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.
Joel Shore says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:40 am
“Hence, the question that must be asked to arrive at the best understanding is where the scientists working in the field and the scientific mainstream stand. And, the answer in report after report issued by scientific organization is that they quite clearly that they find AGW to be a serious issue.”
Which leads directly to the question: Where do said scientific organizations stand and where do they get their funding from? Answer: IPCC, UN, taxpayer dole… so we can expect these organizations to support anything but free market fundamentalism… to use your characterization.
Brian H says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:41 am
“For a powerful collection of observations and statistics and “projections” to counter the overpop meme, check out http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ1
”
That’s the most wonderful resource! Thanks!
DirkH says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:58 am
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:51 am
“CO2 may be a “trace gas” but it is a very critical trace gas, and the earth would rapidly fall back into a snowball earth without this so-called “minor” trace gas. ”
You are forgetting that most of the Greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric water. (In all three phases – so even on a snowball Earth, sublimation would lead to atmospheric water content and cause a Greenhouse effect) CO2 is a bit player.
____
Not sure you really read all my post…yes, water vapor is a more potent GH gas, but it is a CONDENSING gas, and if you took away CO2, as the earth cooled, the atmosphere would get very dry and very cold, all the water would condense out and be frozen on the surface of the land and oceans, and though there would be liquid water under the frozen ocean (much like Jupiter’s moon Europa), this would do little good to warm the dry and cold atmosphere. Without a large influx of CO2 (such as occurred to end the last snowball earth period), the earth would remain a snowball planet. Mind you, it is possible that there still would likely be some life present under the frozen ocean surfaces, especially living near volcanic vents etc.
AGW is indeed simply a means to an end, explicitly…
‘Mike Hulme (Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia):
‘Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.’
Malcolm, while you are correct that not all liberals are in the AGW camp, polls show overwhelmingly that vast majority of liberals (progressives) certainly are. Coleman points out exactly why that is .. an agenda that is a means to an end .. that is, the AGW mantra facilitates the means to a “Liberal” end (a vehicle if you will). Or as I would prefer to refer to it, and most rightfully so, a “Socialist” end. Because that is precisely what it is, and nothing more. I believe Coleman hits the nail on the head, for AGW has nothing to do with weather or climate and everything to do with politics, and more precisely “Socialism” (what ever your favorite flavor, Marxist, Communist, Fascist, etc..)
This is not science, it is politics and social engineering.
John F Hultquist and Harry Dale Huffman
Thanks for the websites. I’ll pass them to my physicist friend though he won’t accept their validity, for he knows that he is right because whatsoever the Royal Society says is true.
My Dad used to say
” If the Missus says it’s black, it’s black
And it’s no use me answering back.
Though the sky above is blue and we know it, me and you
If the Missus says it’s black – it’s black
Thanks again
Then the same challenge to you as to the “moderate Muslims” — you have some house-cleaning to do. Get to it.
So what would happen (specifically) if CO2 had no effect on atmospheric heat retention? Can anyone please advise.
Utterly and completely nonsensical hogwash … total B.S. (bad science AND bovine scatology)
Let me correct my statement with an addition:
“It really irks Mr Brookes and Joel Shore that over 31,000 degreed professionals, all of them in the hard sciences [plus over 9,000 PhD’s] have co-signed the following statement…”
The alarmist contingent has tried – and repeatedly failed – to get a like number of signatures on alarmist petitions. They couldn’t even come close.
So Joel Shore throws a tantrum every time he sees the OISM Petition by attacking the messenger instead of the message – which cannot be successfully attacked, because it is true. CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
And Shore stupidly denigrates engineers.
Urk. Good post, but “preclude” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Stick with “presume” and “presumption”.
Domenic says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:52 am
to R. Gates
If you don’t mind, I would like to use your post as an example of how ‘beliefs’ work.
_____
Use whatever you want, but let me say just a bit about Antarctica and the Southern Hemisphere sea ice, since you seem to think that I am purposely not looking at this important polar region. We have discussed at length here on WUWT the differences between the North and South poles, especially focusing on why they might react differently (at first) to global warming. If you do the research (really look at the journal research) you see exactly why polar amplification happens first and most intensely at the north pole. The south pole is a continent of ice, thousands of feet thick, surrounded by the large southern ocean. Both of these represent huge heat sinks that will offer some initial buffering to the early onset of global warming. The North pole is opposite to the South in terms of being an ocean with only a maximum of 10 or so feet of ice, and is surrounded by land. All global climate models show the northern polar region warming earlier and to a greater degree than the southern polar region. It is for this reason that I focus on the north pole. To use an rough metaphor…both polar regions will be early indicators of global warming, but the north pole is the more sensitive and will be the first to ring…
John Coleman’s story originates from a BBC programme where it was recounted by Solitaire Townsend Co-founder and Chief Executive of Futerra Sustainability communications.
Link;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_104.txt
R. Gates:
Completely unconvincing.
The planet has gone through a very small natural warming cycle over the past 150 years. Only 0.7°C. There is no way that minor natural variation can cause the melting of the ice caps. What we’re observing is local climate variability. It’s happened repeatedly before.
