John Coleman on the state of global warming

Guest post by John Coleman

There is a story I heard that I keep thinking about. It really underlines the problem I have in trying to counter the bad science behind the global warming scare predictions. So here is the story:

A group of over 200 environmentalists were in an auditorium listening to a symposium about climate change, i.e. global warming or climate disruption. One of the speakers asked, “If I could instantly produce a genie with a magic wand to stand here before you today. And if, that genie could wave his magic wand and voila….carbon dioxide would no longer be a greenhouse gas that produced uncontrollable global warming….How many in this room would be happy, satisfied and pleased?” Two people out of two hundred hesitatingly raised their hands. Of the others, some smirked, some laughed and some yelled out, “No, no. Hell no.”

I cannot testify that this event actually occurred. But, I heard it as though it was a truthful report. In any case it haunts me because it demonstrates what I perceive to be something akin to the actual state of affairs in our efforts to quiet the Algorian scare predictions about the consequences of global warming. There are large segments of the population that believe the global warming pronouncements. They have heard them over and over again from people they trust and respect, in school, on television, in the news and in their communities.

They have become “believers”, not unlike those who believe in a set of religious beliefs. All good Democrats believe in global warming, after all, it is the science of one of their key heroes, former Vice President and Senator Al Gore. And all good environmentalists are aboard the global warming band wagon. And, for all of them, the Agenda is what is important. Their Agenda is to eliminate fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine from our civilization. The carbon dioxide, CO2, thing is simply the means to the end. And if the means is not true; who cares. It is only the Agenda that is important. To all of these people, my effort to debunk the CO2 greenhouse gas science is irrelevant.

When I present my scientific arguments in a speech, their common reaction, “so what” and they ask me, even if you are right, isn’t the change to clean energy still the best move for our society? When I make my argument in response, that I also favor alternate energy, but that it will be thirty to fifty years before it can replace fossil fuels as the primary source of power for our civilization and that alternate energy in its current state of development is not economically viable, they doubt my facts. They have heard the hype and bought the dream without stopping to absorb the reality.

Next, when they realize they have not persuaded me to join their point of view, they challenge me with “And, what if it turns out that you are wrong and Al Gore is right? Your argument could cost us everything as climate change makes the Earth unlivable. So let’s just eliminate the greenhouse gases as insurance.” I argue back that the insurance will financially destroy us, wreck our way of life and that because I am right about the science, the move to alternate energy will not make an iota difference in our climate.

At this point, they dismiss me a stupid, old heretic.

My only option is to keep trying. That is why I make the new videos like the one posted on February 22nd. But, I am frustrated and not optimistic about penetrating our scientific institutions and organizations that are in the control of their well paid scientists and persuading them to reconsider the role of carbon dioxide and accept climate reality. What are the odds they will “see the light” and abandon their richly rewarding global warming positions? Nil, I fear.

It appears, as of now, victory, if it were to come, would be on a political level, not a scientific one. Just as “the climate according to Al Gore” has become the Democrat Party mantra, “global warming is not real” has become the rally call of the Republican Party. As a Journalist (I am a member of the television news team at KUSI-TV) I try hard to avoid taking political positions. For instance, I pass on invitations to speak at political events even when handsome stipends are offered.

So I keep focused on the bad science behind global warming. If my team (There are over 31,000 scientists on my team) can make headway in correcting the science, then I will be happy to let the politics, environmentalism and alternate energy movement fight the policy battles without me.

John Coleman

=================================================================

Watch John’s video that accompanies this essay here at his web site

From comments, here is the link to the story about the group of 200 environmentalists that showed such a poor show of hands:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Marshall

Keep up the real science it will become what is taught in schools eventually. Especially when these alarmists find that their Prius’ stop working because the wind is not blowing.

MalcolmR

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

MalcolmR

Ooops – sorry, on re-reading I see that it was John Coleman who made those comments, not Anthony. Humble apologies…

H.R.

a) warmer is better than colder
b) the science is not settled
c) as noted above, CAGW has become a religion to many
d) you rock, Mr. Coleman!

amicus curiae

same thing occurred to me, you could present any solid evidence in front of the agw crowd and they would insist alegorical was right anyway.
we see it happen every day. ;-(
too much money and power that stands to make more money and power from it.

John B

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

Ian H

“The roll of CO_2”
… bowling balls made out of dry ice?

Richard111

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

Erik

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

rxc

The environmental movement is all about inducing guilt in people, in order to get them to behave the way that environmentalists want them to behave. And one of those behaviors includes having fewer children, in order to reduct the population on the planet, because they haven’t gotten over the Malthusian predictions of people like Paul Erlich. They are determined to make life on this planet as miserable as possible for humans, in order to return it to a pre-homo sapiens condition. It is the Garden of Eden fable, all over again.
They cherry pick data, take quotes out of context, mis-use analytical methods, spin results, and just plain lie to make their points.

John Brookes

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

Frank K.

