Weather Channel Founder Makes Another Challenge to Gore

John Coleman 

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
103 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jelly
June 14, 2008 3:01 pm

This guy appears as clueless in writing as he does on my TV in SD. Perhaps running his rambling diatribe past an editor is in order. Or would that qualify as “peer review” and set his skin on fire or something?
REPLY: Writing opinion pieces do not require peer review, as you’ve very effectively demonstrated here with your comment.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 14, 2008 5:39 pm

Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been.
I remember the spectacular sunsets over the Hudson river in NYC. Every color of the rainbow, and extraordinarily vivid. Pinks Aquas, Indigos. Strikingly beautiful. Put Arizona to shame. If you never saw it you cannot conceive of it. A Fire show every night.
Ten years after the Clean Air Act and they were gone, all gone . . .
(Of course, that was when the gray pigeons became much healthier and more robust and took on all the multicolor shades of the hitherto ubiquitously gray buildings. But that’s another Darwinian story.)

June 14, 2008 8:51 pm

Jack said:
“reply to [Anthony’s] 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… I asked Coleman (and you can investigate yourself) what could have caused this OTHER than greenhouse gases… If there is no plausible non-greenhouse gas hypothesis, then Coleman is clearly wrong… The cause of the Little Ice Age was a slight decline in solar activity. [my emphasis]. That’s well-known and is related to the issue raised in Coleman’s piece. The issue on which I challenge Coleman is radiative forcing of climate by atmospheric CO2 concentrations…”
Seems that if Jack is acknowledging Solar forcing, then the question is, how much forcing is attributable to Solar inluence, and how much is attributable to CO2?
There are scads of charts like this that provide a major clue.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 14, 2008 9:48 pm

dt said a mouthful re. oil.
Peak oil: Peek and ye shall find.

dennis ward
June 15, 2008 3:00 am

old construction worker (04:02:02) :
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.”
Old construction worker.
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.
No I do not have to define anything. This engineer may be off his rocker for all I know and talking nonsense. But I have to assume he has more knowledge than I have on the subject, and so I would prefer to take his opinion rather than someone whose livelihood depends on selling me air tickets or the fuel for the plane.
So would you let your kids fly on the plane or not?

dennis ward
June 15, 2008 3:24 am

Harold Pierce Jr
:
“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
I found the colour of this site made it very difficult to read, so can you point to where in the link this ‘proof’ exists? Excuse my scepticism.
If there has been no annual mean rise in temperatures of 300 years then how come even most AGW sceptics believe that it has?
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/daleo-co2-ushnc2.png&imgrefurl=http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/&h=344&w=520&sz=92&hl=en&start=17&um=1&tbnid=q8jSkmcOm_uErM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522annual%2Bmean%2Btemperatures%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
As so often with many AGW sceptics (but not all) they change their tune to fit the song.

poetSam
June 15, 2008 6:06 am

poetSam, and perhaps Mr. jeeves move over to make room for Evan Jones

Bruce Cobb
June 15, 2008 11:07 am

dennis ward: your use of the precautionary principle (kids on a plane) is a tired, lame AGWer tactic which proves absolutely nothing except that their “science” has failed and they therefore have to resort to emotionalism to try to sway people to their AGW ideology. Nice try.

Peter
June 15, 2008 1:43 pm

Harold Pierce Jr:
“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.”
That’s not the way I read it. His paper explicitly states, “The 300 year long Central England Temperature record shows seasonal warming which suggests that the magnitude of global warming is not large”
Dennis Ward:
“As so often with many AGW sceptics (but not all) they change their tune to fit the song.”
Three words: Pot, Kettle, Black

David Wendt
June 15, 2008 1:47 pm

European leftists are continually threatening to have people from the Bush administration ,including the President himself, arrested and tried for war crimes any time they venture to the continent. Perhaps, if the next time Algore swoops in on his private jet some brave soul could perform a citizens arrest, on charges of criminal fraud and crimes against humanity. The resulting trial would provide a compelling forum for the debate of this bovine excrement that Al has so studiously avoided, and which the MSM would have a hard time spinning, although I am sure their efforts to do so would be herculean.

Pamela Gray
June 15, 2008 4:29 pm

Anyone here read the latest geologic survey of all that oil in Alaska? I have. Anyone want to elucidate us dump cluck chicks on what that oil is made of? Where it’s at? Layered? Spread out? Sweet? Sour? Proven? Right next to another field that is already in production? Mostly natural gas or Texas gold? Is most of it under the refuge or outside the refuge? I know!!!! Teacher!!!! Pick me!!!! Pick me!!!!

