Must see: John Coleman's Global Warming Special #2 – now online at YouTube

I’m proud to be a part of this second one hour long special report done by KUSI-TV and veteran TV meteorologist John Coleman. John is, in my opinion, the “Walter Cronkite of television weather”. His demeanor, humor, and delivery is reminiscent of that extraordinary television journalist.

I traveled to San Diego last week to tape my segment, and while I was there, I asked a few people I met at the TV station and at a restaurant what they thought about the first special last month. I was surprised to learn that the positive supporting comments far outnumbered the negative ones.

I also learned that the first special in January gave the station its highest rating ever for a one hour news report, so it is no surprise that they’d want to repeat that success. On a personal note, my entire taped presentation is not included here, and was edited for time. The end part where I refute NCDC didn’t make the final cut, perhaps the producer thought it too technical due to the graph of TOBS, FILNET, and RAW data that I used to show that NCDC’s claims about a cooling trend in poorly sited station doesn’t hold up.  However, KUSI will make all the taped interviews available in their entirety, and I’ll post links to them when they are available for all to see. I should note that I don’t agree with the broad statement made in the video that “CO2 has no effect”. It does, but the magnitude of the direct effect and the feedback effects is disputed.

*The first KUSI program from January,  “Global Warming: The Other Side”, can be viewed at:

Additional footage and unedited full length interviews from that program are available here:

Here is all of the latest program, which aired Thursday Feb 18th, at 9PM PST:

Part one:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James F. Evans
February 20, 2010 4:19 pm

Looks like the ball will get knocked out of the park, again!

February 20, 2010 4:23 pm

I also made a page with all the video, text, links.

February 20, 2010 4:32 pm

Consider it devoured.

February 20, 2010 4:42 pm

Thanks Anthony, you did a good job on KUSI (and on KFI).

February 20, 2010 4:58 pm

Very well done Anthony, you may be the next “scientific superstar” 🙂

February 20, 2010 5:07 pm

Any chance of putting this on some service that allows single segment one-hour programs? I have been using, but there are others.

February 20, 2010 5:12 pm

Great job, Anthony. Thank you. What a learning opportunity to use this site and in the process being equipped to spread the truth. I love..

February 20, 2010 5:16 pm

Wish I could see it in China. Youtube has been officially blocked for some time and your is also. Additionally, is similarly forbidden (blocked) and the “Great Firewall” here denies legitimate access to both blogs. Getting around it renders any video links or direct connection to Youtube too choppy as being useless due to the circuitous route it must travel. Curiously, over at Real Climate it is “wide open” (not blocked) so that is somewhat telling as to the message these folks want the minions to hear.

R. de Haan
February 20, 2010 5:16 pm

Great work, a devastating testimony!
The surface station findings are a real AGW killer.
Last Friday President Obama, who publicly stated that he will stop the rise of the oceans and control the earth’s thermostat by a margin of 2 degree Celsius, gave his views on the recent weather events.

Lubos Motl comments Obama’s profound knowledge of our climate system.
with this remark: “everything you say about the behavior of the climate is nonsense” Ouch!!!
It would have been nice if John Coleman would have commented the President who is quickly becoming “President Liar”.
But maybe this is something to address in “Part Three” as Obama, despite all the fraud continues his quest against CO2:
At the same time Alan Caruba is one step ahead of the developments and speaks of AGW as a scam from the past, time to make an inventory of the costs of the fraud:
Multi Billion Dollar Global Warming Fraud:
“As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming”.

February 20, 2010 5:27 pm

the first special in January gave the station its highest rating ever for a one hour news report
I wonder what the ratings would be for a Nation wide show like this in prime time?

February 20, 2010 5:29 pm

At around 6 minutes in part 4 above, John Coleman says this:

Many reputable scientists, even those who served as reviewers for the IPCC say that the greenhouse theory is not well understood – and what we do know is that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere not CO2

The first statement is a claim but I doubt that it’s true.
Whether we understand our climate well enough is definitely up for question – with the many inter-related cause and effects. But I doubt that John Coleman understands the “greenhouse” theory.
First, every explanation of the “greenhouse” effect agrees that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. But Coleman implies that this somehow creates a problem for the theory. So he doesn’t understand what the theory claims. It’s very basic.
Second, the theory of absorption and re-emission of longwave radiation by the various trace gases is a very well understood theory. And yes, understood for more than a century. Check out CO2- An insignificant trace gas – Part One. Or maybe Part Five where you can see the detailed mathematical solutions to the physics equations going back many decades.
In fact, I was a little confused because on the one hand Coleman implies the theory is in some way in doubt, but on the other hand followed it up with “water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas”. So is the “greenhouse” effect not really true, or in doubt? Or is it true and water vapor is more significant than CO2? (Everyone in climate science would agree).
Many studies have identified the ratio between CO2 and water vapor as around 25% for CO2 and 60% for water vapor. That still makes CO2 not insignificant.
And who are these expert reviewers for the IPCC who think that the greenhouse theory is in doubt?
Lindzen, Spencer, Christy – all believe the theory. But they also believe that the climate is very complex. That’s the source of their “disagreements” with IPCC science. Who is he talking about?
Well, we all agree it’s important for the IPCC to be accurate.
I think it’s important for an influential presentation like this to be accurate. But on this point, it’s not.

Henry chance
February 20, 2010 5:38 pm

I had already seen this today Sir Anthony in tape #7 if I recall.

February 20, 2010 5:56 pm

Bravo Anthony, but I thought Christy had the best line.

R. de Haan
February 20, 2010 6:15 pm

An interesting winter report from Joseph D’Aleo:
Record Setting AO and SOI combo creates a wild winter
Download the PDF here (first column)

Daniel H
February 20, 2010 6:16 pm

Good work John Coleman and Anthony Watts! Great show. I enjoyed this one much more than the last global warming special. Coleman was able to successfully integrate a wide array of diverse viewpoints and opinions which is really difficult to do on such a complex topic. There was never a dull moment.
The only part that confused me was during the segment when the protester shouted that Coleman was going to sue Al Gore but then Coleman commented that it wasn’t the case. Coleman should have explained why he no longer plans to sue Al Gore because it was widely reported in the mainstream news media a couple of years ago:,2933,337710,00.html

Christian Bultmann
February 20, 2010 6:21 pm

scienceofdoom (17:29:14)
If the greenhouse theory implemented in computer model fail to predict the current climate conditions already after only a few short years.
That means for me the greenhouse theory is not well understood no matter how old it is and how many scientists think they know.

