John Coleman fires back on the IPCC Synthesis Report

johncoleman_TWCA RESPONSE FROM CLIMATE SKEPTIC JOHN COLEMAN FOUNDER OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL

When you read a news story about the United Nations Panel on Climate Change issuing new climate warnings and making a plea for immediate action to counter the impending climate crisis, do you ever wonder what a climate change skeptic thinks when he reads that news report.

I would like to share such an experience with you.

This is the Associated Press news report with my thoughts as I read it inserted in bold.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.’s panel on climate science said Sunday.

The first four words are very important. “Climate Change is happening.”  You bet it is.  The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years. Earth has been frozen into a sort of ice ball at least four times in its history (the Ice Ages) and has been as warm or warmer than it is today at least three times (Interglacial Periods) during its history.  Smaller changes such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occur more often and still smaller swings in climate occur almost constantly. 

Climate scientists, the media, environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians have all been thinking about climate in a wrong way for a couple of decades now.  They seem to have been thinking that there is a normal climate and it was what the climate as it existed on the day mankind burned fossil fuel for the first time.  They have been positioning the climate debate to tell us that it is our responsibility to return the climate to exactly as it was then.

On top of this we have this strange thing about climate going on right now: Our constantly changing climate is hardly changing at all at a time we are being lectured that we are causing catastrophic climate change. By what measure can you contend that “Climate Change is happening” right now. Global temperatures have been essentially plateaued for 18 years.  The failure of temperature rise is well measured and documented in both surface temperature programs and the satellite total atmospheric measurements.  The polar ice caps are not melting as has been loudly predicted over and over again in recent years. The Antarctic Ice is at an all-time maximum in the modern satellite era in which accurate measurements have been possible.  The Arctic Ice is currently within its normal range within this period.  The number and intensity of tornadoes has been diminishing in recent years.  The number and strength of hurricanes is likewise diminished. The oceans are not rising significantly. Droughts and floods and other storms are less extensive and severe than in the period of records. The number and severity of heat waves is below “normal”. The number of polar bears is increasing. So there is no reasonable way to conclude that at this time that important, meaningful or significant “Climate Change is happening.”  The bottom line is that our climate is changing but not very much and no climate change crisis seems to be occurring.

Now to the second part of that first sentence. How can it be said about climate change that “it is almost entirely man’s fault”?  When you read the scientific papers on which the IPCC reports are based, the predicted climate change results almost entirely form the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air by our burning of fossils to power our civilization. But I have read several papers by Ph.D. Climate Skeptics that totally debunk the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory.  And, as for the evidence, what is going on now is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. Consider this: there has been no significant atmospheric warming for 18 years despite a continued steady rise in the amount of (CO2) mankind is exhausting into the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels. The steady rise in CO2 is well documented.  Think about that: the pause in temperature increases is rolling on despite the continuing steady increase in the level of CO2 in the air.  So the basic theory that man is causing climate change by burning fossil fuels has failed to verify.  Scientifically it is just plain dead.

The fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s giant climate assessment offered no surprises, nor was it expected to since it combined the findings of three reports released in the past 13 months.

But it underlined the scope of the climate challenge in stark terms. Emissions, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, may need to drop to zero by the end of this century for the world to have a decent chance of keeping the temperature rise below a level that many consider dangerous.

So there it is in the third paragraph of the AP story.  The problem is CO2 emissions and if we don’t totally eliminate them by 2100 the climate of Earth will be destroyed. It is so amazing that despite the failure of the CO2 greenhouse theory they say we must stop burning fossil fuels.

The IPCC did not say exactly what such a world would look like but it would likely require a massive shift to renewable sources to power homes, cars and industries combined with new technologies to suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The report warned that failure to reduce emissions could lock the world on a trajectory with “irreversible” impacts on people and the environment. Some impacts already being observed included rising sea levels, a warmer and more acidic ocean, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice and more frequent and intense heat waves.

The impacts listed in this sentence are totally invalid. The rise is sea levels is almost undetectable and showing no sign of increasing.  Sea level rise requires Antarctic ice melt and the ice pack at the South Pole is the greatest in thickness and extend in measured history.  As already noted, as well, temperatures have not increased in 18 years.  The rate of the historic temperature increase of our atmosphere in the years we have been using fossil fuels is no greater than the rise through the entire period since the end of the Little Ice Age. 

Several scientific papers have debunked the environmentalistic “sky is falling” reports about the increase in the acidity of the oceans. 

And, as for the glaciers: they have been slowly melting since the end of the last ice age.  Who is to say what is the normal extent of glacial ice? Should it be what it was in 1800 or 1900 or 2000?  Ice has constantly come and gone as the climate has drifted.

“Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report’s launch in Copenhagen.

Science has spoken is definitely the truth.  The reason it has spoken is the untold part of this story.  Ever since Al Gore spread the Global Warming scare through the Democrat Party and our Federal Government, huge and ever increasing scientific grants of our tax dollars have been rolling out to University climate research groups and both government and private climate research organizations and to related environmental organizations.  If you propose to do a research paper on sea level rise, the death of a species of butterflies because of global warming or devise a new global warming computer model, you can easily obtain millions of dollars in a research grant. But if your proposed research is less than supportive of the global warming theory, you will not be funded.  It is the simple and well known power of money.  So the scientists have to “drink the global warming cool aid” and climb aboard the gravy train. It is the only way they and their organizations, departments or research institutes can survive.  These dollars produce the research papers that the United Nations Panel on Climate Change utilizes to support its reports.  So the money rolls and “the science is settled”.

However, some climate scientists when they have tenure (job protection) and have climbed as far up the academic ladder as they are ever going to go and particularly when they are reaching retirement age, unboard the climate train and speak out as climate skeptics.  I have a long list of these brave men and women, many of whom I have met at Climate Conference, others who I have watched on videos and whose papers I have read.  They are my heroes and the list is now over a thousand long.  Add other Ph.D.’s in other fields and 9,000 have signed a petition (The Oregon Petition) that debunks global warming/climate change.  Add other nonPh.D. scientists to the group and a total of 31,000 thousand have signed that petition. So you can say science has spoken only if you are willing to discount, toss out, ignore and disrespect the thousands of scientist and their papers and articles, blogs and speeches that debunk the global warming theory.  And the media, including the AP (this is an Associated Press article) and almost all the other mainstream media is instructed from above to ignore the skeptics. That is because the media is managed by dedicated liberal Democrats who support without question the pronouncements of the Al Gore, et al.

And, of course, the United Nations officials are more than happy to ride Al Gore’s coat tails all the way to the bank and as much one world government as they can accomplish using the Global Warming scare as an engine.