Excellent essay Mr. Coleman. Like you, I realized a while back that “global warming” (or whatever they wish to call it today) has morphed from a branch of meteorology to a purely political campaign by the world’s “greens”. It has also been corrupted by huge sums of government money (hence the near daily barrage of inane climate science press releases) to the point that we are now willing to spend millions of dollars (in “stimulus” funds) on new computers for climate scientists while citizens go jobless and hungry.
Meanwhile, I’m shoveling 10″ of new snow and the earth’s “global average temperature” (according to satellite data) is no different today than it was thirty years ago…

observa

You are spot on John but it’s not just the hard left greens we need to concern ourselves about, it’s the mainstream that were all too ready to accept a theory increasingly falling apart on true scientific grounds. Normally a new kid on the block theory like AGW would have to do an awful lot of legwork to gain mainstream acceptance but with this one the mainstream believed because they wanted to believe. They took to it like a duck to water.
That psyche waiting to be tapped goes right back to 1969, that Apollo moon mission and the birthplace of the Spaceship Earth paradigm as a young, formative, graduazzi generation would see their Earth from out of that porthole and subsequently understand it more and more as a spaceship as those satellites began to map its every move and change. Scientists brought that to them more and more in their loungerooms and increasingly these scientists had to compete with professional media for airspace. It was inevitable that they’d want to sex/jazz it up to compete a la the David Suzukis as the groundbreakers like the David Bellamys fell by the wayside. In the end who needs dull scientists presenting anyway and welcome aboard the Al Gores.
But it needed more than that and in the left it found a ready army of disciples to spread the word. The very left that were in complete despair after the fall of the Berlin Wall and who had been licking their wounds and sulking in the wings for some time, along with their defunct message. In AGW they would see a light at the end of the tunnel and would come roaring back into favour by riding the Apocalypse. Here at last was their gotcha moment in their long struggle against evil capitalists. The very same capitalists and their dark satanic mills that are going to kill all the kiddies unless thinking, feeling parents everywhere let them run the show.
They’ve got a point and those of us who still believe in individual freedom, entrepreneurship and level playing field markets need to clearly understand that. Sure they’ve burned up a lot of political and real capital with their lunar policy responses to date, but they still ride the sexier environmental compassion horse while the conservative/market side of politics is stuck on the drab old accountancy nag. We all need to comprehend that and understand that until we address the real underlying environmental questions with the only real answers of the level playing field free marketplace, they will hold the reins of power more often than not.

Stuck-Record

The story is from BBC Radio 4, 2 part environment special last year. The lady who recounted the story was an environmentalist who was horrified by the answer. I’m not sure whether it was the program Roger Harribin made that pretended to be a ‘mea culpa’ about climate science.
Does anyone have a recording?
I wish I had taped it at the time, but didn’t.

Bomber_the_Cat

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

I always tell that story with the link…
Here you go…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.
ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were
shocked, weren’t you?

hth

Jack Savage

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

Ron Cram

It is possible to have a scientific victory. The contributing authors and even the lead authors of TAR and AR4 did not have a great deal of power in the editorial process and the reviewers had none. In every team of lead authors there were always a few alarmist types who could put the most dangerous spin on any controversial point of science. Other lead authors, like John Christy or Richard Lindzen, were merely overruled when the final decision went to the Coordinating Lead Authors. Same thing in the review process. I don’t think Steve McIntyre’s reviews comments were ever adopted, although every comment was well-supported. The number of people who were actually responsible for the alarmist nature of TAR and AR4 is rather small.
This is why I proposed an alternative to the IPCC assessment process. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-modest-proposal-in-lieu-of-disbanding-the-ipcc/

richard verney

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

Eric

Very well said sir. I’ve read surveys of “believers” in various things. Generally the results were 60-75% will change their minds if confronted with irrefutable evidence. The others will not. I hope you continue and don’t give up for the sake of the +60%. You do a good job on TV here as well.

red432

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

Mike

“…I am right about the science,…” – John Coleman, non-skeptic
Another post by a non-skeptic? It is very open minded of Anthony to post dogmatic rants complete with apocryphal anecdotes (let’s not use the L-word) on an his “skeptics” blog.

William Gray

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

jhborn

Since Mr. Coleman is intending only to paint the scene with a broad brush, he can be forgiven for not being overly meticulous. Even at the broad-brush level , though, it’s considerably wide of the mark to characterize the Republican position (if, in light of a comparison of, say, Lindsay Graham with Jim Inhofe, one can be said to exist) as “Global warming is not real.”
I wish Mr. Coleman well. But I urge him to exercise more care in crafting his remarks.

Scott

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

Steve in SC

You are wrong about the agenda John.
The agenda is to simply make the country and the world a socialist paradise with the radical greenies in charge. CO2 is merely a means to that end. The argument has always been political. They are aided by unscrupulous grant seeking individuals seeking to enrich themselves with massive grants for supposed research and adulation from the unwashed masses.
At the very core you are dealing with those who are honest and those who are not.
I would submit that your story of the conference whether true or not is a clear indication of who is seeking to profit unfairly from their fellow men.

