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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good article; although I think you mean ‘alternative’, not ‘alternate’. Other ‘bloopers’ noted by others earlier. I usually try to ignore them, but didn’t succeed this time I’m afraid!
I hate the idea that the gravy train scientists will eventually morph into something else- Ehrlich and Schneider switched from imminent ice age to AGW and became heroes in both camps (Ehrlich will even be able to switch back again and say I told you so in the 1970s. I think we should create a “prize” to honour these guys – give out one for each of several categories each year and give a little bio with summaries of their stuff – a bit like the “Darwin Awards”.
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Darwin%20Award&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
John,
a very true analysis, sadly (and I have not even watched your video yet, but I will do)
‘Solving’ the CO2/warming issue won’t help; the next crisis is already waiting in the wings with some wanting to put badge on everything with how much water it takes to produce it.
In the meantime even if we should reduce CO2 it is such a pointless exercise. I have put up a guest post on this very issue a few days ago:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-futility-of-trying-to-limit-co2-emissions/
I too am socially liberal (damn the ban against stem cell research, damn the effort to make abortion illegal and uninsurable, damn the Marriage Act and all that), but fiscally conservative. For some, that is difficult to imagine.
In my mind, liberals are of two “ends of the continuum” kinds; democrat-ish libertarian independent on one end, and hippy dippy nanny statish on the other end. Conservatives are of two “ends of the continuum” kinds; republican-ish libertarian independent on one end, and socially religiously nanny statish on the other end.
What warps peoples minds is when a person has a foot on both continuums. I hold beliefs and convictions from the libertarian-independent end of both continuums and am sometimes called a fence sitter. But trust me, I ain’t no fence sitter. It’s just that the two party system does not work for me. No party truly represents me. Which means that stereotypical political statements kinda rile me.
John Brookes said:
February 26, 2011 at 5:05 am
“Picture the frogs sitting in the pot on the stove.”
Your frog in the boiling pot metaphor is more fluff and can be easily answered with another metaphoric story.
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was a small beautiful pond, in a glade, by the forest. In this pond lived 10 happy, frolicking frogs.
One particular cold morning, one vocal frog noticed a mist rising from the surface of the pond. He immediately shouted “Wake up! Wake up! You sleepy frogs. The pond is beginning to boil!”
All the other frogs rubbed their eyes in amazement, for indeed, there was steam rising from the pond. Quickly they held a meeting and came to a consensus. Yes! The pond was indeed beginning to boil.
Emergency plans for pond evacuation were quickly implemented, and the frogs left the pond. 9 of the frogs were gobbled up by snakes and birds. The last frog managed to escape the ravenous predators, but was caught in the opening, by the noon sun, which dried him to a pretzel.
And the flies, lived happily ever after. GK
The skeptical community should consider adopting the term “Sustainable Energy” as it solution to AGW, as an alternative to “Green Energy”
The term “Sustainable” energy is politically very powerful because it implies both green energy and affordable energy, for the long term. It is difficult to see how anyone can argue against it, and it provides a means to unite people from both sides of the argument.
Dr McKitrick made two very powerful points in his report:
1) The satellite records is the most accurate records and it is trending below the best case IPCC projections. Things are not as bad as forecast, showing that there is time to implement alternative policies.
2) That if the projections are correct, that a shift to “green energy” will save money and create jobs, why does it require a large UN regulatory structure with carbon taxes, credits and penalties. Wouldn’t companies make the switch to improve their bottom line without regulation if the policies were economical?
Given that there is time, and companies will switch if it is economical, would in not make more sense for the skeptical community so adopt “Sustainable Energy” as a more reasoned solution to “Green Energy”? The point being that people need ” Sustainable Energy” to survive and prosper.
“Green Energy” is not a solution if it is not economically sustainable. If it was economically sustainable, why does it require such a large degree of UN regulation, taxes and penalties?