February 20, 2010 6:22 pm

love the planet earth clips – that’s 4 million well-pissed away, for sure. if the green movement was more of that kind of stuff i’d be much more supportive. (nuclear power.)

Jere Krischel
February 20, 2010 6:24 pm

Slightly off topic Anthony, but you might want to check out a lecture by Gary Taubes who wrote “Good Calories, Bad Calories”:
It’s very interesting to see the similarities between the AGW hypothesis and the low-fat hypothesis put out for the past 30 years by government sources. We’ve managed to so far avoid the threat of civilization stumping carbon restriction, but as a society we’ve suffered greatly from the admonition to eat high-fiber, low-fat, low-calorie, lots of bread and grains. I’d be very interested in your take on Gary Taubes’ work.

Louis Hissink
February 20, 2010 6:31 pm

I watched it last night, and have one question – did you shave the moustache off for this one ? Otherwise great presentation by John Coleman and saved me the time of working out what the current state of play is. Incidentally our Australian Greeny organisations are having a talkfest to plan strategy on how to deal with us – apparently ignoring us hasn’t worked. Andrew Bolt has it all on his blog.
Thumbs up from us down in OZ

February 20, 2010 6:35 pm

off topic:
Note that the Atlanta Progressive News now officially admits it ignores objective reality. You have to admire their frankness about the state of modern media.

R. de Haan
February 20, 2010 6:36 pm

John Coleman is convinced.
The primary climate driver is our sun, not CO2
This article I found on Joe Bastari’s Blog supports his vision:

February 20, 2010 6:40 pm

20 Feb: EU Referendum: Richard North: How green is my golf course?
The ownership is reported today by the Indian newspaper the Mail Today which tells us that R K Pachauri’s “not-for-profit” TERI – imbued with a mission to “work towards global sustainable development, creating innovative solutions for a better tomorrow” – is the proud owner of a water-guzzling nine hole golf course in Gual Pahari on the outskirts of Gurgaon a satellite town to the southwest of New Delhi…
But with the golf course and environs requiring up to 300,000 gallons a day during the summer to keep the lush greenery in condition (pictured above), questions are being asked about the sustainability of the facility, which would have difficulty in meeting the volume required solely from harvested water.
This is especially an issue in Delhi, where water shortage is a major a problem, and more so in Gurgaon…
And for those who are not too keen on golf, there is the world class “TERI Oval” cricket green for gentle recreation. Failing that, there is always the badminton green.
But this is not what most people had in mind when they describe Dr Pachauri and his institute as “green”.
20 Feb: UK Tele: £60m bill for the CO2 of our political class
We pay billions of dollars to Asian countries for the right to continue emitting CO2 here in the West , says Christopher Booker.
The Government has contracted to buy these credits, mainly available from China and India, through 10 British and foreign companies, including Barclays Bank and a branch of J P  Morgan rather oddly situated in a back street in Oxford. ..
The story then becomes even more bizarre. The contracts with Barclays, J P   Morgan and co – who will retain up to £9 million in commissions – will be used to buy Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) credits under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. ..
UK Times: Ben Webster: Drax suspends plan to replace coal with greener fuel
Britain’s biggest power station has suspended its plan to replace coal with greener fuel, leaving the Government little chance of meeting its target for renewable energy…
Drax is also one of dozens of companies delaying investments in new biomass power stations because of uncertainty over the Government’s policy on long-term subsidies. Hundreds of farmers growing biomass crops may now struggle to sell their produce…
Drax has bought two million tonnes of biomass, but Ms Thompson said that it was considering selling it overseas because it no longer made economic sense to burn it in its six boilers…
Each megawatt hour of electricity costs Drax £31 to produce from coal and £40 from biomass….
18 Feb: Tulsa Today: Oklahoma Climatological Survey Strangely Mum
by David Deming (a geologist, an associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma)
When I testified before the United States Senate on December 6, 2006, I stated that the public was “vastly misinformed” on global warming and that “there is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty.”
Looks like I was right. Since the Climategate scandal broke, the global warming hoax has collapsed like a house of rotten cards…
But the 2007 OCS proclamation explicitly predicted “warmer winters” and “fewer cold-air outbreaks and extremes.” The authors of the OCS report were wrong. The second half of 2009 was “exceptionally cool,” and last October was the coldest October in Oklahoma since recordkeeping began in the year 1895.
As a result of the misinformation provided by the OCS, Oklahoma was ill-prepared for the severe winter weather we are currently experiencing. Ironically, Ken Crawford (then state climatologist) was one of the people who publicly accused me of deliberately misinforming people.
Subsequently, there has been no apparent retraction or modification of the OCS’s misleading statement on climate change.
Why was Professor Deming, a geologist, able to get it right, while the professional climatologists got it wrong? The OCS report relied upon junk science produced by the IPCC. Political ideology was substituted for science. And intolerance produces bad science. If the meteorologists had listened to skeptics, they might have learned something. Instead, they closed their minds and asserted their pedantic authority. Now they are left with a shameful and embarrassing debacle. The people and State of Oklahoma would have been better served by constructive engagement and collaboration.

February 20, 2010 7:15 pm

Christian Bultmann:
Lots of computer models have problems in lots of physics and engineering fields. It doesn’t mean that every individual equation in that model is wrong.
For example, the GCMs also include the momentum and heat balances in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the energy and water exchange between the two.
They don’t do a great job of modeling some of the ocean currents – like the “MOC” – meridional overturning circulation – which is the warmer water driven from the tropics to northern Europe due to density effects from temperature and salinty – a little on that subject at Predictability – With a pinch of Salt please..”
We could look at that GCM challenge and say:

Obviously the equations that scientists are using to calculate the density of water and the momentum balance are flawed because they don’t get the final solution right..

