, R Gates, mis-remembered and should have said “many tens of thousands of parts per million”, now please get over it.

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong. But seems like when I was in school eons ago, we were taught:
Humans breathe in Oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
Plants use the carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen.
So, if we as humans produce carbon dioxide wouldn’t the majority of it be produced by the people who keep wagging their tongues about how detrimental it is? So because they are so committed to this idea and being very conscientious (sp, better word), they should perform vonluntary euthanasia (sp, sounds better than suicide.)

Theo Goodwin says:
February 26, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Smokey says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:59 pm

R. Gates says:
“…why isn’t the CO2 causing melt, if it could melt the earth out of the snowball world? One has to remember that the amount of CO2 necessary to begin the process of melting was many thousands of times the level we see today.”

Someone take pity on this person and ban him. When he sobers up, he is not going to believe what he posted.
Ok, I’ll bite–I’ll use 2,000 for “many thousands” (a very conservative estimate), and 391 ppm as “the level we see today”. Multiplying (“times”) give us:
2,000 x 391 ppm = 782,000 ppm. Converting to percent gives me just over 78%!
Hmmm… I think that’s far above anything any geologist has ever predicted, and I doubt anybody ever will. In fact, I’m worried R. Gates may believe he’s from another planet:
http://www.thirdage.com/news/diamond-planet-researchers-discover-planet-could-be-made-diamonds_12-9-2010
Either that, or Theo is right.

I know many of you probably don’t think much of Richard Alley from Penn State, but here’s a very nice presentation he did on the role of CO2 in regulating past temperatures. Even the most hardened skeptic could probably learn something from it, perhaps providing future talking points for your skeptical position:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

@- John Coleman
“When I make my argument in response, that I also favor alternate energy, but that it will be thirty to fifty years before it can replace fossil fuels as the primary source of power for our civilization and that alternate energy in its current state of development is not economically viable, they doubt my facts. They have heard the hype and bought the dream without stopping to absorb the reality.”
================
Perhaps some are aware of the reality that France replaced fossil fuels as the primary source of power in a good deal less than thirty to fifty years and in a manner that is economically viable. To the extent that they are the largest power exporter and as fossil fuels rise in price can only gain in economic advantage.

Rocky Road said:

And what that environmentalist is fearful of is actually happening in unlimited, pollutioni-free energy (much to my delight)!

Or, maybe what they were fearful of is the public being led to mistakenly believe that there was such a simple solution and lulled into complacency when in fact such a simple solution is not available.
In fact, environmental organizations are big on pushing both sources of energy (solar, wind) that are relatively pollution-free and energy efficiency technologies ranging from more efficient light-bulbs to hybrid cars. It is the anti-environmentalists who tend to pooh-pooh these technologies. (And the truth probably lies somewhere in between, as these technologies can certainly be helpful in changing how we produce and use energy but none alone is likely to be a “silver bullet”.)

May the scientific community that was so scathing in their rebuke of Pons and Fleischmann be forever ridiculed.

Why exactly? It is about 20 years later and so far we have still no convincing evidence that such a scientific phenomenon is being observed and no known mechanism to explain how it could be happening. At best, it is way too early to saying that the the scientific community should be ridiculed about this and most of us think it will likely turn out in the end that said community was correct in being extremely skeptical of the claims.
Grammy D says:

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong. But seems like when I was in school eons ago, we were taught:
Humans breathe in Oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
Plants use the carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen.
So, if we as humans produce carbon dioxide wouldn’t the majority of it be produced by the people who keep wagging their tongues about how detrimental it is?

Yes, you learned correctly. However, this carbon is just cycling rapidly between different reservoirs…a plant grows, taking up the CO2, we eat it and liberate the CO2 back into the atmosphere. To a limited extent, it is possible to alter the sizes of the reservoirs (hence the concerns over deforestation and the desire for reforestation). However, there is only a limited amount of carbon that can be stored or released this way.
The thing about burning fossil fuels is that one is taking carbon in a form that has long been locked away from the atmosphere and liberating it as CO2 into the atmosphere. Because transfers between the atmosphere, biosphere, and mixed layer of the ocean occur quite rapidly, this carbon is rapidly partitioned between each of these reservoirs but unfortunately the transfer of that carbon to some reservoir where it can be stored for a long time (like the deep oceans or underground) occurs only very slowly. This is why CO2 levels in the atmosphere changed little until the industrial revolution (with some debate over whether there may have been much more modest changes on the order of 10ppm due to deforestation for agricultural cultivation before this) but have risen increasing rapidly since then, while at the same time, the pH of the mixed layer of the oceans has been lowering somewhat (i.e., the oceans have been becoming more acidic, or less basic).

