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.

Pamela Gray,
Supply and demand dictate price.
Jack wrote:
Jack, I’ve heard this kind of nonsense before – the idea that if you don’t have a better theory then my theory must be right. Please. You can have all the theories you want about something that happened in the past. But the fact is that you weren’t there and can never prove anything. That’s not science, it’s speculation. All you end up with is people making their case on this or that side of an argument with no possibility whatsoever of determining what really happened. That’s the business of historians, not scientists.
Fundamental to science is accurate data, predictability and controlled experimentation. Anthony has demonstrated that our currently collected data is largely crap. Historical temperature “data” gathered from tree rings, ice cores, what have you, is not data, it is in fact the result of applied theory – it is not data. With regards to predictability, the global warming crowd has been constantly wrong – evidenced most clearly by the fact that they now refer to their theory as climate change – meaning they know they’re wrong about global warming. Can anyone takes seriously a theory that in essence predicts nothing more than that the climate will change and that every bad thing that happens related to the climate is man’s fault? It’s like we never had floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes before. That isn’t science, it’s religion. And with regards to controlled experimentation, I’d love to see some.
This idea of “most plausible, plausible, and less-plausible hypotheses/theories” is smoke and mirrors. I don’t care what you’re theory is of how gravity works. Anyone can take a ball, ruler and stopwatch and verify Newton’s equations. That’s science. Consensus and plausibility are opinion and irrelevant in science.
Pamela,
You obviously need an education in how the worldwide commodity markets work. You also need to understand a bit of how international monatary policies can influence the price of commodities -which are bought and sold in dollars.
Try to understand that institutional investors are always looking for the best and most efficent ways to turn profits. Try to undestand how the Fed Chairman can influence varous markets. There have been 3 market bubbles since 1997. In each of the three market bubbles (Equities 1997-2000; Real Estate 2003-2007; Commodities 2006- present) the price of risk (known as interest rates and controlled by the Fed Chairman) easy money was the root cause. Since early last year, billions have flowed into the commodites markets (oil is one of many commodities that have enjoyed huge price increases). The fall of the dollar has expasterated oil prices, and despite falling demand both oil and refined oil continues to see large price increases.
Investors and speculators have caused most of the increases in oil prices since last year. When interest rates go up you will see the price of oil plunge. Currently falling demand in Europe and NAmerica is increasing supplies beyond what the price should support. At some time this year the Fed Chiarman will raise interest rates, and the combination of increased inventories and a stronger dollar will pull the bottom right out from under the price of oil. I would not want to be an oil speculator who has bought most of his oil futures on margin.
Most people fail to realize there is no supply problem. OPEC refuses to increase production because demand remains sluggish. The weak dollar and speculation has driven about 50% of oil price increases since January. Ditto for the price of steel, grains, and gold
Pam,
You don’t mind my teasing, do you?
Anthony has given me the guilts.
Steven Stanley Stipulkoski
Richard Wright:
I’ve tried to make sense of the paleo CO2 correlation in the past & I can’t. I don’t see how it’s defensible when so many discontinuities crop up in the paleo correlation.
The AGWers that cite the paleo record don’t ever extend the courtesy of answer some rather obvious concerns about their paleo analysis. All I ask is just one of their very smart and talented writers decompose their process (ala James Burke’s “Connections”) and explicate how their analysis is more conclusive than any counterveiling theory. Until they can show, step by step, how their theories can withstand simple questions, their paleo interpretation is anecdotal at best.
To argue that the oil companies aren’t developing new sources is false. Exxon’s domestic production declined by 30% in the last few years. They had to replace it by developing or at least purchasing outside the U.S. That’s where a bunch of the $40 bil profit went. Supply, demand, and a myriad of restrictions run the market.
That aside, the days of cheap energy are over. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. all may play a role, they cost. A bunch. I think John is wrong about one thing: even without the interference of the Greens and AGW’s, the price of gas isn’t going down much.
Shale oil, apart from being blocked by law, takes a lot of water, something the shale regions don’t have in abundance. Ethanol has a similar problem.
We need new technology. Fusion, whatever. That may take a while.
JP: I understand this clearly, in fact I have mentioned it on this blog. My point was simply that the oil futures market would certainly change if there was real action by Congress to open up drilling in Alaska and the Gulf. But I still think that oil companies fear that the Democrats would change their minds after a substantial investment was made and that investment would then be lost. They simply do not trust in our elected officials enough to make a long term investment.
Pamela: No one, government or otherwise, has the right to require anyone to reinvest profits. Businesses operate to make a profit, not to provide us with anything. If making a bigger profit requires reinvesting profits to fit the market then it is done. The only reason businesses provide us with what we want is because they cannot stay in business any other way. Notice any buggy whip stores around lately? But I’ll bet ya you sure notice wireless stores and dentists.
The Same Scam Happened 500 years ago
Dear McKinnon, John Coleman et al:
My advance apologies to my friends in the Catholic Church for what I am about to write. I mean
them no ill will, but I will discuss an abuse in their Church’s history.