Amid its grim projections, the report said the tools are there to set the world on a low-emissions path and break the addiction to burning oil, coal and gas which pollute the atmosphere with heat-trapping CO2, the chief greenhouse gas.

The basic “CO2 is a major greenhouse gas” theory that has propelled the global warming/climate change campaign has failed to verify, so there is no scientific basis for making grim projections.  Yet the scientists are constantly making those predictions because they know the media will use them and in the process make the scientists into “climate stars”.  This in turn gets them invited to fancy UN conferences and gets them lush new research grants.  But alas, all of their predictions will fail to verify because they are based on the failed CO2 greenhouse theory.

As for the movement to “break the addiction to burning oil, coal and gas” be very careful. It would destroy our civilization and bankrupt us all if we simply cut off the fossil fuels today.  The development of wind and solar (green energy) is costing us about 20 billion a year in subsidies and tax incentives and that is significantly harming our economy at this time. Since the burning of fossil fuels is not causing a climate crisis, it would be very wise to drop those subsidies and incentives and let our economy perk up.

But that doesn’t mean that fossil fuels will power our civilization forever.  Remember that 90 percent of the scientist who ever lived are alive today.  And many of them are probing every concept for a better way to power our civilization.  One exciting new material that won the Nobel prize for Physics in 2010 is graphene.  It will probably lead to 1000 times more effective solar cells and superior batteries within 30 years. Thorium and other safer and less expensive nuclear power systems that do not create a waste storage problem are in development.  Hydrogen may, at last, play a role.  Ocean current and wave power generation may actually work out in time. Space power generation is also in the concept stage.  Certainly by 2100 we will have reduced fossil fuel to a minimum or dropped it all together as old fashioned.  In the meantime, It is far and away the best power source we have and our engineers and scientists have done an amazing job of finding ways to all but eliminate any pollution from its use.

“All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change,” IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

Our Federal Government through the Environmental Protection Agency and the United Nations Panel on Climate Change are using the threat of catastrophic results from climate change to force us to move ahead with the elimination of fossil fuels before we have full time, dependable, cost effective replacements. And this is costing us dearly.  The average American family of four is already paying an additional 1,200 dollars a year for food, fuel and power as a result of the anti-fossil fuel initiatives. As the EPA carbon fees roll out and as coal powered electrical plants are shut down that cost per family is projected to increase to over 4 thousand a year. That can be a very serious matter, cutting off poor families from having funds for other expenditures for the kids from healthcare to food to higher education.  

The IPCC was set up in 1988 to assess global warming and its impacts. The report released Sunday caps its latest assessment, a mega-review of 30,000 climate change studies that establishes with 95-percent certainty that most of the warming seen since the 1950s is man-made. The IPCC’s best estimate is that just about all of it is man-made, but it can’t say that with the same degree of certainty.

There is the number of scientific papers on Climate Change that we tax payers have bought so far: 30 thousand.  That is simply overwhelming.  Thirty thousand papers and billions of dollars and what is their plan?  To keep on spending our tax dollars on research and have more big meetings and publish more reports and try to increase their 95% confidence in their work to 100%.  Does this sound a bit extreme to anyone else but me?

 

Today only a small minority of scientists challenge the mainstream conclusion that climate change is linked to human activity.

Yes, the huge grants and incentives have attracted a large crowd of supporters.  Money does have amazing power.  But, we, the small minority, are out here and are at least making enough of a stir that we get a line in the AP report.

Global Climate Change, a NASA website, says 97 percent of climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.

Even with all the money flowing, that 97% figure which is constantly tossed out, particularly by politicians, comes from a totally manipulated study.  It has been debunked several times.  You can search the internet for the debunking; it is there.

The American public isn’t as convinced. A year-old survey by Pew Research showed 67 percent of Americans believed global warming is occurring and 44 percent said the earth is warming mostly because of human activity. More recently, a New York Times poll said 42 percent of Republicans say global warming won’t have a serious impact, a view held by 12 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of independents.

On one hand, it is very gratifying to me as climate change skeptic to see that the general public is not totally convinced that there is a global warming/climate change crisis.  On the other hand, I am frustrated that a scientific issue has become political issue.  Scientific answers cannot be based on political agendas.  That is a total distortion of logic.  But, I admit I am amazed after the huge and continuing teaching of global warming in our schools (partially through the continued showing of the Al Gore Si-Fi movie “An Inconvenient Truth”) that anyone under 30 holds on to any skeptical view of global warming.

Sleep-deprived delegates approved the final documents Saturday after a weeklong line-by-line review that underscored that the IPCC process is not just about science. The reports must be approved both by scientists and governments, which means political issues from U.N. climate negotiations, which are nearing a 2015 deadline for a global agreement, inevitably affect the outcome.

The tax dollar paid for process of meetings and research and documents will continue and continue.  Scientists, Bureaucrats and Politicians are building careers and amassing small fortunes by being part of the process. (But it seems unlikely that any of them will amass as much money as Al Gore who has apparently created a billion dollars of worth from his climate change activities.) And, many of them truly believe their work is going to save the planet from climate disaster.  When you are on the gravy train, it is very difficult to consider a skeptics view.  I understand that.  But, I will keep on trying, but alas there is no money on this side of debate.  I keep looking in my mailbox for that big check from the Koch brothers. But it never comes.

The rift between developed and developing countries in the U.N. talks opened up in Copenhagen over a passage on what levels of warming could be considered dangerous. After a protracted battle, the text was dropped from a key summary for policy-makers — to the disappointment of some scientists.

The atmosphere of Earth knows no boundaries.  So while the “rich” countries cut their greenhouse gasses, the developing countries increase their production of CO2.  I know that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas so there is no significant problem in this, but this leads to extreme conflict and pressures in the international negotiations.  And, in some developing nations no modern scientific measures that clean up the fossil fuels and power plants are being used, so the air is heavily polluted with ash, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.  This is huge problem and is shortening lives and killing people.  This we should be dealing with, but unfortunately the debate is about CO2.

“If the governments are going to expect the IPCC to do their job,” said Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC’s second report, they shouldn’t “get caught up in fights that have nothing to do with the IPCC.”

The omission meant the word “dangerous” disappeared from the summary altogether. It appeared only twice in a longer underlying report compared to seven times in a draft produced before the Copenhagen session. The less loaded word “risk” was mentioned 65 times in the final 40-page summary.

“Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive, and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts,” the report said.

World governments in 2009 set a goal of keeping the temperature rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared to before the industrial revolution. Temperatures have gone up about 0.8 C (1.4 F) since the 19th century.