Of course, everyone expects density and momentum to be accurately calculated so no one draws that conclusion.
If you see my point?
Well, it’s a surprise to many people, but CO2 is in a similar category of “well-understood science”.
Modeling the whole climate, well that’s another story.

February 20, 2010 7:32 pm

I tried posting this on tips and notes thread but my internet keeps shutting down when I try to view it. So here it is.
I found an old document created for the UK’s DEFRA, which asks the UEA to create a climate ‘headline’. They consider food poisoning, even though they mention it likely isn’t due to climate change. They mention that grape yields aren’t related to climate change, but they should be used as an indicator because of a strong ‘public resonance’. They also mention another issue’s public resonance is “Low unless hyped up”. Full story here:

February 20, 2010 8:00 pm

“the 2000’s were the warmest temperatures in the history of earth!”
come on man…that’s pushin’ it

Kum Dollison
February 20, 2010 8:04 pm

Let’s see. 0.000390 is 1/3 of 1%? Really? Surely she meant to say: 1/3 of 1/10th of 1%; don’t you think?

Theo Goodwin
February 20, 2010 8:35 pm

scienceofdoom writes:
“Lindzen, Spencer, Christy – all believe the theory. But they also believe that the climate is very complex. That’s the source of their “disagreements” with IPCC science. Who is he talking about?”
Is your statement hopelessly vague on purpose? I will assume that it is not and that you are not a troll. Let me clarify for you. Yes, they all agree on the effects of CO2 on warming but, apparently, you will be surprised to learn that what they agree is that it will produce no more than one degree of warming in this century or ever. The kind of warming that Al Gore prays for requires that CO2 cause “forcings,” which means that CO2 causes water vapor to behave differently and produce warming up to three degrees this century. Lindzen is clear as a bell that he expects forcings to be trivial in impact. Christy just told us that his climate records do not support claims made about temperatures by GISS and various other groups. He also told us that temperatures in the bulk of the atmosphere are the important ones, not surface temperatures, which are what Climategaters use. Spencer has never supported forcings and has never seen a climate computer model that strikes him as more than a toy. By contrast, IPCC has never seen a forcing hypothesis that it did not immediately embrace. By the way, the actual evidence for forcings would be in temperature records, at this time, and these folks, especially Christy, just told you that it is not there.

Theo Goodwin
February 20, 2010 8:39 pm

Mr. Watts, it was a real pleasure to see you. You are one impressive speaker. Thank you so very much for this wonderful website, your other wonderful website, and all the great work that you do in defense of scientific method and a critical approach to scientific claims. You have earned at least a presidential commendation.

February 20, 2010 8:46 pm

I found it interesting that is segment 5, the NCDC’s Tom Peterson says that the new stations have a cold bias they recognized in the mid ’90’s and have corrected. That means all of the temperatures made by the new automated thermometers have been adjusted up, and the older stations are being decimated in the database!

Leo G
February 20, 2010 8:50 pm

Argh! If I hear one more scientist from either side of the great debate claim that CO2 “traps” heat, I’m gonna explode!
Gawd, even a plumber like me knows that statement is wrong!

February 20, 2010 8:50 pm

Great show Anthony, thanks for posting it and looking forward to seeing the pieces that didn’t make it to air.
Kum Dollison – beat me to it. wah.
But since we’re bashing details…. that wasn’t an igloo. Igloos are built of blocks of snow. When you pile snow up and then hollow it out, its called a quinzie (not certain if that’s the spelling). The opening should face south so that it traps the sun’s heat and warms up inside. Leave a layer of snow on the bottom though because if you don’t the sun’s heat will melt the frozen dirt and you will be camping in mud, even at 20 below C. Also poke a hole in the top, though not a big one. Do you know why?
BECAUSE IF YOU DON’T THE CO2 WILL COLLECT AND MAKE IT HARD TO BREATH. (You all thought I was going to claim it would melt the quinzie from the inside, didn’t you!)

February 20, 2010 9:03 pm


February 20, 2010 9:06 pm

Leo G (20:50:09) :
Argh! If I hear one more scientist from either side of the great debate claim that CO2 “traps” heat, I’m gonna explode! >
Its not the scientists that you need to worry about. Its the politicians armed with a new way to “trap” your money.

February 20, 2010 9:58 pm

scienceofdoom (17:29:14) :
John Coleman isn’t the only one who might not fully understand the greenhouse theory. I wonder if we need to be skeptical that anyone really “understands” it fully.
Anyway I think we need to be charitable here and consider the medium. Coleman simplified a few things, quite appropriately given the target audience and the medium – prime time TV. You are right that he really breezed over the standard CO2 greenhouse effect mechanism. In fact what he did was combine (or confuse) the CO2 primary forcing with the H20 feedback argument. I think you are correct that the CO2 primary forcing mechanism is generally allowed while it is the H2O feedback, + or – and to what magnitude, that is controversial (or stated properly – unknown). Coleman mashed these 2 topics together in 1 short visual. But, honestly, talking about the model’s dependance on positive secondary feedbacks in detail would have been too much for his medium. Feedbacks are what he meant in this segment, the pictures revealed it subliminally, he planted the seed with his audience…

R. Gates
February 20, 2010 10:05 pm

Actually a very well done and interesting presentation…however, February is now following January 2010 as a very warm month as we’re seeing temps near the surface not usually seen until the beginning of April. These are global tropospheric temps, averaged over land and sea. Without some rapid cooling in the next 8 days, February will become the warmest on instrument record, after the warmest January. See:
If there is an Ice Age in our future, is sure has a strange way of showing itself with all this tropospheric heat…

February 20, 2010 10:34 pm

What did he say in the second part 2:00: that the Himalayas cover a tenth of the Earth’s surface? 😉 They would have to be like the whole Asia. 😉 I see it’s also written here:
Was it supposed to be 1/200? It seems that 2.6 million squared kilometers is more realistic.

