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
Brian H says:
February 26, 2011 at 11:23 am
Ok, corrected:
Every day, we learn more about the presumptions necessary to support AGW.
I call that progress.
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Well, RGates, there you go again.
I believe Domenic said “CO2 is rising there, tracking Mauna Loa data, But it is causing NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE”.
Every day we learn more about the presumptions necessary to support AGW.
R. Gates says:
“…why isn’t the CO2 causing melt, if it could melt the earth out of the snowball world? One has to remember that the amount of CO2 necessary to begin the process of melting was many thousands of times the level we see today.”
Many thousands of times higher, eh? Better go back to school.
John Brookes says:
February 26, 2011 at 5:05 am
Picture the frogs sitting in the pot on the stove…
I’m going out on a limb here, but I suspect even us non-frogs can figure out the the stove is actually making the pot and water hot.
Us non-frogs are not certain exactly what is causing the warming since the end of the LIA nor are we certain that anthropogenic CO2 any effect worthy of concern.
Bad analogy.
Just an observation.
“I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand.”
If he’d said he could create a real Santa Claus, or a real tooth fairy I wouldn’t have voted for him, I actually like living in a universe with some order and natural laws.
It just reads so much like a cautionary tale it’s almost creepy.
ShrNfr says:
February 26, 2011 at 6:48 am
“And the Liberal party in Australia will use the “carbon tax” as a wealth transfer mechanism”
Sorry ShrNfr. I don’t get the connection. You link to an article in the “Age” newspaper, Australia, which is known for it’s rock-solid left-wing bias, and is about trying to sell the proposed carbon tax as a financial advantage for low -income families!
Andrew Bolt answers it best in his post: Carbon Tax sold as a free-money blowout.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
To quote:
“The Age doesn’t realise this makes little sense:
LABOR is preparing a multibillion-dollar carbon tax compensation package that could leave up to 2.6 million low-income households better off and a further 1.7 million middle-income households no worse off…
A government source said it was likely the impact of the new tax – and the level of compensation – would be roughly similar.
This suggests several things. First, that the tax is in effect a giant exercise in income redistribution, above and beyond the income tax scales that already are heavily skewed against higher-earning Australians. Secondly, it’s being sold as a financial winner for Australians when self-evidently the money must come from somewhere, which means other taxpayers. Third, the more that people are compensated for the carbon dioxide tax, the less incentive they will have to actually stop using coal-fired power, which is the whole aim of this futile exercise.
Can’t people see through this giant folly? ” end quote
Domenic says:
Yes…That is called comparing empirical data to what the theory ACTUALLY predicts instead of caricaturing the theory and then comparing the data to your straw-man version of the theory, bearing no more than a passing relation to the theory itself.
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
It wasn’t until the massive volcanic eruptions hit (and/or other influences such as a slow down in the hydrological cycle that reduced rock weathering), pouring massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that the earth was shaken free from the snowball state.
Correlation is not equal to causation. You do realize that we are currently in an interglacial, probably near the end in fact. C02, no matter how much we managed to put into the air will not change the fact that another ice age cometh.
John Coleman says: “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.”
~ ~ ~
OK, ok here we go. Are you here to discuss what climatology has to tell us about what is happening within our atmosphere, with its cascading climate effects? Or are you here to champion a political line of reasoning?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Coleman says: “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?”
~ ~ ~
You say you are interested in the science, then why are you trying to portray Al Gore as the “science”?
What about what real climatologists are telling us? Why are you ignoring that and replacing it with a political punch doll?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Coleman says: “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.”
~ ~ ~
Have you ever considered that there are hundreds and thousands of competing, very bright minds working within these institutions you seem to hold in contempt?
Have you considered some of them know more about it than you – after all they are the ones studying it full time?
Also this charge about the “well paid scientists who are manipulating evidence to further their incomes?
Do you have any real evidence or just cheap word-of-mouth charges?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
John Coleman: “If my team (There are over 31,000 scientists on my team) can make headway in correcting the science,”
~ ~ ~
If science is your center of concern why were the previous 750 words a political polemic rather than a listing of scientific evidence?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:03 am
“There’s just too much warming go on in the Arctic, and this warming has nothing to do with the natural variations of the PDO, AMO, or solar cycles.”
From Alaska Climate Research Center
Decadal Climate Change in Fairbanks 2010
“The best linear fit of the data points of the last decade displays a fairly strong cooling of 1.8°F. Recent cooling has also been observed in other parts of the world, and some climatologists have attributed this trend to the low solar activity we have experienced over the last few years. Another symptom of this can be seen in the aurora activity, which has decreased over the few last years here in Fairbanks. It is worthwhile to point out that during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), a time period of very low solar activity, Greenland froze over and the Vikings had to leave, as agricultural activities became more difficult.”