Just chatting to a few environmentist I get the same impression — they seem to want it to be true.
In which case I wish they would just come out and state clearly what they really want, instead of treating us all like sheep who are supposed to be herded using myths.
Paul:
‘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.’
It is a funny situation these days.The poachers have turned into gamekeepers.
Taking a few tips off them as to how to undermine ‘the establishment’ would be good.
And unlike their rise to the top,the majority of people would actually like what you are saying.
In theory it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
To Don R @6:23 am:
I suggest you go to http://www.drroyspencer.com/ and read about the current global temperature anomaly (-0.01 °C)
I’m increasingly disturbed by the “collective think” in which otherwise intelligent people on this blog are engaging. The “Warmistas” consist of a vast number of constituencies, it is not a monolithic bloc. There are honest scientists like Dr. Currey, who are beginning to doubt, there are commercial groups who have a vested interest in their investments, there are politicians looking for power, there are the professional misanthropes – yearning for a non-existant “Golden Past”, other vested groups, and yes, oh yes, there are the young and old Lemmings. Continuing to use collectivist terms will hinder our ability to target the reachable. Crony Capitalists are mostly unreachable – forget about educating GE. Many investors are reachable, and need to have serious effort put into making sure they understand the fraud that is being perpetrated – they don’t invest “Other Peoples Money”, they invest their own, and understanding that long term, natural gas, atomics, and oil are viable, they are reachable. Wall Street invests OPM, and they don’t care about long term, they want traders anyway. Midsized O&G companies are reachable, the Super Majors aren’t until we reach a general understanding that they aren’t cows to be milked. This is not to say that the average employee of a Super Major believes in CAGW, they generally don’t Upstream (Exploration & Production), Downstream they are just like Joe Average, some do, some don’t.
Those of us who can do public speaking should work that and bring a clearer message. Anyone can give books to friends and relatives – we’ve got a great selection here on WUWT. Let’s be gracious, smile, and leave the listeners with just three points – more confuse. What three points, depends on the response of the listener within your dialog – and it must be a dialog, not a sermon.
We can win this, we will win this.
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”.
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. ”
Not that he had to. Average LWIR back radiation is 300 W/m^2 – note the “average”. A doubling in CO2 will increase that by about 3.7 W/m^2. What happens on a day with very low specific humidity? Well, much less back radiation, as there is less water vaport. What happens on a very cold day? Remember, 300 W/m ^2 corresponds to the blackbody radiation of an object about 23 deg F warm or -5 deg C. So on a very cold day, when the surface is, say, at this very temperature, there can only be 300 W / m ^2 UPWELLING LWIR, and after absorption and re-emission, at most half of it can come back as downwelling LWIR back radiation. So in that case the backradiation drops far below the 300 W/m^2. I would be tempted to call it a positive feedback towards cooling… runaway cooling, if you will. Much more dangerous than runaway warming. And i didn’t even have to talk about cooling by convection by now…
Are you still worried about your less than 1 % increase in downwelling LWIR (on average – remember we didn’t see a doubling of CO2 by now, only 40%, so we’re having only about 1.5 W/m^2 increase by now, on average)?
When Trenberth says events like the Russian heatwave or the Pakistan floods would not have happened without this sub-1% increase in downwelling LWIR, the first question that arises is, what has he been smoking the past 30 years…
“Climate science” is to climatology as astrology is to astronomy. The reason 99.99% of “climate scientists” believe in man-made climate change is because “climate science” is the supposed science of analyzing man-made climate change. It isn’t climatology or meteorology. It’s an invented “science” that starts with a premise (man-made climate change is real), then presents “evidence” to support this premise. Climatology and meteorology are observational, empirical sciences; “climate science” is a belief system anyone can claim to “practice.”
That “climate scientists” have been able to trick the public, and especially the media, into confusing them with climatologists and meteorologists says a lot about the power of money and dubious academic credentials, and especially about the stupidity of many, many journalists. The average “climate scientist” knows less about climatology or meteorology than the average grade school teacher knows about advanced maths. Learning a smattering of this and that does not a scientist make.