Dr. Dave
February 20, 2010 10:39 pm

I’m very glad to have found this program this evening. I was fishing around on YouTube earlier today and didn’t find it. I think Minnesotans for Global Warming should cut an album…their parodies keep getting better.
That said…nobody seriously doubts the greenhouse effect. It is theoretically possible for anthropogenic CO2 emissions to result in a very slight increase in temperature. In reality I doubt we would ever be able to detect the signal through the noise of natural variability. It’s important to keep kicking the legs out from under the “catastrophic global warming due to man-made CO2” fraud, but what I found refreshing is that Coleman shed a light on what motivates “scientists” to perpetuate the fraud. Generally speaking, grant monies don’t flow to study a non-problem. Places like Scripps, NOAA, NASA, PSU, Stanford and even Lawrence Livermore have a vested interest in keeping the grants flowing and therefore keeping the fraud alive.
In the end, the fraudulent scientists are chump change hustlers and shameless fluffers for corrupt politicians. The truly scary players are the politicians who are invested in this fraud as a means to socialist control and tax revenues, environmentalist NGOs that lust after ever more influence and political clout and the big businesses who see literally trillions of dollars of wealth at stake.

February 20, 2010 10:44 pm

Excellent show John Coleman, keep up the awesome work.

Kum Dollison
February 20, 2010 11:00 pm

It bothers me when the “expert” from My side can’t get the simplest facts straight (even if he does have a beautiful voice.)

February 20, 2010 11:12 pm

Great program. I remember John Coleman when he was breaking into the TV weather business in the 60s and 70s in Milwaukee. He had a reputation then as the “wacky weatherman,” probably because he was trying to make his mark. His work here is absolutely Churchillian and heroic, and he deserves a lot of credit for that. Great job, Anthony, by the way.
I’m still wondering why no one wants to argue about or deal with Miscolczi’s equations on CO2. He certainly makes a convincing mathematical case.

February 21, 2010 1:30 am

Wow, that’s a great video series. Good to see you on there, Anthony. Interesting work you did studying the temperature measuring stations. Mr. Coleman covered it all well.

Philip Mulholland
February 21, 2010 1:31 am

Minnesotans For Global Warming “Three Below Honey” ©

John of Kent
February 21, 2010 1:40 am

I’m still wondering why no one wants to argue about or deal with Miscolczi’s equations on CO2. He certainly makes a convincing mathematical case.””
Yes, Miscolczi’s saturated greenhouse theory is the real killer of the catastrophic AGW alarm. The bullet from the smoking gun that killed AGW. I suspect that the AGW believers can’t really argue with Miscolczi so their tactic is to ignore him/ supress his idea (hence he had to leave NASA), hope he gives up and goes away and hope that the complexity of his argument is sufficient to keep it from the public eye.
Very telling that their answer to Miscolczi is political manoevering and not scientific debate. His theory could be to AGW what General relativity was to Newtonian Dynamics.

February 21, 2010 1:44 am

Its smart to turn the Global Media Weapon (GMW) against them.
And then, enjoy an old Lennon lyric, with a much better text;

Brent Crowder
February 21, 2010 1:50 am

I thought Coleman did a great job, but was very disappointed in an error in Part 8 by “Heather” where shee states CO2 has risen from a quarter of a percent to a third of a percent of the atmosphere. The basic point of what a small portion of the atmosphere is good, but the numbers quoted are a factor of ten TOO HIGH.
390 ppm = .039 % not .4 percent.
Also, some might dispute the accuracy of CO2 concentration as 270 to 280 ppm before industrialization based on Ernst Georg Beck:
Also, Coleman rejects significant forcing. In my opinion, it is not forcing that is exagerated, but rather sensitivity, Deg C/W/m^2 that is exagerated by the IPCC.
Expert estimates of this sensitivity range from .068 C/(WM-2) to .38 C/(WM-2) (3). The relatively common value based on multiple observations by Sherwood Idso (11) is .10 C/(WM-2). Idso’s .10 C/(WM-2) constitutes two of six methods that arrive at the .10 C/(WM-2) value by Daly

February 21, 2010 2:03 am

Oh, the irony of it all!
Global Warming is stopping Windturbines….by freezing them to
a standtstill;

Mark Fawcett
February 21, 2010 2:07 am

Anthony, watched this on Friday from KUSI’s own website; excellent piece of journalism.
One thing that strikes me is how calm, measured and straight forward all the interviewees were (your good-self included of course). No ranting, no alarm-ism, no name calling, no “taking the piss” as we Brits would say. Very nice and very refreshing – keeping it objective and rational like this can only help as it highlights the quasi-religious like fervour coming from t’other side…
Nice work,

Dr A Burns
February 21, 2010 2:10 am

Coleman states quite clearly and publicly that Pachauri is guilty of fraud. Now if Pachauri is not guilty of fraud, he should be launching a defamation case against KUSI. If Pachauri does not defend his name, it amounts to an admission of guilt.
Somehow, I don’t think we’ll see Pachauri objecting.

February 21, 2010 2:20 am

Brent Crowder :
You are spot on in your last point – and something that many people don’t really understand.
It’s not the “first order forcing” of CO2 that’s in question. The physics is pretty basic. (For the “doubters” see the basic CO2 series )
It’s the feedback.
Theo Goodwin:
I don’t think we disagree! I’m just trying to guess who John Coleman thinks disagrees with the physics of CO2. No one.
It’s the complexity of feedback. But a novice watching John Coleman would think that the physics of CO2 “as accepted for 150 years” was in question by some IPCC reviewers.
No, what a few question is the feedback.
I’m sad to see the myth perpetuated by someone that should know better. I would have been very happy to see John Coleman say after Dr Somerville’s comment:
“All physicists and climate scientistis, including the skeptics of the IPCC, agree in the basic effect of CO2. That’s not in question. A doubling of CO2 would add 1.2’C increased temperature at the earth’s surface – with no feedbacks. What some expert reviewers of the IPCC disagree with is the amount of feedback. Some expect a negative feedback so the temperature rise won’t even reach 1.2’C…” (and so on)
Why is that so hard to say? Why the implication that the basic physics is in question?