For Antarctica go to Gistemp Station Selector at James Hansen’s NASA GISS site.
Click Mawson, Davis, Syowa, Mirnyi,Vostok,Novolazarevsk, and Casey and see if you can detect any sign of AGW or that Antarctica is melting.
Pamela Gray said
“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.”
Hmmm. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative?
Sounds like a cheap liberal to me!
Peter Pearson says:
February 26, 2011 at 8:50 am
And what that environmentalist is fearful of is actually happening in unlimited, pollutioni-free energy (much to my delight)!
This reports that the E-Cat’s energy isn’t coming from a combustion source:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
And this explains the consortium of companies that are building a 1MW plant using the E-Cat:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3091266.ece
May the scientific community that was so scathing in their rebuke of Pons and Fleischmann be forever ridiculed.
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
….One must remember that earth was in this snowball state for millions of years (over many Milankovitch cycles) and over many solar cycles long and short. Just about any kind of external forcing that could shake the earth out of the snowball state was experienced, but nothing external could do it. It wasn’t until the massive volcanic eruptions hit (and/or other influences such as a slow down in the hydrological cycle that reduced rock weathering), pouring massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that the earth was shaken free from the snowball state.
===========
I think you may have went too far with this statement.
1) Are you saying volcanic activity can’t be from external forces?
2) “Snowball Earth” assumes an absence of the hydrological cycle, does it not?
3) Wouldn’t “massive volcanic eruptions” pour water vapor (melted ice) into the atmosphere, exposing rock to weathering in the process.
4) CO2 keeps things warmer, but we all know water vapor is the biggest driver.
“R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
One has to remember that the amount of CO2 necessary to begin the process of melting was many thousands of times the level we see today.”
If that is the case, please tell Phil Jones and the others that any concerns about CAGW are over!
If we assume a round number of 400 ppm now, then 2.5 thousand times as much gives 1 000 000 ppm or 100% CO2. Of course it can only theoretically get about 150 times higher, even if Earth was solid carbon. The reason is that if CO2 reaches 6%, then O2 must decrease to 15%. If I remember correctly, fires cannot burn if the oxygen is less than 15%, so no cars could run and the CO2 could not get any higher.
With Respect Dr. Coleman,
We all know the limitations of Broadcast media and the lack of respect for insightful science in the nightly news dump.
Are you willing to contribute to an LMS to save the children in their classroom?
citizenschallenge says:
February 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm
John Coleman says: “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.”
~ ~ ~
“OK, ok here we go. Are you here to discuss what climatology has to tell us about what is happening within our atmosphere, with its cascading climate effects? Or are you here to champion a political line of reasoning?”
Comrade,
You must read more carefully. This man Coleman wrote an article about the religious and political opposition to his efforts to debunk some claims of climate science. He did not say he was here to present the science. Be very careful, Comrade, these Americans will discover your errors and they will humiliate you! They will call you child, Bozo, Ignoramus, or climate scientist! They are very watchful. They will detect that you have not read the article that you hope to criticize. Comrade, you must not begin your presentation by stepping on a banana peel and landing flat on your back. They will never let you get up. Believe me. I know. /sarc /ophagus
Smokey says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:59 pm
R. Gates says:
“…why isn’t the CO2 causing melt, if it could melt the earth out of the snowball world? One has to remember that the amount of CO2 necessary to begin the process of melting was many thousands of times the level we see today.”
Someone take pity on this person and ban him. When he sobers up, he is not going to believe what he posted.
Wiki: “The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere.[54] Since the Earth was almost completely covered with ice, carbon dioxide could not be withdrawn from the atmosphere by release of alkaline metal ions weathering out of siliceous rocks. Over 4 to 30 million years, enough CO2 and methane, mainly emitted by volcanoes, would accumulate to finally cause enough greenhouse effect to make surface ice melt in the tropics until a band of permanently ice-free land and water developed;[55] this would be darker than the ice, and thus absorb more energy from the sun — initiating a “positive feedback”.”
OK, R Gates, mis-remembered and should have said “many tens of thousands of parts per million”, now please get over it.
Johnny Gunn says: “…So there ARE Democrats and environmentalists who disagree. FYI….” Yeah, so now we know there are two of you. BFD!
R. Gates says: “…CO2 is actually up about 40% since the industrial revolution began in the 1700′s and has reached a level not seen in many hundreds of thousands of years….” Yeah, Mr. Gates, and it’s still nearly the lowest (by a factor of ten or so) in the 500 million year history of the Earth in which we can estimate its content. If it went any lower, the plants would die, and then us and every other thing.
One more post with too many liberals hyperventilating.
Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong. But seems like when I was in school eons ago, we were taught:
Humans breathe in Oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
Plants use the carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen.
So, if we as humans produce carbon dioxide wouldn’t the majority of it be produced by the people who keep wagging their tongues about how detrimental it is? So because they are so committed to this idea and being very conscientious (sp, better word), they should perform vonluntary euthanasia (sp, sounds better than suicide.)
The role of CO2 in breaking the earth out of past “snowball” episodes is pretty clear, but I did make an error in saying that it was “many thousands of times the level we see today.” That is obviously incorrect, as it was likely not 390,000 ppm! It did spike to many thousands of ppm, or thousands of ppm greater than today.
The assumption made in Mr. Cole’s presentation, and many other skeptical presentations I’ve seen is that CO2 should be completely linear in its effects on temperature, and the rise in CO2 should have overwhelmed other natural variations as soon as it started back in the 1700’s with the industrial revolution. There is no justification to support the assumption of a simple linear relationship between CO2 and temperatures, especially on a year-to-year basis, especially when CO2 only has been increasing a a few ppm per year, but there is plenty of justification from ice core data that the climate makes sudden changes to new states from the seemingly smallest of nudges– as a chaotic system would, when just the right nudge at the right time occurs. This is not unlike the collapse of a sand pile when just one grain of sand is added at the right point in time after thousands of grains had been added before and nothing occurred. The rapid decent into the Younger Dryas period and the the equally rapid ascent out of of it is a perfect example.
Theo Goodwin says:
February 26, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Smokey says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Someone take pity on this person and ban him. When he sobers up, he is not going to believe what he posted.
Ok, I’ll bite–I’ll use 2,000 for “many thousands” (a very conservative estimate), and 391 ppm as “the level we see today”. Multiplying (“times”) give us:
2,000 x 391 ppm = 782,000 ppm. Converting to percent gives me just over 78%!
Hmmm… I think that’s far above anything any geologist has ever predicted, and I doubt anybody ever will. In fact, I’m worried R. Gates may believe he’s from another planet:
http://www.thirdage.com/news/diamond-planet-researchers-discover-planet-could-be-made-diamonds_12-9-2010
Either that, or Theo is right.
u.k.(us) says:
February 26, 2011 at 5:52 pm
R. Gates says:
February 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm
….One must remember that earth was in this snowball state for millions of years (over many Milankovitch cycles) and over many solar cycles long and short. Just about any kind of external forcing that could shake the earth out of the snowball state was experienced, but nothing external could do it. It wasn’t until the massive volcanic eruptions hit (and/or other influences such as a slow down in the hydrological cycle that reduced rock weathering), pouring massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that the earth was shaken free from the snowball state.
===========
I think you may have went too far with this statement.
1) Are you saying volcanic activity can’t be from external forces?
2) “Snowball Earth” assumes an absence of the hydrological cycle, does it not?
3) Wouldn’t “massive volcanic eruptions” pour water vapor (melted ice) into the atmosphere, exposing rock to weathering in the process.
4) CO2 keeps things warmer, but we all know water vapor is the biggest driver.
______
Nope, not saying that at all. Certainly some period of bombardment by comets or asteroids could provide a catalyst for volcanic activity, but that bombardment would also include other geological markers, which have not been found in respect to the exit from the snowball earth period 700 MYA.
During the snowball earth period, the hydrological cycle essentially came to a complete halt, or certainly slowed greatly– much like you’d find in the middle of Antarctica today…very cold and very dry. During such time, there would be no real addition to the earth’s atmosphere of any water vapor, but of course, any CO2 that was added, through volcanism for example, would accumulate, eventually warming the atmosphere enough to kick start the hydrological cycle.
Volcanism would put some water vapor into the atmosphere but, again, with it being a condensing GHG, it would fairly quickly be taken back out, but the CO2 would remain and continue to accumulate and warm the atmosphere until such a point that the temperatures were warm enough for water to stay in the atmosphere and create even more warming. This “minor” or “trace” GHG of CO2 is the critical catalyst in keeping us from returning to the snowball earth, as water vapor, though more potent, is a condensing GHG. To suggest water vapor is the “bigger driver” is to miss the critical role of CO2 as the long term regulator. Being a more potent GHG, as water vapor is, does no good when it is condensed out of the atmosphere and frozen in glaciers or sea ice as it was during the snowball earth period.
The main reasons are that it’s a vote-getter, it’s widely and officially endorsed, and there’s no upside in opposing it–and plenty of downside.
@- John Coleman
“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.”
=================
US figures from surveys of proffesional employment put the number of scientists at over two and a half million, with about another two million engineers.
That makes your ‘Team’ about 1% of the total.
Not much chance of making headway against the other 99%.
What GOOD science has your team come up with in the last five years?