Keep up the great work Mr. Coleman !!

Jack Maloney

Perhaps new labels: Climate realists vs. RealClimatists?

Gary

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

Too Cold

John,
You might right about the victory taking place at the political level. And the science must continue against the lack of science.
Here’s one reason why.
I believe the victory could be generational not just political. The majority of liberals aren’t too keen on having children. Conservatives feel the opposite. The disparity of family size cannot be ignored. If the science of today can win the battle, the next generation will win the war.
15 degrees here in Western Oregon today [long exhale]

BarryW

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

Paul R

Divide and conquer, divide and rule. Democrat or Republican, labor or Liberal. Believer or Denier , left or right.
We’ve been played beautifully as usual because the actual agenda is promoted regardless once the split is created.
We might need to start voting like Egyptians, with a clean slate.

Paul

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

henry@richardverney
What if vertone made a mistake about the CO2? What if there is such a thing as AGC? Global cooling caused by more CO2?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/#comment-607995

Charles Nelson

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

Jimbo

“Their Agenda is to eliminate fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine from our civilization. The carbon dioxide, CO2, thing is simply the means to the end. And if the means is not true; who cares. It is only the Agenda that is important. To all of these people, my effort to debunk the CO2 greenhouse gas science is irrelevant.”

Exactly good sir! Many environmentalists are closet sceptics but who see Co2 as the magic bullet. Drastically lowering co2 means using much less in the way of fossil fuels, the very poorest in the third world will die and not consume the world’s resources, prices of energy will skyrocket killing many old people in the Western world and so on.

“I also favor alternate energy, but that it will be thirty to fifty years before it can replace fossil fuels as the primary source of power for our civilization and that alternate energy in its current state of development is not economically viable, they doubt my facts. “

Read about the solar powered classroom in North London that FAILED.

pascvaks

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

Don R

Frank K
I am in amiable discourse with a physicist friend regarding AGW and could make use of the authoritative source that states that the earth’s average global temperature is the same as it was thirty years ago, according to satellite data.
Thanks

Gary from Chicagoland

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

All good Democrats believe in global warming, after all, it is the science of one of their key heroes, former Vice President and Senator Al Gore.

Anthony
This is one of the annoyances of this blog, where posters make unqualified sweeping statements about particular political positions. I do know plenty of self-described Democrats who can’t abide Al Gore and believe AGW to be wildly overstated or just false. I know plenty of Republicans who can’t abide Sarah Palin and who buy into at least some AGW claims.
REPLY: If I deleted every comment somebody objected to, we’d have none, while I share your disagreement over this statement as being stereotypically wrong, it is within blog policy- Anthony

Michael A.

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

Theo Goodwin

Well said, Mr. Coleman. Now you know how difficult life is for any conservative or Republican politician in this country. Show your face and the MSM will do their very best to destroy you, your family, and the horse you rode into town. This fact is so widely known that it has entered American folklore. Ask the ordinary person an ordinary question about the next presidential election and they will tell you that the question will not be addressed because the MSM will put all their support behind democrats and direct their fury at Republicans. Yes, even the democrats will tell you this.
Republican politicians need a permanent “war room” of the style created by James Carville for Bill Clinton. It needs to be up 24/7, richly financed, employing attractive and highly competent professionals from the right. Jennifer Rubin would be a good example. The purpose of the war room is to engage in rational criticism of the MSM.
There will be no free speech about political issues on a national level in this country until Republicans invest the money to counter the Left’s control of the MSM. In referring to “free speech,” I mean simply an arena in which candid participants are free to articulate positions without threat of a “Palin is crazy” campaign against them.
Finally, I am really tired of the US government indoctrinating my children in the religion of global warming and all other fashionable “isms” of the day.

ShrNfr

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

ShrNfr

And the Liberal party in Australia will use the “carbon tax” as a wealth transfer mechanism: Australia’s Carbon Tax

Spen

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

Charles Nelson

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

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

Tom Bauch

Perhaps the Democrat/Republican argument is a bit too broad, but if you evaluate the opponents/proponents in the US governing bodies in the arena of AGW, it is clear that the loudest pro-AGW voices are Democratic and the loudest anti-AGW voices are Republican. Am always leery (or try to be, anyway) of generalizations, but have found that ‘in general’ conservatives tend to be skeptics, while liberal/progressives tend to be warmists. In any case, very few of the lib/prog folks I debate the issue with really have done their homework, so the ‘authority’ argument is invariably their hole card. Hopefully the gradual increase in scientific information from the Judith Curry’s of the world, and the visibility of the Coleman’s of the world will bring the debate back into a true debate. Am actually open to the argument that CO2 is a contributing factor to our climate, just have not seen any actual EVIDENCE that it is a factor I need to worry about. On the contrary, the evidence seems to support an increase in CO2 is good for the planet, not bad.

Anti-Che

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