old construction worker
February 21, 2010 2:41 am

scienceofdoom (17:29:14)
“CO2 Drives the Climate Hypothesis” is well understood? The only understanding I’m aware of between scientist is the relationship Of CO2 and a black body. When that understanding is applied to our “Climate System”, the “CO2 Drives the Climate Hypothesis” makes two assumptions. the “Amplification Number” or fudge factor of 2.5 (which was settled on between all the “Climate Modelers” after heated discussions. I would love to review those emails) and the amount of water that was being evaporated.
From my understanding the “CO2 Drives the Climate Hypothesis” should have two signature observation. The “Hot Spot” and an increase in “High level Heat trapping Clouds. Both of which have Not been found in observe climate data. With out hard evidence of the 2.5 Amplification, “CO2 Drives the Climate Hypothesis” is dead in the water.
And you wonder why there is mostly “Upward Adjustments” in our “Temperature Data”.

February 21, 2010 3:07 am

“I should note that I don’t agree with the broad statement made in the video that “CO2 has no effect”. It does, but the magnitude of the direct effect and the feedback effects is disputed.”
Well I can find no evidence or scientific proof which show that CO2 does have an effect on atmospheric temperature.
The origin of the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas comes from the deeply flawed work of John Tyndall which is almost 150 years past its shelf life and has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. There is no modern up to date empirical science in support of CO2 as a greenhouse gas which is why we keep being told that the greenhouse effect is 150 year old established scientific fact.
I have a simple test which compares pure CO2 against ordinary air. This test involves exposing pure CO2 and ordinary air to the heat from one candle simultaneously and the result is that pure CO2 fails to out perform ordinary air at absorbing and retaining more heat. I have perform many variations on these tests with very similar results.
The equipment used in this test is cheap and easy to acquire. The test itself is simple and can be performed by a child. The results speak for themselves.
When you consider the results of this test and then look at the various melting points of all the gases involved, (The melting points of Oxygen and Nitrogen are 54.36 K and 63.15 K respectively. Whereas the melting points of CO2 and water, the two main so called greenhouse gases, are 194.65 K and 273 K respectively. ) it becomes undeniable and inescapable that the greenhouse effect is a fallacy. The only conclusion to be drawn is that either all gases are greenhouse gases or if not then none at all. The gas with the lowest melting point is the most sensitive to heat absorption. Oxygen and nitrogen are 99% of the gases in the atmosphere. They are the most sensitive to heat absorption and the test I’ve conducted are confirmation of this conclusion.
Video’s of my simple CO2 experiments can be viewed by clicking on my name above.

February 21, 2010 3:45 am

It’ s hard to imagine that an increase of C02 from .027% to .039% has warmed the Earth by even a degree.
Imagine all those lonely H20 molecules spending x# of years looking for a C02 mate. They would have a greater chance of being struck by lightning.
Question: What is the ratio of C02 molecules to H20 molecules at a RH of 50%?

February 21, 2010 3:46 am

Oh, and btw, I really did enjoy seeing John Coleman, E.M. Smith, and Anthony for the 1st time.
Make more of these.

February 21, 2010 4:01 am

Has anyone recalculated the temperature baseline using temperature measurements from only the 1500 locations instead of all 6000 or so?
John M Reynolds

February 21, 2010 4:14 am

ScienceOfDoom – what even the AGW theorists don’t understand is the lack of energy, see Kevin trenberth’s “travesty” email. So to say that the theory is well understood is wrong, it would be more correct to say: Greenhouse theory V 1.0 has just been sent to the junkyard and we’re working on V1.1 now. The AGW theorists are too dishonest to come clean about this and make no such public comment or have an open debate but try to shout down their critiques but it doesn’t change that. AGW Theory 1.0 is as toast as it can be.

February 21, 2010 4:31 am

scienceofdoom (02:20:00) :
Yes, its the feedback. Is it positive, or negative?

Jim Clarke
February 21, 2010 4:41 am

Dr. Somerville did not see fit to make the distinction between the basic physics of CO2 and the AGW theory of enhanced global warming, which implies, to the layman, that the IPCC projections of 3-5 degrees are ‘basic physics’, Perhaps if the AGW crowd would stop saying the there is no debate on the science of CO2 warming, John Coleman would not have to say that they are wrong!
You should be chastising Dr. Somerville for creating the confusion, not J. C. for responding correctly to the statement as implied.

Robert Christopher
February 21, 2010 4:51 am

Barack Obama’s climate change policy in crisis
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
Published: Sunday Telegraph (London), 5:13PM GMT 20 Feb 2010 GMT

February 21, 2010 4:58 am

“red432 (18:35:21) :
off topic:
Note that the Atlanta Progressive News now officially admits it ignores objective reality. You have to admire their frankness about the state of modern media. ”
Too funny to make it up. From the FAQ of the APN:
“What is Atlanta Progressive News?
Our goal is providing news of concern to the working people and working families of Atlanta.
Is Atlanta Progressive News objective?
We believe there is no such thing as objective news.”
So they believe working people should be lied to. Too funny, i’m a working person and wouldn’t take their product for free.

February 21, 2010 5:04 am

Because some physicist think they falsified it it is peer review by the way.

February 21, 2010 6:21 am

I think a lot of the science types here seem to have expected a program that would pass muster at a science symposium. This presentation was aimed at those who were willing to tear themselves away from the excitement of women’s curling to get some idea of what they are about to be taxed into poverty over.
Here’s what I heard. Dr. Sommerville said that it’s not the sun, it’s not natural variability, it’s man made and the science has been settled for 150 years. John Coleman said he’s wrong.
The vast majority of the public has no understanding of what is meant by a forcing or a feedback, negative or positive. If I lived in a virtual world then computer models would be more compelling. Here in the thermometer world, despite the claim of a warm January and February, my winter heating bill doubled. Now that is a doubling I understand!
This is about politics and media and only peripherally about science at this point. The key to success in politics and media is in knowing your audience. John Coleman obviously does.