Back in the 1500’s when Martin Luther was getting started and the Protestant reformation was
gaining traction, the “same tune was playing” that we see Al Gore and his bunch dancing to right
now.
In Luther’s day it was a sin for one commit adultery or falsely accuse ones’ neighbor. But back
then, one could purchase “indulgences” and bail himself out of purgatory long before the coffin
lid was shut. The sale of these indulgences was shamelessly promoted by the Catholic Church
which wielded staggering political power.
Today, is a “sin” to have a lifestyle that emits Carbon Dioxide. We are now destined to be
sucked into the Carbon Offsets scam – as if we are to be purchasing ”forgiveness”. The money
will all be used to elevate the prestige of Al’s empire in the eyes of all mankind.
So here we are 500 years later. Instead of a Pope, we get Al Gore as the high priest. Instead
of sinning by Adultery we sin by our lifestyle through Carbon Emissions. Instead of buying
Indulgences we are going to get to purchase “Carbon Offsets”.
SAME SONG – JUST A DIFFERENT DANCE. WHAT HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? I’M NOT
WORSHIPPING AL GORE’S GOD !!!
(I don’t know why Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh or Fox News haven’t realized this argument!? Please
someone! I am a man of little consequence. So – PLEASE — take it and RUN with it.)
Jack (08:31:22) :
“Coleman doesn’t take comments, so he’s not really running a blog. He can be emailed but doesn’t respond.”
He replied to me. It took a couple weeks, and his reply was fairly content-free so I imagine he’s rather busy.
One thing that Coleman says in various writings is:
The first 100 ppm had far more impact than the last 100 ppm.
A sheet of metalized mylar could make a very good mirror and a planet sized piece would weigh far less than 380/1,000,000 ths of the atmosphere. Instead of Snowball Earth, it would be Disco-ball Earth.
Lousy argument. The saturated bandpass absorption window is much better but harder to describe in a sound bite.
The Gray Champion:
You’re not alone. See this speech by Michael Crichton that I first heard about from Rush Limbaugh:
Envrironmentaism as Religion
Coleman: “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? ”
Coleman is wrong when he says that sunspot activity was higher in the 80s and 90s. Sunspot activity was much higher in the 50s when global warming was starting one of its regular dips in a long warming trend.
http://www.spaceweather.com/sunspots/history.html
So why didn’t global warming peak in the 50’s? No doubt someone will claim a lagging effect (a usual excuse) but Coleman does not claim any of this. He states that temperature change happens immediately.
This kind of shoddy reporting only panders to ignorance.
Richard: All science starts off with theory, accumulation of data and calculation. Einstein is a good example.
Evolution was also ignored and pillaried by the religious people of the day but the scientists have won out. Nowadays there are now only a few people who stubbornly deny evolution.
Climate change science is no different to any other science, apart from the fact that it is at present far more important than most others. But if you had your way with all science as you wish with climatology, no progress would ever have been made in medicine or any other scientific issue.
So what theory do you have that temperatures were so much warmer 200 million years ago when the sun’s output much less than it is today?
And if your children were going to board an airplane and the chief engineer said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing would you still let your kids get on it? After all it is only an unproven theory that the plane will crash.
Jack…..
You do realize that for the last Ten thousand years, the temperature trend has been cooling…. In the Last two thousand years it has been cooling faster…. If you put a trend line in for the last 600 years, it’s static. A trend line for the last 120 years… Warming fast… but no faster than other periods in the past… and a trend line for the last decade…. static or perhaps a small cooling.
If you take the last Five thousand years and see what the rate of warming per century is…. You will find that it is 2.5 degrees C per century.
If you put a trend line in from 1979 to 2005…. You will find a trend of 1.8 degrees C….
1.8 degrees C is well within the Rate of 2.5 for the last Five thousand years. It is normal.
Where is the signature for AGW Jack?…
It’s certainly not in the Tropical Troposphere 10km above the equator measuring at the 200hPa boundary….
This is the area that all the Climate Computer models described and have theorized that there would be a rise of 1.5 degrees C of temperature congruent with a 100ppm rise in CO2….. The real observed measurement is actually 0.2 degrees according to satellite data and 0.0 according to Radiosonde data.
…… No signiture there Jack.
We also now have ten years of zero temperature increase as recorded in the surface record, despite a four percent increase in CO2.
….. No signiture there either.
Then the Ice core records show that CO2 rise lags Temperature rise…
…..There’s not much going for AGW as a Climate Hypothesis… is there?
Pamela Grey…… Re $6.00 oil.
I agree Pam….. Oil is now 136 dollars a barrel….. Brown ligneous coal sells for 30 bucks a ton…. Now with Coal to liquids technology you can turn Coal into diesel, petrol(gasoline) and LPG…
It was calculated that it’s break even is at about 45 to 55 dollars a barrel of oil… Seeing that oil is selling at 136 dollars… It is more than viable. Now an added factor would be the coal price going up….so just double the low end figure… say 90 bucks a barrel….
Jeez I sure could live with going back to those prices again….
Plus as more countries liquefied coal to oil… The price would become even lower…. America, India, Australia and South Africa, own over fifty percent of the Worlds Coal reserves…. I chose those countries because they are all Democracies… We don’t need to rely on Despotic Arab Oil….
Coal to Liquids Technology……… Now that’s the way to go.
dennis ward
“And if your children were going to board an airplane and the chief engineer said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing would you still let your kids get on it? After all it is only an unproven theory that the plane will crash.”
Oh please. The engineer BUILT the darned thing. He oughta know.
[…] Weather Channel Founder Makes Another Challenge to Gore « Watts Up With That? #climate […]
Denis Ward- “And if your children were going to board an airplane and the chief engineer said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing would you still let your kids get on it? After all it is only an unproven theory that the plane will crash.”
You have to define “the chief engineer”. IF he is the chief engineer of a competeing mass transportation company with a computer model that says all airplanes have a 90% of crashing, but the observed data doesn’t match his computer model, I would have to question his motives.
The hypothesis that CO2 contibutes to or is the cause of the recent “global warming” has already been been disproved. In “Climate Change and Global Warming”, Andrew Materman analyzed the CET record on a month-by-month sample interval and found there was no significant change in annual mean tempearures for over 300 years. His method of analysis should be used for all temp-time records. There is lots of useful info in his article. GO:
http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate_change_global_warming.php
In “Still Waiting for Global Warming”, the late John Daly analyzed the temperature records of many really “squeaky clean” remote weather stations. The vast majority of these plots are flat lines and show no trend for any global warming, such as Alice Springs until the ABM moved the base ref station to the airport.
The plot for Death Valley for the four seasons are all flat lines and rock-solid, bullet-proof empirical evidence that CO2 does not cause any warming of the air. A desert has low humidity and few clouds. After sunset, there is no water vapor to absorb out-going, long wave IR and few clouds to trap warm air that is heated by conduction with the surface and carried aloft by convection. This is the reason temperature plummets after sunset. Clouds and water vapor account for about 70% of the natural greenhouse effect. Go to RealClimate and read Gavin’s article: “Water Vapor: Forcing or Feedback”.
If CO2 causes any significant warming of the air, then we would expect a slow but descernible increase in the annual mean temperature especially for winter, that should correlate with the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. No such increase is observed. Thus the hypothesis is falsified.
The annual mean temperature plot for the Parowan Power Plant is also a flat line. Unfortunately the record stops in 2000. Also check the plots for Dodge City, Yuma, and Tombstone.
If we want to put an end to all this global warming gobblygook and climate change claptrap, the procedure is quite simple and straight-forward: analyze more “squeaky clean” station temprature records by Andrew M.’s method for the Tmax and Tmin metrics. Least squares analyses of these plots could then be used for assesment of trends.
If
J. Hansford,
Coal to liquids. Brilliant idea. It will take hydrogen to do this, right? No problem. Just build nukes that don’t pollute, make some electricity and set some hydrogen free? In other words, free it from its polygamous relationship with oxygen? Perhaps the Texas CPS could help.
dennis ward: “if your children were going to board an airplane and the chief engineer said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing would you still let your kids get on it?”
The problem is that the IPCC gang of 2500 weren’t all “chief engineers”. If ten MD’s said there was a 90% chance of the plane crashing you would ask them what they mix with their vodka.
Tom Bruno:
Esp. if the airframe were built on error bars that a plane could fly through.
or something like that…
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?
I take it you are referencing the flawed CARD study?
Some of these modellers act like error bars are an energy snack.
=======================================
So, what’s the REAL DEAL here people?! I am very, very off-kilter after reading this.
I would, however, like to point out that Al Gore made “An Inconvenient Truth” on 35mm film. 35mm film is more bad for the environment than harvesting crude oil. The toxins that go into developing are insanely hazardous towards the environment, and to make a feature length documentary on it is worth billions of dollars of waste. That, my friends, is the inconvenient truth.
Steve Stip (07:25:44) :
“Coal to liquids. Brilliant idea. It will take hydrogen to do this, right? No problem. Just build nukes that don’t pollute, make some electricity and set some hydrogen free? In other words, free it from its polygamous relationship with oxygen? Perhaps the Texas CPS could help.”
Texas Child Protective Services has a long history of lying, secrecy, deception, and flexing governmental muscle for their own intentions. Not as bad as Massachusetts, Oregon, or Florida, but well up there. Hmm. Gore, Hansen, etc seem to have a long history of ….
No wonder I’m attracted to the debate. At least they abuse science and scientists instead of children and parents.
http://wermenh.com/dcyf.html
http://wermenh.com/dcyf_tricks.html
An AGW “Tricks of the Trade” page would make a nice parallel. I’ll keep it in mind for some night when I’m in a dark mood.