There is much to note in the paragraphs above, but the most amazing point to me is that an increase in world average temperature of 1.4 degrees in the last 200 years is regarded as a significant fact.  First of all, 200 years ago we could hardly measure temperature accurately. Even when I was a boy, 75 years ago, a thermometer was a tube of mercury stapled on a little strip of wood with lines and numbers printed on it.  How accurately did this measure the temperature of the air and to what degree of accuracy could it be read. A difference of one degree was hard to discern, much less a tenth of degree. And certainly when you look at temperature charts (created from ice cores, carbon measurements in stones and tree ring measurements) and all the ups and downs since thermometers were invented, the ups and downs in temperatures are no different from the increases and pauses in the age of fossil fuels.   

Emissions have risen so fast in recent years that the world has used up two-thirds of its carbon budget, the maximum amount of CO2 that can be emitted to have a likely chance of avoiding 2 degrees of warming, the IPCC report said.

“This report makes it clear that if you are serious about the 2-degree goal … there is nowhere to hide,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. “You can’t wait several decades to address this issue.”

All of the above is based on the mistaken idea that if your reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that the temperature will fall.  Experience tells us unequivocally that there is no significant relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature.  If reducing CO2 doesn’t work, what other idea does the IPCC have to reduce temperatures.  I think the answer to that is none.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the report demands “ambitious, decisive and immediate action.”

“Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for our kids and grandkids,” Kerry said in a statement.

Mr. Kerry has made several very strong statements about Climate Change including one in which he said When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them. My guess is that Kerry’s hero is Al Gore and he is competing for some of those big climate change dollars.

The IPCC said the cost of actions such as shifting to solar and wind power and other renewable sources and improving energy efficiency would reduce economic growth only by 0.06 percent annually.

I want to see this document because I find the figure quoted as unbelievable.  Perhaps they are lumping the effect of the switch on the economic growth of all countries on Earth together. Maybe the figures are simply being manipulated.

Pachauri said that should be measured against the implications of doing nothing, putting “all species that live on this planet” at peril.

Here he goes again.  We are all going to die if we don’t do what he wants.  I love this blue marble, our planet Earth.  I understand that we, the people of Earth, must protect this planet for future generations. If I thought for a second that the climate of planet Earth were being put into peril, or even at a small risk, by our use of fossil fuels, I would yield immediately to the IPCC, Al Gore and John Kerry.  But the evidence is very clear, CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

The report is meant as a scientific roadmap for the U.N. climate negotiations, which continue next month in Lima, Peru. That’s the last major conference before a summit in Paris next year, where a global agreement on climate action is supposed to be adopted.

Meetings, conferences, research papers, news releases, speeches and protests.  Climate change is a major industry. And, we are all paying for it every April 15th or every pay day. Will this ever end?  Not so long as the money is flowing.

The biggest hurdle is deciding who should do what. Rich countries are calling on China and other major developing countries to set ambitious targets; developing countries saying the rich have a historical responsibility to lead the fight against warming and to help poorer nations cope with its impacts. The IPCC avoided taking sides, saying the risks of climate change “are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.”

Oh the drama of it all.  Who will win, the rich countries or the poor countries.  End of this act. Slow fade to black.

Advertisements

209 thoughts on “John Coleman fires back on the IPCC Synthesis Report

  1. Jon Coleman, thank you for all your efforts. One thought that regularly comes to my brain as I read alarmist publications is rather simple, All your projected harms are failing to manifest, but the BENEFITS of CO2 are known in hundreds of peer reviewed studies and they are manifesting all over the world. I try to never forget the benefits.

    • It could be my imagination, but I believe you can actually *see* it! Things didn’t used to *burgeon* in the spring when I was a boy the way they do now. Stand still too long and you find yourself knee deep in nettles…

  2. Too right – a theory based on failure and an endless supply of tax money.
    It might be a good time to rerun to Oregon petition, with those thousand scientists on your list as the first signatories – every name public and verifiable right from the outset.

    • Eric,
      I agree. Time to do it again, Bet this time they get 50K. Keep doing it every few years. And maybe hire some sort of auditing company for credibility. Most liberals I know dismiss the list as a fraud…that is if they’ve even heard of it.

  3. The way the Mid-term elections are going, I am very hopeful that with the departure of Obama in a couple of years, the game will be over…he was their last great chance…and he failed to deliver…now there’s a surprise!

    • This is a very interesting scenario. What will happen to the EPA under a new Administration? Will the flow of money for climate reseach dry up? The strong integration of climate alarmism with the Democrats makes them very vulnerable. The fat cats wil no doubt go on as before, the Manns and Trenberths, but what about the undergrowth of young scientists? If the cloud of political motivated climate funding is lifted, they may be free to voice “inconvenient truths”.

      • What will happen to the EPA under a new Administration?
        Depends on the will of the new administration and the determination of the new congress to redress wrongs done by the current cabal, purge the EPA of AGW zealots posing as bureaucrats, sharply limit EPA’s funding, and install rigorous cost/benefit analyses for all proposed and current regulations.
        If we see a significant shift in this midterm and the following elections in 2016, the folks driving that change must follow through with their new representatives to force the structural changes needed at the EPA.

    • “…the game will be over”
      I’m not so sure. All of the pieces put in place to support that beast require feeding (funding),
      We might have reached a critical mass. If a candidate runs on heavily cutting that food supply, there might be enough people directly involved, friends and family, to sway the outcome?
      Hard to find anyone under 30 that doesn’t “believe”.

      • “Hard to find anyone under 30 that doesn’t “believe”.”
        Indeed. As someone who is 20, that is BEYOND frustrating.

    • In order for the game to be over, The EPA in the US should be abolished. This is the most harmful organization every established by the feds and the sooner it is gone, the better for everybody.

      • I think the current IRS would be in the running for “most harmful organization ever established”, but the EPA should be abolished and a flat tax implemented. The latter would put a million accountants out of work, but talk about a wasted life–fiddling with taxes! My gosh!

    • The Republican leadership is all-in on AGW. The idea that this scam is just one for the Democratic party is a red herring. The Republicans have learned how to make money from it also.
      The chances of anything changing through electing a Republican-anything is remote. In fact it probably will get worse.

  4. I thought it was dead but it keeps getting jolted back into life – the man made monster of global warming – will not die!
    It’s time to kill off Dr. Pachauri and his team of UN zombies….arrgggggggggghh wait – oh no it’s POTUS – he’s been bitten! Shriek! call John Kerry, call the NYT……. call for sanity………….
    Um er nope ‘sanity’ – he left the WHITE HOUSE a long time ago and he’s going to Paris!
    Soon to be made, Hollywood blockbuster, the musical, Obama, Pachauri, Hansen, big Al and the Penn state climatology chorus line – “Plastered in Paris and how to re-energize the global warming Monster!”