February 21, 2010 6:25 am

We need to be sending news links like this to the PBS ombudsman and asking why the PBS NewsHour has so blatantly ignored Climategate, etc.

February 21, 2010 6:46 am

“Marcus (05:04:58) :
Because some physicist think they falsified it”
Thanks for the link, i finally have the time to read it (It’s Gerlich & Tscheuschner) and find it remarkably accessible….

David, UK
February 21, 2010 6:49 am

Oh goody, I’ve been waiting for this to appear!

February 21, 2010 7:10 am

I don’t know what is funnier.
“Record snowfall caused by Global Warming”
“We looked at the poorly sited thermometers and did see a problem, so we corrected it by adjusting those temperatures UP ! “

Richard Telford
February 21, 2010 7:40 am

Coleman needs help. He pours scorn on the IPCC for a couple of minor mistakes in three volumes, then makes numerous mistakes in one short programme. Misdirections and omissions abound. For example, lots of coverage of cold conditions in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, but no mention that globally, January was the warmest reported January in the UAH record.

February 21, 2010 8:01 am

In part 8 during his interview with Christy, Coleman says that NASA has reported 2000-2009 as the warmest decade on earth.
This is a strawman.
The news release says that this decade was the warmest since record keeping began in 1880.

Richard M
February 21, 2010 8:14 am

Larry (23:12:01) :
I’m still wondering why no one wants to argue about or deal with Miscolczi’s equations on CO2. He certainly makes a convincing mathematical case.
Yes, I think this calls into question the entire science of GHGs. Just because most alarmist and skeptical scientists accept the current theory doesn’t make it right. Miskolczi takes the theory one step further and deals directly with changes in the various GHG portions. It doesn’t dispute the physics of GHGs but looks into it in more detail (kind of like Einstein vs. Newton).
And then, nature itself seems to support Miskolczi’s theory. By utilizing less water at higher CO2 levels it seems to be telling us we can expect H2O water vapor to decrease. That is precisely what Miskolczi’s theory predicts.
Has anyone read Nick Stoke’s supposed refutation of this theory over on RC? Essentially, he says he doesn’t understand the theory but it must be wrong. Yup, one hell of a refutation.

February 21, 2010 8:27 am

climategate on finnish television 1/3

climategate on finnish television 2/3

climategate on finnish television 3/3

February 21, 2010 8:32 am

Ah, a “Share on Facebook” icon. I’ve been waiting for that.

February 21, 2010 8:45 am

You are in real danger, american friends… you should seek to really punish those liars who just want to make profit out of you and, worse, to take away from you what makes you an example among nations :Liberty.
You shouldn´t tolerate one more day the existence of such a source of conspiracy against you which is the UN at New York.
Good luck in this battle!

R. de Haan
February 21, 2010 9:08 am

” R. Gates (22:05:02) :
Actually a very well done and interesting presentation…however, February is now following January 2010 as a very warm month as we’re seeing temps near the surface not usually seen until the beginning of April. These are global tropospheric temps, averaged over land and sea. Without some rapid cooling in the next 8 days, February will become the warmest on instrument record, after the warmest January. See:
If there is an Ice Age in our future, is sure has a strange way of showing itself with all this tropospheric heat…”
Accu Weather’s Joe Bastardi has an interesting article on the current high temperature and tells us what the future will bring:
It’s going to be colder.

P Gosselin
February 21, 2010 9:41 am

That was a good Special…I love those M4GW!

February 21, 2010 9:43 am

Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the basic concept of the greenhouse effect is understood. But, forcing and feedbacks and the exact impact of CO2 in creating low clouds is not well understood. There is much debate among scientists on both side os the AGW issue. I oversimplified. Critical comments are taken to heart. I will keep trying to do better.
Wait till I post Anthony and John Christy’s full inerviews. A week of so from now they will be on the net.

February 21, 2010 9:45 am

Richard Telford (07:40:50) :
Coleman needs help. He pours scorn on the IPCC for a couple of minor mistakes in three volumes, then makes numerous mistakes in one short programme.
Oh, did he not mention that the ipcc Climate Science is not real Science? If not, then I’d have to agree with you, Richard. – I haven’t seen the programs yet.

Steve J
February 21, 2010 9:57 am


February 21, 2010 10:22 am

Coleman needs help. He pours scorn on the IPCC for a couple of minor mistakes in three volumes, then makes numerous mistakes in one short programme>>
What mistakes? A decimal point was slipped on CO2 concentrations that, if corrected, makes the point even stronger. Yes the CO2/water vapor thing was way over simplified, but the point was that over simplified or not, the data doesn’t support the theory. This was a video report for the public, not a lecture for a 4th year engineering class.
And I have yet to see a proper explanation of CO2 as a GHG that didn’t devolve into a rat hole nest with arguments about absorption spectrum or conductance vs radiance, or stefan’s law, or toa vs near surface or so on. Keep it as accurate as possible within a simple framework… and then show if it fits the data. I’m good with that.

A C Osborn
February 21, 2010 10:33 am

Daniel (08:27:51) :
That is great post, the Finns don’t hold back at all do they?

February 21, 2010 10:35 am

John Coleman (09:43:38) :
I oversimplified. Critical comments are taken to heart. I will keep trying to do better.
With that attitude I know you will. Way to go. You are a good communicator and your efforts are invaluable. If only the IPCC had the same humility.
Now it is my turn to be humble, here is another greenhouse effect link, this is over my head to judge. Is he on to something here?

A C Osborn
February 21, 2010 10:40 am

R. Gates (22:05:02) :
Re the UAH data, I know Dr. Spencer is a very respected scientist on the Site, but the fact that the Satellite data goes completely against what the Northern Hemisphere has experienced over the last 2 months, I have to wonder if it is not just a bit tainted with the NASA syndrom.
I have read & reread his description of how the data is analysed and there is so much room for problems it could be just as bad as Land Temperatures.
I am especially suspicious of how it copes with all the Cloud Cover that there has been in the NH recently.