Evan Jones
Editor
June 15, 2008 8:08 pm

Pamela:
Be sure to use the right historical formula:
Take proven reserves and multiply by 10. That’s the real number.
Then take that number and multiply it by ten. That’s “potential” reserve.
Then multiply that number by two or three (or four or five) to get the amount they’ll eventually extract.
European leftists are continually threatening to have people from the Bush administration ,including the President himself, arrested and tried for war crimes any time they venture to the continent.
True, but that doesn’t keep me up at night. Before they can cook him they have to catch him.

grrt
June 15, 2008 8:32 pm

“So would you let your kids fly on the plane or not?”
Yes, the engineer sounds like an idiot.

June 16, 2008 10:42 am

[…] the whole argument here at What’s Up With That? No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI […]

poetSam
June 16, 2008 11:47 am

Evan
I hope they catch him and cook him. But who would eat em?
“Sometimes the only purpose of a life is to serve as a warning to others.”
Also, it is lucky Greenspan is not an honorable Japanese central banker.
That would smart!

Jelly
June 16, 2008 1:19 pm

“Writing opinion pieces do not require peer review, as you’ve very effectively demonstrated here with your comment.”
Something tells me you missed my joke. Should I blame that on me or you? You did manage to punctuate my point that an editor is in order though, so thanks for that.

June 16, 2008 9:26 pm

[…] founder of The Weather Channel recently wrote a guest article on “Watts Up With That?“, a blog that debunks much pro-AGW doctrine. The future of our […]

Evan Jones
Editor
June 17, 2008 1:33 pm

I hope they catch him and cook him. But who would eat em?
I deeply admire the man for all sorts of quiet liberal reasons.
He saved the economy with the tax cuts. Flat out. Plain and simple. Anyone who has taken the trouble to look at the year-by-year comparison of tax cuts vs. revenues KNOWS the tax cuts had NOTHING to do with the drop in revenues. Revenues today are at huge record levels. (Unfortunately, so is spending, but that’s another story. Even though the deficit is diddly-squat in percentage terms, even including the war.)
He had the courage to liberate the people of Iraq in spite of craven world opposition. And he stayed the course. No one seems to account for the 50 to 100,000 per year being starved by Saddam, not to mention 100-200/day murdered by death squads. PLUS the hundreds of thousands in mass graves. The only war crime about Iraq is that we didn’t invade ten years earlier. (Don’t even mention the ridiculous Lancet report, it makes Jim Hansen look like a lowballer!)
Now Saddam is gone and a very successful democracy is in place with far greater voter participation than in any western country. Freedom has a new symbol: the purple finger. He also had the courage to do the surge thing which has been a wild success, and has turned around the war every bit as thoroughly as the fall of Atlanta.
And all those allies that are supposed to have “abandoned” us have been having cat-fights among themselves over who is the best ally of America. Nearly all of Europe is now under pro-US governments and is moving closer to the American economic model. Only Spain and Russia are actively anti-US these days. (Hint: winning COUNTS.)
Dubya also staunchly resisted the temptation to “steal the oil”, as any of the US critics would have done, and though you don’t read it in the papers, Europe is impressed by that.
Don’t forget that Truman’s popularity ratings were a lot lower than dubya’s when he left office. I disagree with dubya on a lot of issues, but in the big things he was magnificent. Unless we find a way to throw away our victory in Iraq, history will view him far more kindly than we do now. Mark my words.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 17, 2008 1:38 pm

Jacques! Jacques! Jacques Chirac!
How many kids did you starve in Iraq?

poetSam
June 17, 2008 1:55 pm

“… history will view him far more kindly than we do now.” Evan
Only if neo-cons write it.
Evan, we’ve lost all sorts of civil liberties in an ENDLESS war with Muslims.
We must choose: Quit intervening in other countries OR become a police state.
fear is the fee
I used to be annoyed,
in fact, paranoid
but then i found it best
if enemies i made less.
This lesson do I give
to the country where I live:
the US.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 17, 2008 3:40 pm