John Coleman probably knows more about actual climate AND weather than 99.99% of “climate scientists.” However, his left/right division of believers vs. non-believers isn’t entirely accurate, and certainly not in other countries. Here, we can blame the craven self-interests of the Republican Party for pretending to carry the banner of skepticism, and the craven self-interests of the Democratic Party for pretending to carry the banner of reason , both both parties are utterly dishonest. Unfortunately, those who belong to them can only see fault in the reasoning, and members, of the opposite.
“Climate Realist” vs “Climate Alarmist”
I like these labels! “Realist” has a positive ring to it.
Don R says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:23 am Satellite data ??
Here is Dr. Roy Spencer’s site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
There you can find “Latest Global Temp. Anomaly … ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
This shows the 1979 beginning as cooler, 1980 at about zero, and the January 2011 value at -0.01 C.
The same chart and discussion is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative/
And the next day there was this report about the other (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) regularly reported data set.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/rss-global-temp-drops-version-change-adjusts-cooler-post-1998/
Michael A. says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:28 am
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.
Either that or he forgot the /sarc at the end of his post. The frogs in a boiling pot analogy is so simplistic and so non applicable to the earth’s atmosphere – it’s almost as ridiculous as the more popular greenhouse version.
While Coleman’s characterization of the debate in terms of political identity is perhaps uncomfortable, it is nonetheless factual.
Having spent a good deal of adult life outside the US (I lived for 20 years in Canada and have worked and studied in Russia and Mexico), I was never all that comfortable with the way politics in the US is defined. I therefore consider myself to be neither a democrat or republican.
I like to think of myself as an independent, but that doesn’t mean I don’t pick sides. I think one would have to be blind not to see that the democrats have chosen the AGW side and the republicans (at least for now) the skeptic side of the climate debate.
The problem with both parties and the AGW debate though is that each can cherry pick facts to adequately support their position. In politics one does not need a strong factual position to get support – one only needs to have a plausible set of “facts”.
My own position on AGW is not a political one. I have weighed the science and found the technical foundation for AGW to be flawed. For that reason I cannot support the massive societal disruption that is being promoted as the solution to what I know to be a non-problem.
Five years ago, by which time I had already arrived at my current understanding of the science of AGW, I was truly saddened that both political parties were following the same path toward societal destruction. Sure there were some democrats and republicans who doubted, but the majority of both parties supported the IPCC and were poised to impose some form of taxation to wean the US from CO2 producing hydrocarbons. They only differed in the degree of pain and destruction they were willing to impose.
Now it appears that a majority of republican politicians have reversed themselves on the issue. I welcome the change and will support them so long as they continue.
I still consider myself an independent, but the republicans are the political path currently present in the US that will, at least in the short term, prevent the destruction of our civilization.
Verity Jones says on February 26, 2011 at 7:34 am
John,
a very true analysis, sadly (and I have not even watched your video yet, but I will do)
‘Solving’ the CO2/warming issue won’t help; the next crisis is already waiting in the wings with some wanting to put badge on everything with how much water it takes to produce it.
In the meantime even if we should reduce CO2 it is such a pointless exercise. I have put up a guest post on this very issue a few days ago:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-futility-of-trying-to-limit-co2-emissions/
And in Victoria, Australia, the various water authorities/companies have now switched from telling people to save water to now use water. Why? Because the previous stuck-on-stupid government (leftist, but I repeat myself) spend $5.xB on a desalination plant. Now that their damns are overflowing, the only way to pay for the profligacy and stupidity is to encourage people to use the now abundant water from the heavens.