February 21, 2010 10:43 am

The bigest problem for IPCC and CRU is that not Finnish nor Swedeish (which I am from ) nor Russian data shows any GW!!! And they don’t have any answer why. Karlén Wibjörn who is Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography at Uppsala says:
“I tried for years to obtain the data that the IPCC was based on a claim that the climate in the Nordic region has become warmer, “says Karlén Wibjörn who is Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography at Uppsala. This did not with my own calculations show that the Nordic countries have not undergone any unusual warming, but both Philip Jones and Kevin Trenberth simply refuses to hand over the data.” (Google translation)

A C Osborn
February 21, 2010 10:46 am

dkkraft (10:35:58) :
Good find.

February 21, 2010 10:47 am

Richard Telford (07:40:50) :
UAH reporting is in trouble if all it can add to the sum knowledge of climate is the “Warmest Jan. on Record” when a wide majority of N. Hemisphere suffered through a record snowy winter.
People do not want to hear that the oven caused ice to form all over the kitchen, or that the wall heater froze the bathroom solid. In this age of connectivity, they know what went on this winter all over the place, from people just like them, on the ground where the winter pedal meet the metal.
AGW (Magic Pixie Dust Theory) is not cutting the mustard.
All Leanord Nimoy has to do, at this point, is to roll out a retread of “In Search of the Coming Ice Age” and that’s a wrap for the discussion.

Jerry from Boston
February 21, 2010 11:02 am

A complaint – Anthony Watts has inventoried 87% of the 1,221 U.S. stations which he has said is one subset of about 3,000 stations used for world-wide land temperature records. Coleman and guests talk about a reduction in stations from 6000 down to 1500 stations for the land temperature record. So I would think the 1500 stations referenced as being left from an original 6,000 stations are those covering the rest of the world. This doesn’t mean that Coleman’s critique isn’t valid. It’s just not leaving an accurate picture of the world-wide land-based temperature record infrastructure.

Jerry from Boston
February 21, 2010 11:05 am

Coleman did a decent job of presenting the overall skeptic case, but he didn’t address at least one issue correctly, IMHO:
Anthony Watts’ investigation is of the 1,223 stations in the U.S. of about 3,000 stations used world-wide for the world land-based temperature monitoring. So I don’t understand where Coleman gets his “we went from 6000 stations to 1500 stations” statement, which some of his guests seem to accept as valid unless he’s talking about the out-of-U.S. station drop-out after 1989.

February 21, 2010 11:07 am

Much better than the first documentary done by KUSI on this subject.
Unfortunately, a couple of seconds could have been devoted to the differences made by the changeover from standard formulation whitewash to semigloss latex paint upon National Weather Service surface stations’ Stevenson screens in 1979.
I find myself having to explain the impact of this simple and (to most folks) straightforward-seeming change in terms of warming bias, and it would have been good for the KUSI audience to have understood that something as un-obvious could have made a significant impact in skewing the surface station temperature record.
I strongly recommend Dr. Jefferey D. Kooistra’s “The Alternate View” column in the November 2009 edition of Analog magazine, “Lessons From the Lab” for a cogent and brief appreciation of Mr. Watts’ surface station paint study.

Pamela Gray
February 21, 2010 11:20 am

Why does my computer pause the tapes every 10 seconds of play? It is very irritating. Why won’t it just download the entire tape segment and play it all the way through?

February 21, 2010 11:34 am

I think i understood it now.
While Gerlich and Tscheuschner as well as William C. Gilbert dismiss the natural (and anthropogenically enhanced) greenhouse effect altogether, arguing with the laws of Thermodynamics, there should still be a measurable effect due to the fact that water vapour and CO2 actually absorb LWIR radiation, causing increased radiation towards the surface. How can these two seemingly contradictory statements be united?
The solution lies in the word “equilibrium”. An equilibrium in a vast system like the earth’s atmosphere needs time to be achieved. Here, the statistical analysis by Beenstock and Reingewertz fits in perfectly; saying that the temperature anomaly may not be caused by the absolute level of CO2 but by the first derivative.
So an increase in CO2 leads to a temporary upswing in temperature that levels off again as the system readjusts (cools through increased convection). A decrease in CO2 leads accordingly to a temporary downswing in temperature.
This can also be interpreted as the negative feedback posited by Miskolczi’s theory.
As our CO2 emissions rise pretty much linearly ATM (not exponentially as assumed by the IPCC) this leads to a roughly constant positive anomaly for the time being.

Jerry from Boston
February 21, 2010 11:35 am

A little more nit-picking:
– Coleman’s statement that the Himalyas covered one tenth of the world’s land area (as some posters here have picked up on) and Moore’s CO2 concentrations quotes should have been fact-checked prior to the show. Sloppy. The AGW’ers will be all over those faux pas to diss the show at the expense of the other valid points. I also think Coleman may have been using camera teleprompters with text that wasn’t reviewed prior to broadcasting. Even Obama’s having trouble getting away with that these days, and he’s paying a price for it. We can’t afford that in this battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate.
– Watts (and Coleman) lost a good opportunity to slam NASA. Yes, their new USCRN network of stations is excellent in positioning as Watts said in the interview and in his prior blog posts (check out the NASA website – excellent distribution nationally and good positioning locally IMHO). And it’s true those new stations have only been around for a couple (2-3 years) and they have produced results comparable to other neighboring old-school stations (though I don’t know if NASA was comparing the recent results from those stations to local rural stations or to highly urbanized stations). But Watts should have pointed out that a major issue is historic adjustments to the station record that may have depressed earlier temperature records to produce an artificial warming bias to the historical record.
– One interviewed AGW’er said that more modern stations actually reflected a warmer condition than from earlier system installations. Lame. If the older installations underestimated temperature, then they did it across the last decades and historical temperatures should be adjusted upwards throughout the historical record and then compared to the latest technological records. It’s the trend in temperatures that’s important here.
REPLY: As I pointed out, my presentation was edited. The full presentation will be online soon with points you raise. While I would have liked to review the entire program prior, I didn’t have that opportunity. -A

