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
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.
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 !!
Perhaps new labels: Climate realists vs. RealClimatists?
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.
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]
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Read about the solar powered classroom in North London that FAILED.
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?
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
And the Liberal party in Australia will use the “carbon tax” as a wealth transfer mechanism: Australia’s Carbon Tax
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.
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.
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.
“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.