Neo-con has two meanings, one historical, one present.
The present meaning is those who are “conservative” on foreign policy (i.e., non-isolationist) and the economy (a common sense not a value issue) but who tend to be more “liberal” on value judgments.
And yes, those are the sort who will write the history. As always.
Evan, we’ve lost all sorts of civil liberties in an ENDLESS war with Muslims.
I keep hearing that. Yet I can’t name a single person who has lost a single liberty. I look back at civil liberty restrictions during other US wars and the current version is pretty darn milksop by comparison.
We must choose: Quit intervening in other countries OR become a police state.
The way i see it that makes us like Spider-Man allowing the criminalwho would later kill Uncle Ben to escape.
Not :”interfering in other countries” is what allowed the rise of the monstrous regimes of Hitler and imperial Japan.
I have two answers:
With Great power comes great responsibility.–The Spider-Man
Doing nothing IS doing something.–Tony Blair (specifically referring to Iraq)
It’s not on Sweden to do these things. They can’t. It’s on US. Why? Because we CAN.
I think both wars against Saddam did great good in the world, and that they will engender lasting and enduring good. It was moral. Just. Responsible. Yes, I know this is not the majority view.

Richard Wright
June 17, 2008 4:35 pm

Richard: All science starts off with theory, accumulation of data and calculation. Einstein is a good example.

You forgot experimentation and verification. Without those, theory, data, and calculation don’t mean much of anything.
Funny you should mention Einstein. When Einstein wrote the theory of Special Relativity, the scientific consensus was that light propagated through the “ether” because no one had a better theory. No one had ever observed the ether but they couldn’t imagine how light could propagate without it – so it must be there. When Michelson and Morley did their experiments that proved there was no ether, they kept repeating them because they figured they must be missing something. Einstein came along, accepted that these repeated and verified experiments proved there was no ether, and theorized that the speed of light was a constant regardless of the frame of reference of the observer – the result being that time and distance dilate and speeds approaching the speed of light. His theory has been verified experimentally in many ways, the most dramatic of course is the atom bomb.
With global warming, the predictions are not verified, they are falsified. But instead of rejecting the “theory” the computer modelers tweak the fudge factors in their parametric equations (because they don’t know how to solve the real equations) and boldly proclaim new disasters. Nothing could be further from real science (except maybe evolution). It used to be the psychics like Jean Dixon that went around proclaiming disasters every year. Today’s psychics are the Global Warming prophets of doom.

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.

I’ve made my case as to how Climate Change hysteria is not science. Please give me some examples of how my definition of the scientific method is faulty and has prevented all progress in science. And some examples of how your method that excludes experimentation and verification has yielded “scientific” progress.

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?

I don’t have one and frankly I don’t care what happened 200 million years ago because no one is ever going to know.

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.

What does this have to do with science? You can go around listening to Chicken Little if you want to, but I choose not to. And who made you, or Al Gore, or the IPCC the chief engineer of the planet? It’s God who created the heavens and the earth.

poetSam
June 17, 2008 5:13 pm

Evan,
Until recently and perhaps still, Bush had the power to detain even native born Americans indefinitely without even appearing before a civilian judge. How is that for a lost civil liberty?
I used to believe as you do Evan, so i sympathize. Don’t worry, there is another world view that is completely coherent, peaceful, and strong.
Learn about Ron Paul’s views. Perhaps in 2012, we can choose a man who will lead us out of the wilderness. Otherwise, I see an earlier end to the world.
We have nuclear weapons. As long as we can deliver those we will always be safe from an attack by a foreign country. As for terrorists, the only solution is to quit making enemies around the world.
some questions for neocons
So, they hate us cause we’re free?
(Free? If this would only be!)
No, they hate us cause we’re there.
Just how is this unfair?
And what if some come here
with troops in battle gear?
Would you greet them all as friends
or your native soil defend?
Does the Golden Rule apply?
If not, please tell me why.

Jeff Alberts
June 18, 2008 10:09 am

What does this have to do with science? You can go around listening to Chicken Little if you want to, but I choose not to. And who made you, or Al Gore, or the IPCC the chief engineer of the planet? It’s God who created the heavens and the earth.

Wow, now THERE’S some science for ya! Which experiments and verifications show that there is a god to have created the “heavens” (whatever that is) and the Earth?
You can go around listening to fairy tales if you want, I’ll stick with reality.

Jeff Alberts
June 18, 2008 10:14 am

As for terrorists, the only solution is to quit making enemies around the world.

This is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.
The US has been chastised for waiting so long to enter WWs 1 and 2. To us these were foreign wars (until certain events occurred to change that). So, now that we’ve become the world’s policeman, we get chastised as well. No matter what we do, there will be those vocal people who will blame us for any outcome, whether good or bad. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfect cases in point.