Jim Clarke
February 21, 2010 11:49 am

Richard Telford and fearofscience have both been critical of John Coleman’s program for doing a little bit of what the IPCC has been doing for nearly two decades. So what does John Coleman do? He apologizes and says he will try to do better.
What does the IPCC do? Circles the wagons and gives you more cherry-picking science, half truths and obfuscations. Every uncertainty is portrayed as a likely enhancing event, such as: We don’t really understand this. It could be bad, or it could be a lot worse than bad!” It could also be A good factor, but they NEVER include that one.
Compared to the IPCC, Coleman’s sins are minuscule. Why do some people feel compelled to hold a TV meteorologist to a much higher standard of scientific integrity than the IPCC. That seems really irrational and dangerous, as Coleman has much less ability to mess up our lives than IPCC!

Jerry from Boston
February 21, 2010 11:52 am

Tucci (111:07:02)
Thank you for your post and web connection. I had initially followed Anthony on his Stevenson Screen investigation and then on his subsequent site investigations, but I didn’t realize that that he had experienced that “Road to Damascus” moment in Chico. Getting blown on by hot exhaust from an HVAC system at a temperature station must have freaked him out on the validity of the station and the whole temperature recording system, as it should anybody.
What a mental visual!

February 21, 2010 11:53 am

“Pamela Gray (11:20:45) : ”
First time you’re using Flash, Pamela? Just hit play, hit it again to pause it, go make yourself an espresso, come back and the buffer is fully loaded. It just needs a little while to fill it up.

Jerry from Boston
February 21, 2010 12:20 pm

Thanks for responding to my post. I realize that Coleman was trying to jam a lot of points into a set time frame and had to cut out some material. Shoulda been a two hour program! I look forward to your thread.

February 21, 2010 12:55 pm

Hammiesink (08:01:37) :
In part 8 during his interview with Christy, Coleman says that NASA has reported 2000-2009 as the warmest decade on earth.
This is a strawman.
The news release says that this decade was the warmest since record keeping began in 1880.
Since NASA and Michael Mann have been in cahoots, and NASA has implicitly, through Gavin et al. at RC, endorsed Mann’s hockey stick, which suppressed the Medieval Warm Period, NASA has essentially been going along with the whole fairytale that global warming is out of control due to human activity. That argument relies on past temperatures being no warmer than today, using various temperature proxies that have virtually eliminated the Medieval and Roman warm periods. These periods are not allowed by the warmists to have been any warmer than today (despite historical and archaeobotanical evidence to the contrary). Hence, this is the warmest decade ever — at least in human history. Given the general tone of AGW arguments, Coleman’s statement is not so much a straw man as it is a response to the tenor of the AGW scare.

David Alan Evans
February 21, 2010 12:58 pm

Jerry from Boston (11:05:45) :
The 1223 sites may be used in the USHCN but only a sub-set in GHCN

el buggo
February 21, 2010 4:15 pm

Playlist, part 1 to 9:

February 21, 2010 5:25 pm

The atmosphere is socialist in nature
It is not a free market, the GHGs don’t get to keep the heat they have absorbed, they are immediately taxed back into heat poverty via collisions with the majority of the GHG unemployed atmosphere.
The atmosphere is not a simple absorb then re-emit IR proposition (# 1 in = 1 out)
What is absorbed is governed by the availability of incoming IR
What is emitted is governed by Temperature
Increased emissions can only be funded by increased temperature.
From all sources (Convection, IR, Solar).

layne Blanchard
February 21, 2010 6:51 pm

Anthony, you’re a very good presenter. You were very clear and well spoken. Great job.

Brent Crowder
February 21, 2010 9:21 pm

Response to: rbateman (03:45:14) :
Your question (with .039% atmospheric CO2 and 50% Relative humidity (R.H.), what is the CO2/H20 ratio?) is easy to answer, but first, one needs a temperature before relative humidity can be used to determine the air’s water vapor content, so I’ll assume 70 degrees for which the vapor pressure is 0.0363 psia. Oh yeah, we need atmospheric pressure too, so let’s assume sea level and 14.696 psia.
From this and the ideal gas law, we have Pv/Pt = Nv/Nt= .0247
Where P=pressure, N=moles, v=vapor, and t=total
Thus water vapor occupies 2.47 percent by volume of the atmosphere.
.039/2.47 = .0158
In other words there are about 63 molecules of water vapor for every molecule of CO2 at 70 degrees F, at sea level with 50 % R.H.
So let’s see, if my memory serves me correctly. Miskolczi is right, and we double CO2, which Blick/Segalstad ( )
say we can’t, then we go from 63 moles water vapor to only 62 moles water vapor to account for 2 moles of CO2, so that extra CO2 might cause R.H. to drop from 50% to about 49.2%.

February 22, 2010 1:34 am

If there is an Ice Age in our future, is sure has a strange way of showing itself with all this tropospheric heat…
Nup, not strange at all. A temperature increase has been the precursor of every Ice Age Mama Gaia has experienced in the past umpty-hundred-thousand years…

February 22, 2010 10:22 am

Someone needs to send a link to Coleman’s report to the editorial writers of the Washington Post.
Even though the editorial writers urge scientists to have greater respect for uncertainty, they seem pretty categorical in their warmist assertions.
Todays’ WAPO editorial:
Climate insurance
Monday, February 22, 2010
THE EARTH is warming. A chief cause is the increase in greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere. Humans are at least in part responsible, because the oil, gas and coal that we burn releases these gases. If current trends persist, it’s likely that in coming decades the globe’s climate will change with potentially devastating effects for billions of people.

Brent Crowder
February 24, 2010 12:10 am

John Coleman,
Wouldn’t a three way interview with Drs. Henrick Svensmark, Roy Spencer, and Ferenc Miskolczi be interesting?

%d bloggers like this: