A guest post by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Chief Meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego. See his previous challenge published here called “An Open Letter to Environmentalists“
Note from Anthony: I know John from way back. He’s a true pioneer in meteorology. I shared a table with him and Joe D’Aleo at the ICCC in New York in March, and I was there when you made his now famous challenge to Al Gore. Here he makes another. One of the biggest issue in my mind (that John touches on indirectly) is the logarithmic effect of CO2. Yes is causes warming, but beyond a point it’s effect diminishes.
Even Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS) admits the amount of forcing in the 20th century due to CO2 is uncertain:
“One such question is the percentage of 20th Century warming that can be attributed to CO2 increases. This appears straightforward, but it might be rather surprising to readers that this has neither an obvious definition, nor a precise answer. I will therefore try to explain why.”
[he goes on to cite modeling, forcings etc. here]
“In summary, I hope I’ve shown that there is too much ambiguity in any exact percentage attribution for it to be particularly relevant, though I don’t suppose that will stop it being discussed.”
In my mind, if you can’t quantify it, either by first order principles, by measurement, or by modeling, then saying “there’s too much ambiguity for it to be relevant” certainly does not help the argument. To imply then that we understand the atmosphere well enough to model the outcome and to publish scenarios that predict the future of global temperature based on CO2 level in our atmosphere, certainly then would be, “derived ambiguity”.
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.

If Mr. Coleman reads responses to this blog, I CHALLENGE him to comment in detail on the following three published research papers:
Reducing uncertainty about carbon dioxide as a climate driver
http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas457/Kump-climateCO2.pdf
CO2 and climate change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5518/870
Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/abs/nature05699.html
Also, I would like him to explain the cause(s) of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum if atmospheric greenhouse gases are not implicated.
Eocene Hyperthermal Event Offers Insight Into Greenhouse Warming
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Bowen_etal_06.pdf
I am looking forward with considerable anticipation to Mr. Coleman’s astute, informed, and scientifically accurate reply.
REPLY: Just a note, this is a republication here, you’d be best to put those questions to him directly on his own blog.
While I truly love the sensible nature of this man, there are some things he says about oil that have many more facets than the GW side. The stock market dictates how much investors are wanting as a return on their dollar. The bubble rise under Clinton’s administration served to spoil stock holders. They now demand huge immediate returns, not the steady but small returns stock holders were used to before the bubble. This is true for oil stocks. Investors want large returns. Problem is, drilling for oil and then refining what you get (which is mostly in the form of rock outside of the middle East and Norway) is not returning the higher dough amounts that stock holders now insist on. Therefore, no company is willing to drill, dredge, mine, blast, grind, or refine. There tain’t no money in it. At least not now. When speculation prices get high enough, drilling and new refineries will commence. But it won’t lower the price at the pump. In fact, it will keep the price high because otherwise…There tain’t no money in it.
Thank you!
If he can’t get the gasoline prices/ethanol thing right (a subject I know something about) how can I believe any of the rest of it?
Yeah. Because a politically-motivated screed against environmentalism is equivalent to good scientific work falsifying AGW Theory. Yup. Thank you, John Coleman; I hereby officially retract my support for AGW and will immediately begin sending checks to Big Oil such that they may reduce the price of gas at the pumps for me.
reply to Reply: Coleman doesn’t take comments, so he’s not really running a blog. He can be emailed but doesn’t respond. So he simply pontificates on his site as if he knows all and tells all. The references provided in my first response indicate that he doesn’t do either, and his supposed analysis of climate science has no apparent merit.
If you’re chummy with him, give him a call or email him and invite him to respond to my challenge. Because the bottom line is, regarding CO2 and climate: He’s wrong. Totally and completely wrong. If he wants to demonstrate otherwise, he needs to contend with Kump, Crowley, and Berner (as a start).
And by the way, if you’re concerned about the logarithmic effect of CO2 “diminishing”, you may wish to investigate the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Max yourself, because it would appear to me that effect really didn’t influence the roughly 6 degrees C rise that happened during that event.
Give my regards to John.
REPLY: I’ll let him know that there’s a challenge. What proof do you have that CO2 caused the 6 degree rise Paleocene-Eocene ?
The ethics on this is slowly turning. When the public realizes that demonizing and encumbering carbon will do nothing at all to save the earth but will surely freeze and starve millions if the earth is cooling then we may see a turning point. In the meantime, who we do sue to recover the damages already inflicted?
Well, Gore has a bunch of anonymous investors promoting this fraud. It is time to make them accountable.
=============================
Anthony, just a small note:
You can’t blame jack for thinking that Coleman actually posted that commentary here. You said it was a guest post implying originality and didn’t (as far as I can tell) link to the original. It appears it was an address to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce which took some doing to find. If you’re republishing, a link to the original would be nice.
A very nice read… I don’t understand why any of this is considered so illogical by people that believe in AGW. The fact that CO2 is a natural gas and essential to life ought to make people sit up in their seats a bit straighter and pay attention to the debate. I imagine we could do a Penn and Teller-esque survey and ask environmentalists if they would sign a protest form to try to reduce worldwide carbon to 0ppm *laughs*
BTW, I’m interested in reading the Gavin Schmidt article you refer to, but your link is broken… could you fix that?