  5. “the ice pack at the South Pole is the greatest in thickness and extend in measured history” I am not sure that is correct. While extent has been increasing, overall volume has been decreasing according to most sources.

      • I vaguely recall that the IPCC projects more snow on Antarctica. They also project decreased sea ice extent.

        Abstract – 2 NOV 2012
        Snowfall-driven mass change on the East Antarctic ice sheet
        An improved understanding of processes dominating the sensitive balance between mass loss primarily due to glacial discharge and mass gain through precipitation is essential for determining the future behavior of the Antarctic ice sheet and its contribution to sea level rise. While satellite observations of Antarctica indicate that West Antarctica experiences dramatic mass loss along the Antarctic Peninsula and Pine Island Glacier, East Antarctica has remained comparably stable. In this study, we describe the causes and magnitude of recent extreme precipitation events along the East Antarctic coast that led to significant regional mass accumulations that partially compensate for some of the recent global ice mass losses that contribute to global sea level rise. The gain of almost 350 Gt from 2009 to 2011 is equivalent to a decrease in global mean sea level at a rate of 0.32 mm/yr over this three-year period.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053316/abstract
        =================
        Abstract – 7 JUN 2013
        Recent snowfall anomalies in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica, in a historical and future climate perspective
        Enhanced snowfall on the East Antarctic ice sheet is projected to significantly mitigate 21st century global sea level rise. In recent years (2009 and 2011), regionally extreme snowfall anomalies in Dronning Maud Land, in the Atlantic sector of East Antarctica, have been observed. It has been unclear, however, whether these anomalies can be ascribed to natural decadal variability, or whether they could signal the beginning of a long-term increase of snowfall. Here we use output of a regional atmospheric climate model, evaluated with available firn core records and gravimetry observations, and show that such episodes had not been seen previously in the satellite climate data era (1979). Comparisons with historical data that originate from firn cores, one with records extending back to the 18th century, confirm that accumulation anomalies of this scale have not occurred in the past ~60 years, although comparable anomalies are found further back in time. We examined several regional climate model projections, describing various warming scenarios into the 21st century. Anomalies with magnitudes similar to the recently observed ones were not present in the model output for the current climate, but were found increasingly probable toward the end of the 21st century.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50559/abstract

    • >>He’s claiming that co2 is not a greenhouse gas. No further comment is required.<<
      Is that deliberate misunderstanding from your side or just negligent reading? Coleman said that the theory is flawed:
      “The basic “CO2 is a major greenhouse gas” theory that has propelled the global warming/climate change campaign has failed to verify, so there is no scientific basis for making grim projections.

      But alas, all of their predictions will fail to verify because they are based on the failed CO2 greenhouse theory.
      .
      He did NOT claim that CO² is not a greenhouse gas.
      He correctly states that the theory, that CO² is responsible for global warming has proven wrong: 18 years of increasing CO²-level without increasing temperature.

      • “Experience tells us unequivocally that there is no significant relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature.” Non, this does suggest Mr.Coleman rejects the idea that Co2 has any impact on temperatures, and as such it goes without saying that he does not believe it is a greenhouse gas. It is very difficult to put any other interpretation on such a statement.

      • icouldnthelpit November 4, 2014 at 1:02 am
        LOL. I’m not clear as to what you’re on about now. Your first:

        He’s claiming that co2 is not a greenhouse gas. No further comment is required.”

        led me to conclude you oppose Coleman’s argument. I responded to that below. However, now you say:

        …And, as for the evidence, what is going on now is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.”
        leads me to conclude you agree with Coleman’s argument. So which is it? I’d appreciate your clarification.
        Cheers.

      • Gareth Phillips November 4, 2014 at 1:06 am
        I posted this below, but post again here for your attention. This is an excellent explanation of what ‘greenhouse’ really means. The earth is NOT a greenhouse and the greenhouse gas theory proposed by Arrhenius in 1896 and upon which CAGW is based is just plain wrong. It was falsified theoretically, mathematically and experimentally a hundred years ago. It is currently being falsified by direct observation. Rising atmospheric CO2 content is NOT raising global temperature. QED.
        http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

      • He says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there could be many reasons why it is failing to cause further warming, it logarithimc nature or there are negative feedbacks, he does say he thinks CO2 sensitivity has been exaggerated.

      • …to add to that thought, CO2 makes up 1/1000 % of the Atmosphere, that percentage would only be major if the entire atmosphere had a total mass of a beach ball.

    • icouldnthelpit November 4, 2014 at 12:37 am
      Not quite. He doesn’t ‘claim’ CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. What he says is the greenhouse gas theory upon which the supposed detrimental effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is discredited.

      But I have read several papers by Ph.D. Climate Skeptics that totally debunk the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory. And, as for the evidence, what is going on now is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. Consider this: there has been no significant atmospheric warming for 18 years despite a continued steady rise in the amount of (CO2) mankind is exhausting into the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels. The steady rise in CO2 is well documented. Think about that: the pause in temperature increases is rolling on despite the continuing steady increase in the level of CO2 in the air. So the basic theory that man is causing climate change by burning fossil fuels has failed to verify. Scientifically it is just plain dead.

      Do you think 18 years and counting with no increase in global temperature while atmospheric CO2 has increased by 10% doesn’t falsify greenhouse gas theory? Is so, here’s an easily understood discussion as to why John Coleman is correct and you are wrong:
      http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

      • icouldnthelpit November 4, 2014 at 1:17 am
        1.
        See my response above to Gareth Phillips November 4, 2014 at 1:06 am.
        2.
        Who you gonna believe? Gavin Schmidt (who is a CAGW fanatic) and his crew at NASA who have been beavering away ‘adjusting’ the surface temperature records of the past 150 years to ‘prove’ we’re all going to cook any day now? Or a satellite that doesn’t care what the temperature really is because it doesn’t have a political agenda to pander?
        The UHA graph is here:
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png
        The UHA raw data, in case you’re interested: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
        You can look at the RSS graphs here: http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature
        3.
        Why don’t you avail yourself? You’ll learn something useful.

      • @icouldnthelpit
        So, what you’re saying is that when you qualify a noun with a negative predicate that means the noun doesn’t exist?
        So when you say “Obama is not a very good President” (as most folks say now), it really means that Obama is not the President?
        I didn’t know that. Somebody should call Washington and let them know about this.