CO2 is my friend.
I owe him everything I have! GK
This is precisely where you went wrong. (bolding mine). I whipped up a GCM this morning that told me different. I also have a WII and a PlayStation, so what…. means NOTHING.
Hey R. Gates, you like computer models so much, how about this one?
Faulty CIA ‘Computer Models’ Failed to Predict Egypt Uprising
My PlayStation 3 probably would have done a better job, and more fun too!
R. Gates;
you appeal to “simple physics”? Well, the whole “radiative basic physics” meme is based on lab demos of pure CO2 in glass containers warming by absorption. That this is highly unrepresentative of actual thermal transport is dismissed by pro-AGW scientists and non-scientists.
Fortunately, Mama Nature has provided a similar experiment, but on a planetary scale. Mars’ atmosphere is 1% of Earth’s, but pure CO2, therefore 25-30X the total CO2 available for a nice demo.
But what are the results? IIRC, the surface temp is 280.0K average, vs. a theoretical 280.1K blackbody “projection”.
Oops! Where did all that back-radiation go? Please explificate, all scientific-like, K?
R. Gates,
And I love this little gem of computer model use.
Attempt To Discredit Cosmic Ray-Climate Link Using Computer Model
Hey, I know, let’s throw out empirical and physical experiment results because I found this new game called “Sim-Climate” that refutes the science.
I have a toaster that is more intelligent.
To R. Gates
Thanks for your response. I am a thermal radiation expert. 20+ years in the field solving thermal radiation and heat processing problems in industry, medicine and science.
You seem to be focusing on sea ice. I do not because there is too much ‘noise’ in the data signals. I recommended looking inland at the actual south pole data, not the coastal data, sea ice, etc.
You wrote in a more recent post: “……Without a large influx of CO2 (such as occurred to end the last snowball earth period), the earth would remain a snowball planet.”
Well, the actual conditions you describe for a ‘snowball planet’ exist right at the South Pole. It is the driest desert on earth. There is virtually no humidity in the entire atmosphere above the South Pole. It is too cold.
And yet, CO2 is rising there, tracking Mauna Loa data. But it is causing NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE. In fact, it could very well be causing the decrease in temperature there.
Your assumption (or belief) that CO2 ‘kick starts’ the warming is not being demonstrated at all there. And that is the real world data. Not speculation.
R. Gates,
Let us reflect a little on computer models, shall we?
* The World Bank computers did not forecast the Global Financial Crisis.
* The British Met computers failed to forecast Europe’s frigid winter.
* Computers have proved unable forecast the spread of swine flu or volcanic ash clouds.
* The Australian Weather Bureau cannot forecast next month’s weather.
Yet we are asked to believe that the IPCC computers are able to forecast global temperature, sea levels, hurricanes, droughts and diseases for a century ahead. They promise that, if we just stop using coal and oil, everything will be rosy.
That is like betting our jobs, our industry and our food supply on a roll of the dice in the casino.
There are about 20 Global Circulation Models using variable assumptions that claim to represent climate processes. Every one uses suspect data, disputed processes and is tweaked to reflect the biases of the builder.
Not one has yet made a correct forecast. Moreover, no two forecasts agree.
But we hope one gets it right soon so we can scrap the other 19 and so save a lot of money. Until then, all IPCC forecasts should be written in pencil.
And we should ignore them.
Erik says:
February 26, 2011 at 4:59 am
“Taking part in order of appearance:
Solitaire Townsend Co-founder and Chief Executive
of Futerra Sustainability Communications”
Cute. I see Solitaire Townsend was cutely named after a western North American bird, the Townsend’s Solitaire.
So I’m guessing she is the product of an ostensibly ‘green’ family. I say ostensibly because a lot of hard core birders travel all over the place trying to rack up their bird lists… while railing about CO2 emissions from others. In British Columbia this year some birder just set a new record for the number of bird species seen in one year, at about 1500 km of driving (plus ferries, boats and planes) per species. What an environmentalist!
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:08 am
“Not sure you really read all my post…yes, water vapor is a more potent GH gas, but it is a CONDENSING gas, and if you took away CO2, as the earth cooled, the atmosphere would get very dry and very cold, all the water would condense out and be frozen on the surface of the land and oceans,”
Even if all water condensed out, – this would lead to a very clear atmosphere so insolation would hit the surface unhindered – sublimation would always enforce a certain atmospheric water vapor content; an equilibrium of sublimation and condensation that leads to a non-zero atmospheric water content. As GH effects are logarithmic with regard to the concentration of the GH gas, the water GH effect would be significant. During the day, > 1kW/m ^2 hit the surface and must be re-emitted even in sub-zero conditions. Instant thermal runaway in the absence of CO2! IOW, a snowball Earth can not sustain itself only through the lack of CO2; something else must contribute, for instance significantly lower insolation.
Brian, Brian, oh, oh, oh, me, me, me, I know (raising hand in the air)
It is because IR cannot, I repeat, cannot “back radiate”
To borrow a line from one of my favorite movies (Alien), “Game over man, game over”