Verity Jones says on February 26, 2011 at 7:34 am
And in Victoria, Australia, the various water authorities/companies have now switched from telling people to save water to now use water. Why? Because the previous stuck-on-stupid government (leftist, but I repeat myself) spend $5.xB on a desalination plant. Now that their damns are overflowing, the only way to pay for the profligacy and stupidity is to encourage people to use the now abundant water from the heavens.
Alternative Energy (aka Clean or Green Energy) will never replace fossil fuels/nuclear if the economy/infrastructure is destroyed. Instead, civilization will once again be reduced to primitive means such as sails, water wheels and work animals. The population will be reduced in output to that which cannot sustain the technology required to develop and deploy such Alternative Energies.
The Agenda is self-defeating in this regard.
Cold fusion provided experimental confirmation of the anecdote of the Carbon Fairy. As I recall, one environmentalist reacted to the prospect of unlimited, pollution-free energy by saying, approximately, “This is dreadful. Now people will never learn to conserve.”
“Wall-la”? LOL.
Anyone who questions the political aspects of CAGW should visit the Green Agenda website and read the long list of quotations from various leaders of politics and environmentalism. There is another page on the site with exact citations.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
They will be defeated not by rational science, but by the developing Dalton Minimum analog. If you add an analog to the Tambora explosion, a VEI 7, from Katla or a combination from the ‘ring of fire’, then we will see another year without a summer, as an analog to 1816.
@erik:
February 26, 2011 at 4:59 am
The negative reaction to the powers of the “carbon fairy” mentioned by Townsend in that BBC radio program is strictly in accordance with the teachings of Mike Hulme (the second speaker in that program) as evidenced by the following quotes from his book. I’ve always found these quotes amazing coming frm an alarmist, I mean the sheer cynicism (or candor) of it, especially the reversal paraphrase of the Kennedy comment: “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us”
Quotes from Mike Hulme’s book (Why We Disagree About Climate Change)
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2010/02/climate-change-global-socialism-and-global-governance/
…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.
Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world…
The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved…It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.
There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups to latch on to, whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends.
Climate change has moved from being a predominantly physical phenomenon to being a social one…It is circulating anxiously in the worlds of domestic politics and international diplomacy, and with mobilising force in business, law, academia, development, welfare, religion, ethics, art and celebrity.
Climate change also teaches us to rethink what we really want for ourselves…mythical ways of thinking about climate change reflect back to us truths about the human condition…
The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us…Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…climate change has become an idea that now travels well beyond its origins in the natural sciences…climate change takes on new meanings and serves new purposes…climate change has become “the mother of all issues”, the key narrative within which all environmental politics – from global to local – is now framed…Rather than asking “how do we solve climate change?” we need to turn the question around and ask: “how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations…?”
We need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us…we open up a way of resituating culture and the human spirit…As a resource of the imagination, the idea of climate change can be deployed around our geographical, social and virtual worlds in creative ways…it can inspire new artistic creations in visual, written and dramatised media. The idea of climate change can provoke new ethical and theological thinking about our relationship with the future….We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise these stories in support of our projects. Whereas a modernist reading of climate may once have regarded it as merely a physical condition for human action, we must now come to terms with climate change operating simultaneously as an overlying, but more fluid, imaginative condition of human existence. (various sources – see original article, including a Guardian article here)
It seems to this observer that the problem was identified early one and then changed into a political discussion. Not the underlying reality however. AGW for or against and some of the other catch phrases or ideas surrounding climate are little more then religion. Question, what is the difference between AGW and “The Demon Rum?” Answer, about 100 years. These thing are social movements. Large social movements take on a life of their own because they contain all the trappings of religious belief.
Political parties line up in the direction the wind is blowing and choose what ever side they believe is likely to win. Democratic, Republicans, Libertarians, Vegetarians and any other group are all just people looking to promote themselves and the expense of other. None are worthy of your trust.
Keep a skeptical eye and remember Mother Nature plays with loaded dice.
@Francisco says:
February 26, 2011 at 8:56 am
Huh?