      • icouldnthelpit
        November 4, 2014 at 1:17 am
        1. Yes he does. He says the overwhelming evidence is that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

        Yes, he does, then he explains it. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Coleman says

        And, as for the evidence, what is going on now is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. Consider this: there has been no significant atmospheric warming for 18 years despite a continued steady rise in the amount of (CO2) mankind is exhausting into the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels. The steady rise in CO2 is well documented. Think about that: the pause in temperature increases is rolling on despite the continuing steady increase in the level of CO2 in the air.

        You link to a 2011 GISS image.
        Why aren’t you quoting (and linking) to Chapter 9 of the most recent IPCC AR5 report? The IPCC calls Coleman’s ‘pause’ in the post above the “hiatus.”

    • “CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas”, says the man.
      I presume you’re doing a Michael Moore imitation by leaving out key words.
      Sorry, icouldnthelpit

      • Stating that “Experience tells us unequivocally that there is no significant relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature.” while maintaining Co2 is a greenhouse gas is a bit like saying something is inflammable but does not burn, or is buoyant but does not float. It’s a contradiction in terms. In reality I believe he is clear in suggesting that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas and has no impact on climate change. Maybe Mr.Coleman can clarify?

      • It seems to me that he is saying CO2 is a greenhouse gas but that the amount of heat it retains is not sufficient to make any appreciable difference to the global temperature. Other factors are far more influential. No contradiction there.

      • Gareth Phillips et al.
        Co2 has done most of the warming it can already. The rest of the dangerous warming proposal lies with water vapour feedback. No significant feedback, no global warming.

      • @icouldnthelpit
        you quoted it, but you don’t appear to have comprehended it. Some how you seem to thing the line
        “CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas”
        was
        “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”
        There is a significant difference between those two lines, can you spot what that difference is?

    • If anyone knows Coleman closely they should have a word on presenting facts. It does not look good if it sounds like you are saying that co2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. It allows Warmists to immediately reject his statement and point only this point out. Co2 by itself will not cause dangerous warming. Water vapour is KEY to the ‘theory’ of dangerous warming. That warming has failed to manifest itself in over 18 years.
      Maybe this is why.
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50772
      [Dragon slayers are not invited to reply to my comment. I will not respond.]

    • No, he is claiming that CO2 is not a SIGNIFICANT greenhouse gas. Which is a fact. Many of us have known that from the beginning. Only selective reading on your part allows that false statement you made. Have some more Kool Aide.

    • real greenhouses warm by reducing convection. they do not warm by changing radiation.
      thus, while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, earth’s temperature is not responding to CO2 because that is not the mechanism by which greenhouses warm. right name, wrong mechanism.

    • He is not saying that, it is you talking with yourself that is saying that.
      On a planetary level, the CO2 greenhouse affect increasing global temperatures in a significant way has yet to be proven. You might want to consider the practice that a hypothesis needs to be proven before being accepted as theory. Just because AGW circles do not follow the practice is not a reason to reject the practice.

    • He is claiming that CO2 is NOT a MAJOR greenhouse gas. The evidence, for the last 18 years, tends to confirm his claim.

    • He didn’t claim that.
      But even if you choose to claim he did, what he then also clearly claimed is that CO2 levels have continued to rise but temperatures have not as the CAGWers claimed they would.
      Why base policy on the “Man-made CO2 is going fry us all” hypothesis when reality has shown it to have been overstated at best?

  6. Thank you and well done, Mr Coleman for rubbing it in to the skin of the warm-mongers. If they’d just listen and start thinking for themselves then they ought to see what is going on. But, alas, there isn’t enough common sense in this world, so that the alarmists must live without it.

    • Unless you have good transferable temperature and pressure standards, your temperature measurements can NOT be accurate.
      The boiling point of water depends upon the atmosphere surrounding the open pot (think back 200 years).
      From: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html we can see that if the pressure varies by 30 millibars, the boiling point changes by approximately 1 degree C.
      Atmospheric air pressure varies quite a lot, here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.20/pdf we see the lowest recorded atmospheric air pressure at around 925 millibars,
      Here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1256/wea.40.06/pdf we see the highest recorded as 1053.6 millibars.
      So a range in atmospheric air pressure of 1053 – 925 = 128 millibars.
      This gives us a boiling point of water range of approximately 98 C to 102 C.
      I wonder what the air pressure was on the days that these thermometers manufactured and calibrated?

    • Yes, but not on a worldwide basis. Also the graph you posted shows dramatic cooling during the past 10 years or so. I thought temperatures had only paused.

    • “…measured surprisingly well..”
      Have no idea what “surpisingly well” means. Some 8 year-olds play soccer surprisingly well, doesn’t make them ready for the big leagues.
      In any case, please explain how the exact temperature to tenths of a degree centagrade was taken in 1814 over the entire surface of the UK (a discreet small area surrounded by water, not a proxy for all land surface across the planet). Then further explain how the temperature was consistantly taken in the exactly same manner, over the next 200 years.

    • Calibrate against what and how often? The MARK 1 eye ball is good but not that good.
      I will give you a really grade A digital thermometer and you tell me what the low is tonight. don’t forget to stay up all night and watch it because if you don’t you might miss the actual low.

  7. just up at India Times with Coleman quotes – asking for comments:
    3 Nov: India Times: Rutu Ladage: Is Global Warming A Joke Cracked By The Government?
    Well, at least science thinks so. Or so, some meteorologists want us to believe. There’s actually no scientific proof that the earth is going to soon burn in the fires of hell. We hear reports of the snow caps melting and the ice-levels in the poles reaching disturbing levels. But according to 9000 experts with PhDs and 31 scientists, global warming is just a myth.
    On The Kelly File, which is an American TV show on current affairs and problems plaguing the world, the Weather Channel founder John Coleman refuted claims of man-made global climate change…
    Global warming is one of the most controversial topics with the political parties too, torn over the issue. While a majority are of the opinion that global warming exists and man-made global warming is not a myth, there are many like Coleman who contest such claims…
    Do you agree with Coleman or are you with those 1000 news headlines claiming the Everest glaciers are drying up? Let us know in comments!
    http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/is-global-warming-a-joke-cracked-by-the-government-228234.html

  8. “The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years. Earth has been frozen into a sort of ice ball at least four times in its history (the Ice Ages) and has been as warm or warmer than it is today at least three times (Interglacial Periods) during its history.”
    How many of those ice ages and interglacial periods occurred in the last 8,000 years which pretty much covers the rise of human civilization?
    If that’s where you’re going to start, I see no reason to continue reading.