Thank you for the work in making this and posting this very good powerpoint John Coleman. I will send the WUWT link to colleagues and others.
Don R says: February 26, 2011 at 11:17 am
‘My Dad used to say
” If the Missus says it’s black, it’s black….’
That is correct Don. Which is why we send the fellas back to the pub to share a beer and get the science right, as it should be.

Mods… Anthony…
Could someone notify John Coleman, bless his soul, that his crew while making his video put Senator James Inhofe’s picture where Steve McIntyre’s picture belongs and McIntyre’s where Dr. Tim Ball’s picture belongs. I don’t think Ball’s picture appears at all though his name is listed. They really need to fix production error. Anyone with knowledge of these people and the wrong intentions will use this to batter John’s message. It’s a great video!

Thank you R Gates and Joel Shore. Its good to have the likes of you to fire the skeptics up from time to time. You know they get bored patting each other on the back, and saying, “Well said, old chap”. So you do a public service by visiting here and putting the evidence that people who have thought deeply about the topic have come up with.
If there is one thing skeptics need, its a daily dose of outrage, and lets face it, stories about shonky home renovators, bad parents and political correctness gone mad might provoke outrage, but they hardly stimulate the gray matter. So thank you again for stimulating the skeptics into something closely resembling thought.
Now imagine I’m addressing a bunch of coal and oil executives, and I tell them that they don’t need to worry about global warming any more because someone has invented really cheap and safe nuclear. They’d all breath a sigh of relief and celebrate their new found leisure time, wouldn’t they?

Pamela Gray says:
February 26, 2011 at 7:38 am
I too am socially liberal (damn the ban against stem cell research, damn the effort to make abortion illegal and uninsurable, damn the Marriage Act and all that), but fiscally conservative.
————————————————————————————-
I thought I detected a kindred spirit. I too, describe myself as a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Glad to know there are others. Maybe we can convince John Coleman that his best audience is us middle-of-the-roaders.
I find much of the damning of liberals found on this, and every other thread, here at WUWT to be- well, boring. If all you can contribute to the discussion is “it’s a liberal, or socialist, or communist. plot,” well, saying it once is enough. That said, I am not happy about the current Washington Adminstration’s AGW stance.
I am now, and have been for over 40 years, an enviromentalist. But that does not mean that I am against technological progress. In the U.S., we owe our health, and comfort, and prosperity, and much of our general satisfaction with life, to abundant, cheap energy.

Best video I’ve seen on the history of global warming alarmism…

@_Jim says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“I will gladly leave the ‘explanations’ of the intricate phenomena to the physicists and theoreticians while harnessing said effect (I’m an engineer) for the benefit of man … but Joel won’t. He needs, nay, requires he know the intimate mechanism/workings of the phenomenon before making any practical use of it. The need to understand the principle of the lever to use a shovel is not required when digging a hole to plant a shrub …”
==================
Joel may have a point, your link to the report here on the demonstration of heat production by Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi shows why.
They promise a ‘paper’ on the method to be published on their web-blog on Jan 24th.
It never appeared.
What we have are two people making extraordinary claims that they have dug a hole without using a shovel.
The simple explanation is that an exothermic chemical reaction is involved in the production of heat they demonstrated. The lever to make the hole.
But they claim that new and unknown processes (no details given) made the heat involving an H-Ni fusion to Cu without copious gamma ray production that would be predicted from known physics.
It is clear from the many posts and links you have made on LENR that you have some faith in the reality of the process and even think that it may be a practical source of energy to replace fossil fuels.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that anything other than a shovel has been used to dig a hole. Without comprehensive measurement of energy in and energy out on a functioning system (including all chemical reactions) there is nothing more than something that looks like a money-raising scam.

R Gates, You seem to be under a misapprehension that the world is controlled in it’s climate by internal forcings. Sadly nothing could be further from the truth, it is the externalities that give us climate change. CO2 and nitrogen was our atmosphere, life, re plant life gave us oxygen and thus we are here.
The original life on our planet has been suffering some what, like you being deprived of oxygen, thus it is encumbent upon us to increase the CO2 levels to a more propitious state for our flora.
You will also discover with the correct research and an open mind that the inner stirrings of our planet, it’s heat and our volcanoes are the result of external forcings.
The sun and our fellow travelling planets have a profound effect on our well being, CO2 also has a deep effect but only when we have a lack of it, any thing less than 200ppm and our world will start to die. Anything over 10,000ppm I would start to think we have to plant more trees, one thing for sure, it will not affect the climate.