Thanks for posting this. It’s an excellent summation for the defense in the case of environmentalists vs. mankind. AGW is today’s orthodoxy, resistant to change, which needs to be overturned, much as early 20th Century geology resisted the revolutionary ideas of Alfred Wegener. A lawsuit against Al Gore? Fascinating idea. Maybe that’d inspire the FTC to take a look as well.
[content removed: this poster is banned because the email address used is bogus, and includes an insult using the f-word.]
In the northern tier portion of the US, where I live, for about a thousand years after the glaciers retreated, and Glacial Lake Agassiz began to retreat, the climate was very cold, a boreal climate one would recognize today in northern Canada. And then the earth warmed. For nearly three thousand years this northern tier was prairie, north of what is today Winnipeg. The earth and sun are fickle, refusing to adjust themselves to the windows of our lifetimes. Great catastrophes occurs–floods, droughts, years without summers, years of remarkable bounties. But none, to quote Jeffers, is but a speck on the great scale pan. The earth and geologic time exist without regard for us.
Jack:
Kump-circular climate models.
Crowley and Berner- paywalled. What do they say?
Nature-Was the proxy record Thompson’s irreproducible science?
The Eocene Hyperthermal Event is not what is happening today.
What is happening is that the earth is cooling. Can you point specifically to where Coleman is ‘wrong’, instead of just declaring him so?
==================================
Leon Brozyna, Monckton claims that Gore can’t talk about his global warming schemes in Great Britain because AIT constitues a ‘false prospectus’.
There will be Hell to pay about this.
=====================
Pamela, in addition, the attitude of the current Congress and the prospect of the Democrats retaining control of Congress after this election along with the possibility of a Democrat as President has complely shut down any interest in spending/investing billions of dollars on new oil resources. In my opinion, the oil companies will sit back and let the price of gas top $5. I believe they have calculated what it will take for the American people to get pissed off enough to cause our government to do something real. $3 a gallon = slight grumbling, $4 per gallon = angry rhetoric, $5 a gallon = mob action, $6 per gallon = armed revolution.
Question for Jack-
You are obviously interested in paleoclimatology. So what caused the Little Ice Age? Did atmospheric CO2 drop suddenly?
Those should be much easier questions than trying to explain hypothetical events from tens of millions of years ago, when the continents were in different positions.
TIA
OK, about the Nature question, that was a dumb question because there aren’t a lot of 420 million year old glaciers around.
However, I doubt that your proxies have the sensitivity to determine which came first the chicken or the egg, so your models were spinning in a vacuum of data.
===================================
B.Q. Wackamole III
“Sometimes a purpose of one’s life is to serve as a warning to others.”
You live, we learn.
“…this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2.”
Let’s add in the other gases for comparison. In this 100,000 molecule example, approx 70,000 molecules would be nitrogen, approx 21,000 molecules would be oxygen, approx 8,962 molecules would be argon and other trace gases excluding CO2 which is 38 molecules.
[…] Perhaps the tune will change and we will be asked to produce MORE CO2 to warm up the earth – as if THAT would work. […]
Coleman is right for sure.
Look at the recent global temps. I don’t see much warming. In fact we’ve seen a whole lotta cooling over the last few months.
You’d think if the alarmists truly believed in their scenarios, they’d be relieved by this cooling. But no, instead their reaction is disappointment and anger. What does that tell you about the psychology of these doom-wanters?
Jack states “He’s wrong. Totally and completely wrong. If he wants to demonstrate otherwise, he needs to contend with Kump, Crowley, and Berner (as a start).”
Kump states in his summary on the link between temperature and CO2 “there is no lead–lag relationship from which one might hope to assign cause and effect.”
There is nothing in Kump that refutes Mr. Coleman.
And when I look at what’s going on in Europe, the people are beginning to get fed up with this scam. Truckers are blocking ports and highways in Portugal, Spain, France, Britain and now in Germany to protest the unecessarilly high petrol and energy prices.
Let’s stand up tell these greedy lying thieving taxing political bast—– where they can put their pinko plans!
Coleman writes;
“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.”
I say:
STOP BUYING NEWSPAPERS – SAVE THE PLANET!
Visit these websites tell bloggers there to stop buying their newspapers. That’s effective way to save the planet. By not buying their rags, you can save a lot trees, energy to harvest them, and energy to make paper, transport the paper, print the newspapers, all all the energy needed to distribute and recycle them.
The newspaper industry is one of the most environmentally damaging industries on the face of this planet.
STOP NEWSPAPERS! SAVE TREES!
Let’s make a bumper sticker with the above or similar slogan.
If newspaper sales slumped, maybe they’d start playing a different song.
re: $6 per gallon
Again, no matter who is preventing oil exploration, the process of finding it, extracting it, processing it, and delivering it will keep the price at levels we are seeing now, and higher as time goes by. Tax breaks to oil companies will simply lead to higher investment returns for stock holders, not new refineries. Profits will continue to rise which will cause stock holders to insist on higher and higher returns. Profits go to stock investors, not back into the company.
Maybe the best measure, though extreme and very draconian, is to put on hold stock holder returns at a lower percentage rate with the demand that if you want to sell your product here or ship it elsewhere, profits must go to exploration, extraction, and increased refineries.
From what I have been able to find, Shell Oil is one of the few, if not the only company, that is using profits to build new refineries that use lower grades, like shale oil. Please correct me if I am wrong about record oil company profits, record stock holder returns on oil stocks, and few companies using profits to build the type of refineries we must have to process our abundant stores of, but difficult to extract, shale oil.