    • “How many of those ice ages and interglacial periods occurred in the last 8,000 years which pretty much covers the rise of human civilization?”
      You are making your own definitions to fit your ignorance better?
      “…gave rise to [6][7] anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago where they began to exhibit evidence of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago and migrated out in successive waves to occupy[8] all but the smallest, driest, and coldest lands.” [definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%5D.

      • Non, while Palaeolithic peoples were indeed exhibiting modern characteristics, I’m not convinced small bands of hunter gatherers really had much impact on climate. I suspect things were much the same in the Mesolithic, we have to wait until the advent on the neolithic and it’s discovery of farming till we have major population booms and the activities of humans have a potential to impact on an environment. The earliest evidence we have for neolithic activities is around Jericho about 8000 years ago. If we are trying to get a valid comparator for a period of time when humans have had a potential impact on the environment, that looks like a reasonable time frame to start.

      • Does art = civilized? You decide.

        BBC – 8 October 2014
        Cave paintings change ideas about the origin of art
        Scientists have identified some of the earliest cave paintings produced by humans.
        The artworks are in a rural area on the Indonesian Island of Sulawesi.
        Until now, paintings this old had been confirmed in caves only in Western Europe.
        ….”Next to it is a pig that has a minimum age of 35,400 years old, and this is one of the oldest figurative depictions in the world, if not the oldest one,” he told BBC News…..
        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29415716
        ———————————-
        Abstract
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13422

      • The earliest evidence we have for neolithic activities is around Jericho about 8000 years ago.

        It’s earlier than that. I saw a highly polished and elegantly designed jade bucket (with the handle carved in one piece out of the bucket) at the Royal Museum of Taiwan that pre-dated 6,000 BC. The level of workmanship was stunning, and would be considered exceptional in 2014.

    • The previous interglacial period was a lot warmer than the current one with forests growing on the North Slope and Siberia up to the Arctic Ocean with CO2 levels around 300 ppmv.
      In the past 10,000 years of the current interglacial, glaciers in the Alps and Norway lengthened and shortened about 5-6 times because of long time swings (period of 1000-1200 years) in temperature. Human and natural artifacts (tree parts, shoes,…) now come out of under the ice from 3000 and 6000 years ago. The tree line was hundreds of meters higher and the trees did grow far more north… All with CO2 levels between 280 and 290 ppmv…
      Human civilization increased mainly in the warmer periods, stabilized in the colder ones…
      Further: the increase in temperature 1910-1945 was as fast and high as over the period 1975-2000, with a CO2 rise 5 times higher in the second period. In between temperatures cooled somewhat with rising CO2 and after 2000 they stabilized with record increasing CO2. Thus what is the connection between temperature and CO2?

  9. Speaking as a prol this is my kind of scepticism. There are four kinds of sceptic and here they are in reverse order of prol appeal. 1: The scientist who comes on TV but is incapable of coming down to prol level. He can’t even understand what he is being asked by the prol interviewer, comes across as distinctly nutty. 2: The celebrity sceptic who confesses he is not convinced so as to forward his cool rebel persona. He probably also believes in the healing power of crystals and raspberry ketones so all prol credibility could collapse at any moment. 3: The political sceptic who concedes too much to the other side, Always on the verge of saying something controversial with prol appeal, but never quite making it. 4: The TV scientist sceptic, as seen here. This is the man who can speak prol and says all the stuff sceptic prols wish they could remember when the conversation turns to global warming. This is a new kind of sceptic because up until recently such behaviour would result in “doing a Bellamy”.

    • Oh, gee, aren’t you a clever prol. Obviously, you are unaware of Coleman’s background, and haven’t bothered to check. In addition, it was Coleman’s co-founder of the weather channel, meteorologist Joe Bastardi, who was the only official forecaster to get the 2013 cold winter correctly, and the only one I am aware of this year [not including the thorough Tisdale as a forecaster] to get the El Nino right and who has predicted a coming cold winter east of the Rockies. Not even NOAA in its October 16, 2014 winter prediction saw the record southeastern snow over the past Oct 31-Nov 1 weekend…two weeks out…couldn’t see it.

      • Do you not realize that temperature changes prior to 1950 are not scientifically considered to be affected by changes in CO2 concentrations that have changed due to human emissions of CO2 because there wasn’t much human emissions of CO2 prior to 1950 ? This means the warming prior to 1950 was a natural warming. Just because Watts invented the steam engine in 1756 doesn’t mean that fossil fuel was being used as an energy source in sufficiently large quantities in the early days of the industrial revolution, just like you didn’t see color TV shows in significant quantities the day after color video technologies were invented.
        – – –
        The fundamental flaw of CO2 as a driver of climate change or of global warming is that : The naturally occurring quantity, that existed before humans increased it, contains almost all of the “heat trapping”, and just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not mean that the extra quantity humans have added has much of an effect. Once again, you have to keep in mind that there is a naturally occurring quantity that contains most of the “heat trapping”, and that is the fundamental flaw in the theory of CO2 causing dangerous climate change.

      • icouldnthelpit, look at the IPCC’s recent report (long version). They have reserved their human caused climate change findings from 1950 and blamed you and me with words like “extremely likely”. Yet we had a similar uptick in temperature to the recent. Warmists struggle in trying to explain the first uptick but have no problem explaining the second.

        IPCC – CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 – SYNTHESIS REPORT
        Longer report – Adopted – 1 November 2014
        Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”
        ==================
        “It is very likely that regions of high surface salinity, where evaporation dominates, have become more saline, while regions of low salinity, where precipitation dominates, have become fresher since the 1950s…”
        ==================’
        “Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences,…”
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_LONGERREPORT.pdf

        See the first sharp uptick, BEFORE co2 was below the ‘safe’ 350ppm!!!
        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif

  10. Jon Coleman is too skeptical for me. Denies too much. We should be focussing on climate sensitivity. There’s no point on debating who caused what in the past, when everything that we have seen in the past was, regarding the warming, much smaller than what it should have been if the alarmists’ estimates of the climate sensitivity were corrrect, and its consequences, if anything, positive so far.

    • They still are insistant on human caused warming controlling the climate, that is why who caused what in the past is important, as in important to debunk as their other claims. Such as you mention their climate sensitivity claims and extreme weather claims.

    • Climate sensitivity is the Holy Grail of climate science. No one knows what it is. Whoever can nail it down gets a Nobel. People with models in their hands said for years we were going to fry by 2100 AD (7C-12C). The satellite–observable–data hasn’t cooperated. If you extrapolate the satellite data to 2100 AD, it’s no biggie.
      So now the model-users have reduced the global fry temp (climate sensitivity) from 7C to 2C. Based on what? Serendipity.
      Instead of focusing on climate sensitivity, they should focus on fixing their measuring tools, the models. The climate models can’t model ENSO, El Ninos, La Ninas, cloud formation, the PDO, the AMO, how the oceans work, the list is endless. When you can’t model 70% of the planet, you have some ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy.