Correction re Shr Nfr (6.48am) It is the Australian Labor Government introducing a Carbon Tax, not the Liberal Party which is opposing the tax. Australian term ‘liberal’ equates to liberal economics. The Liberal Party tends to be a party in favor of of small business and lower taxes. Leader ,Tony Abbott has stated that he is sceptical of CAGW theory.

wayne Job says:
February 27, 2011 at 3:17 am
R Gates, You seem to be under a misapprehension that the world is controlled in it’s climate by internal forcings.
____
Nope, not at all. I’m quite aware of long-term astronomical forcings (i.e. Milankovitch) and shorter term solar cycles, and even the occasional comet or meteor bombardment that can alter the earth’s climate. Even longer term the notion that the position of the solar system in the galaxy with differing rates of galactic cosmic rays could play a role. But all these external forcings do not preclude the large role that changes in the atmospheric composition due to volcanic eruptions could also play. There are many external and internal factors that affect the climate, and if there is a common thread, it is that the seemingly smallest change can actually cause huge shifts in climate. The last 10,000 years of the Holocene have been relatively stable (with the Little Ice Age being mere child’s play compared to what could happen) and allowed for the rise of human civilization. If you look back over the past hundreds of thousands of years and millions of years, the relative stability of the Holocene is remarkable, as an number of external and internal small nudges could send the climate in a dramatically different direction and did so during the more remote past.

_Jim says:

I will gladly leave the ‘explanations’ of the intricate phenomena to the physicists and theoreticians while harnessing said effect (I’m an engineer) for the benefit of man … but Joel won’t. He needs, nay, requires he know the intimate mechanism/workings of the phenomenon before making any practical use of it.

izen and anna v have already provided good answers to your post but I will just add that I do not require that there be an explanation for the effect in order to believe the effect is occurring. For example, I believe in high-T_C superconductivity despite the lack of a full theoretical understanding because the experimental evidence of its occurrence is overwhelming and, although the materials can be pretty finicky, there is reasonably good reproducibility once scientists have learned how to work with them.
However, when only a few select people seem to be able to get an effect to occur AND it seems to fly in the face of everything that is understood theoretically, then I think one has the duty to be skeptical. If you think that the existence of a company set up to commercialize it somehow constitutes proof of the phenomenon, I suggest you read into Blacklight Power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power

1. Joel Shore says:
February 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm

Rocky Road said:
And what that environmentalist is fearful of is actually happening in unlimited, pollutioni-free energy (much to my delight)!
Or, maybe what they were fearful of is the public being led to mistakenly believe that there was such a simple solution and lulled into complacency when in fact such a simple solution is not available.

I don’t deal in “maybe”—I deal in the directly ascertainable. The biggest clincher I see is the fact that Rossi and Focardi’s company, Leonardo Corporation, does not seek funding at the moment. ”We are fully funded by our customers,” he [Rossi] says. Did you get that? This isn’t something they’re bandying about trying to promote—they have all the money they need to continue focusing on the technical developments of this process.
Add to that the fact that the consortium, a Greek company called Defkalion Green Technologies (a combined effort between Italy and Greece) does not seem to seek funding as they also have all the money they need to continue commercialization of this process. The first 1 megawatt power plant using solely the Energy Catalyzer will cover the energy needs of the Defkalion factory. Sounds like they’re pretty confident in the technology, doesn’t it?
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3091266.ece
But I shall certainly have the last laugh, Mr. Shore. THE LAST LAUGH you can be sure. I believe it is you who that is being led to mistakenly believe that such a simple solution isn’t possible. And besides, who says flying an airplane, for example, isn’t “simple” once you know how, so looking back on the exact methodology to achieve cold fusion will someday be seen just as simple once it becomes as commonplace as your neighboring E-Cat powered electricity generating plant.

1. May the scientific community that was so scathing in their rebuke of Pons and Fleischmann be forever ridiculed.
Why exactly? It is about 20 years later and so far we have still no convincing evidence that such a scientific phenomenon is being observed and no known mechanism to explain how it could be happening.

I laugh at your stupidity; I shall forever ridicule you! Sir, kindly do yourself a favor and get up to speed on LENR/CANR. I could list hundreds of references and direct you to dozens of technical/professional symposiums that absolutely refute your statement, but if you aren’t willing to do some basic Google or Bing searches, maybe that’s why you don’t know anything about it and it would be a waste of my time and effort to do it for you.
BTW—do you really want to continue associating with the “we” you refer to as having “still no convincing evidence”? I suppose that is your problem; it certainly isn’t mine.