    • If CO2 has gone up significantly (around 20%) in the past 18 years and global temperatures have actually declined a bit, that is what’s meant by “CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas”.
      Or should we posit the hypothesis that an increase in CO2 might actually cause temperatures to DECLINE?
      In that case, Warmistas should be cheering the use of fossil fuels and might even switch to global cooling as an excuse to control energy consumption.
      Because that control is what they’re really after–their reasoning be damned.

    • icouldnthelpit , have you read my water vapour references? Please do because without water vapour feedback the IPCC would be disbanded. No longer required.

  11. Great post.
    Thank you.
    My understanding is that water vapour is the largest contributor which controls the global temperature.
    Maybe we should all stop showering or using water for agricultural purposes 🙂

    • >>Maybe we should all stop showering or using water for agricultural purposes :-)<<
      And, of course, we must immediately cease drinking soda water, beer, coke et al. There is CO² in these d*mned bottles that will contaminate our atmosphere…

  12. The report warned that failure to reduce emissions could lock the world on a trajectory with “irreversible” impacts on people and the environment.

    The IPCC’s projections have failed since FAR. The trajectory failed to get above the first floor window.

  13. There are a great number of inaccuracies and stupidities in alarmist theory, but none in my opinion beats these:
    Natural climate cycles which have been around many hundreds of years suddenly ceased in the 1950s – I always find that one so amazing that anyone could be so stupid as to actually believe this.
    The current global temperatures are unprecedented – well, we are circa 10,000 years into the Holocene, the current inter-glacial period, which has mostly been warmer than today and previous inter-glacial periods have been warmer than this one.
    The idea that 1952, or 1937, or 1944 is the year of natural, normal temperatures at which we should fix the Earth for all eternity is so laughable, if it was not so sad and ludicrous.
    CO2 is an evil gas, when in reality it is essential for life on Earth.

    • “Natural climate cycles which have been around many hundreds of years suddenly ceased in the 1950s – I always find that one so amazing that anyone could be so stupid as to actually believe this.”
      Indeed this is the most powerful argument I have come accross. Splendid!

  14. Some impacts already being observed included rising sea levels,….

    An oft repeated statement that is true but aimed at the ignorant. Sea levels have general been rising for well over 12,000 years. They have been flattening over the past several thousand years. There is NO acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise. Some papers find a DEceleration.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    • Amid its grim projections, the report said the tools are there to set the world on a low-emissions path and break the addiction to burning oil, coal and gas which pollute the atmosphere with heat-trapping CO2, the chief greenhouse gas.

      Oh no AP. You gone and done it. You are at loggerheads with no other than the IPCC!

      IPCC – Climate Change 2007: Working Group I
      Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. “

      But so what?

      Science Daily – 2 February 2014
      Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say scientists
      Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities? Yes, says a group of researchers in a new study.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm
      —————–
      C. I. Garfinkel, D. W. Waugh, L. D. Oman, L. Wang, M. M. Hurwitz. Temperature trends in the tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: Connections with sea surface temperatures and implications for water vapor and ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2013; 118 (17): 9658 DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50772
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50772

      AP will soon learn about negative feedback.

      • Actually, Jimbo, I want their statements to get even crazier. I woke up yesterday morning to hear Michael Oppenheimer being interviewed on BBC. He was saying that emissions have to be zero by 2100 AD or we’re all doomed, and that we have to take action now. I let out an expletive and burst out laughing. I’m not a scientist (I just like reading source docs, nerdy that way), but if it hit me that way, there are many others who are perceiving these guys as nut cases with too much time on their hands.
        I’ve been reading the early climate change reports (1992) published by obscure journals. In one, Rajendra Pachauri who was working for an energy group then, discussed a ‘No-Regrets policy’ with respect to the climate (as opposed to “Wait-and-See’), also being peddled by the editor, who wrote,

        […]the “No Regrets” strategy offers substantial and immediate benefits. This strategy offers potentially affected parties a measure of control over their own destiny and a mechanism for hedging against uncertain future risks. For any stakeholder that implements it, this strategy increases the likelihood of capturing private gains as well as public benefits – whether the planet is about to face a major climate change or only a continuing period of high year-to-year variability.

        This was always about the money from the gitgo, by getting the population to convince governments to fork it over.

    • “An oft repeated statement that is true but aimed at the ignorant.” This is good Jumbo. A very large target indeed. Maybe we could get the ignorant declared an endangered species. They are always hurting themselves.

  15. The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years. Earth has been frozen into a sort of ice ball at least four times in its history (the Ice Ages) and has been as warm or warmer than it is today at least three times (Interglacial Periods) during its history.

    This is BS. I’m afraid Mr Coleman doen’s seem to know what he is talking about.This is the sort of stuff that really will get sceptics a bad name.

    • Which part is BS Euan? That climate has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years or that the Earth has been frozen in ice ages at least 4 times, was it less than 4 times or what? Not sure what you’re objecting to here.

    • Exactly what is incorrect about the quoted statement? According to wikipedia (I know …) and other sources there have been 5 ice ages (that’s more than 4, I believe).The (untainted by Mann) paleo record clearly shows past temperatures have been much higher than those we experience these days.

    • The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years.

      Is correct.

      Earth has been frozen into a sort of ice ball at least four times in its history (the Ice Ages) and has been as warm or warmer than it is today at least three times (Interglacial Periods) during its history.

      Ice ball earth and the recent glaciations are two totally different things. The current glacial period began about 3 million years ago and there have been about 50 glacial episodes and inter-glacials in it. These are high latitude ice sheets that come and go. Earth does NOT get turned into an ice ball. All this has happened in the last 3 million of Earth’s 4.5 billion year history. Earth has been a hell of a lot warmer than today for hundreds of millions of years during its life.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
      Maybe its not BS, but the language he uses confuses me. The Snow Ball periods are ones where the whole planet is frozen – all the oceans. The recent ice age is not like that at all. And using the term interglacial invokes what we are living in at present – not the very long periods of tropical climate that the Earth has experienced.
      http://euanmearns.com/the-ice-man-cometh/
      http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CB_all.png

      • .’ Earth has been a hell of a lot warmer than today for hundreds of millions of years during its life.’
        you what was the Earth temperature 25 million years ago ?
        In fact you and rest of the human race can at best take a guess , there simply is no way to accurately know temperatures over such a time scale , its not even possible to have good proxies over thousands of years , even using ‘magic tress ‘ There is very big difference between what is known as true and what we think is true . Something climate ‘science’ seems to have forgotten.

    • This is BS. I’m afraid Mr Coleman doen’s seem to know what he is talking about.This is the sort of stuff that really will get sceptics a bad name.

      Argument or evidence is missing from your comment. Care to try again or can we leave it that multiplying anything by zero results in zero.

    • The snowball earth scenario may be debatable, but the existence of ice ages and interglacials is well established. Besides, he said “a sort of ice ball”, not a solid ice ball. I don’t see a problem with his statement.

  16. “If you propose to do a research paper on sea level rise, the death of a species of butterflies because of global warming or devise a new global warming computer model, you can easily obtain millions of dollars in a research grant.”
    This is true. A friend of mine could not get funding for studying the migration of birds between Europe and Africa until he changed his proposal to a study of “The Effects of Global Warming (or Climate Change) on the Migration Patterns of Birds Between Africa and Europe.” Full funding was approved.

    • Great story and very believable. I would love to know how many times this happened. Very often, I suspect.

    • I work in research administration at a major public research university. I can verify that academics as a matter of course absolutely craft their research topics to maximize the potential for funding. They’d be stupid not to. It’s the way the game works. The federal government is by FAR the biggest provider of research funds and they make it clear what they would prefer to see.

    • I used to administer Federal and State grant funding programs and we always looked for those key words or outcomes that were in line with the mission of the program. All the incentives on both sides of the research grant process are skewed toward confirmation bias. If the answers had not already been determined 30 years ago, true scientific inquiry would have been the focus since then and we would have made a lot more progress in understanding the unknowns of climate science.

      • All the incentives on both sides of the research grant process are skewed toward confirmation bias.
        Says it all, really.

  17. My guess is that Kerry’s hero is Al Gore and he is competing for some of those big climate change dollars.

    Don’t you mean beans means Heinz?

  18. I follow the money trail and what do I find? 1. Empire building academics competing for government money by predicting evermore alarming scenarios based on nothing more than play station so called science (garbage in, garbage out). 2. They are aided and abetted by beurocrats with supranational ambitions (code for a cushy U.N. job, flying around the world 1st. class, staying in 5 class hotels and a handsome pension with which to finish up with, all funded by taxpayers), 3. Hardwired anti-capitalists who, since the collapse of the command economies in 1989, have been seeking another stick with which to belabor the capitalistic beast. 4. Snake oil salesmen pedaling windmills and solar panels, neither of which can ever hope to supply the energy requirements of a modern economy. 5. Merchant bankers who can see a dollar or two to be made trading carbon credits (taking short positions, of course), 6. Misguided idealists intent on saving us from ourselves.

    • Yep. That pretty much sums up the Leviathan we face. How can we stop it? Well, vote Republican today.
      We won’t get veto-proof majorities in either the Senate or House, but we may get enough to put a damper on ‘climate’-related funding at the EPA, NSF, Dept. of Energy, etc., and maybe turn off funding for the IPCC, too. That would be a start. Then in 2016 hold candidates’ feet to the fire: You’ll only get our votes if you stand up to the Climatist hoax-mongers.
      /Mr Lynn

    • Don’t forget:
      0. (so it leads the rest!) The Energy companies. All of them. Oil companies, coal companies, power companies. Energy companies make a marginal profit on price, and price is artificially inflated by the artificial scarcity created by demonizing carbon dioxide, especially when that demonization is done in a world where anyone with mere common sense can see that energy demand is almost completely inelastic and rising. Who installs windmills and solar panels? The same public utilities that sell you coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear power now. Do they care what the free energy source is that produces the electricity they sell? Not as long as it is sold at positive ROI, the more positive the better. They simply adjust their pricing against all sources to ensure that it remains so, but the highest price that they can convince people to pay yields the highest profits. Since they are protected from competition, they have to convince people, usually a commission of some sort, to allow them to change their rates. AGW is now a universal excuse for price adjustment.
      Who does most of the most expensive subsidized research on ways to ameliorate AGW? I’m not certain, but I rather suspect it is energy companies. They certainly parade TV ads in which they claim to be building this and inventing that to help. This isn’t just about their image — nobody is going to pull their house from the grid or stop driving to work because of AGW and they know it. It is about the money.
      For a long time, liquor by the drink was illegal in North Carolina. Why? Because it was opposed by two groups with a strong interest in the matter: The Baptists, who held, loudly and publicly, that liquor was the work of the devil and to sell it would be to risk the immortal souls of all good and pious people, and the moonshiners, who made a substantial and easy-money income selling tax-free ‘shine to those same pious Baptists under the table, often greasing the wheels of the local constabulary, the very politicians who loudly voted against it in the process. Similar interests have manipulated the “war on drugs” for decades, and no doubt were behind the original Prohibition in the US.
      Suppose that tomorrow it is scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there will be slow cooling for the rest of the 21st century (independent of the “reality” of CO_2 as a greenhouse gas). Will this be good news for the coal companies or oil companies or power companies? I don’t think so. They’d have to go back into competition and they would have to produce more to maintain profits as prices dropped in the teeth of increased supply. The same thing is true if thermonuclear fusion proves to be more than the usual chimera this time around (we’ve been promised a working reactor in 5 years by Lockheed-Martin, and they are very much not likely to be engaging in self-deceptive public fantasy).
      rgb

      • Bullseye Dr. Bob!
        It’s always about money and the smart guys will always make money no matter what is thrown at them.

  19. An excellent article from John Coleman. The fact of 30,000 climate papers is an astounding revelation of the vast amounts of money being thrown away (quite apart from the billions more wasted in renewable subsidies).
    These papers cover everything from the interesting and relevant to the completely absurd, with the distribution skewed heavily towards the latter end of the spectrum. As Coleman intimated, anything with a connection to climate can be considered a climate change paper. Are you an entomologist interested in dung beetles? Better look at the effects of climate change on dung beetle migration if you want to get funded. Oh, and you’d better make sure that climate change is gonna harm those poor dung beetles, so your proposal reads “Evaluation of how man made climate change impedes migratory pathways for Beetlus Dungus.”
    It all goes to show that the more money you throw at something, the more crap you get out.

    • The point is that over the period 2000-current CO2 rose 10% again, but the temperature didn’t rise. Even if there is a lag, according to the climate models, the temperature should go up. The natural variability included, that can show short periods (5-10 years) with a lack of warming, not 14-18 years as is now the case. Which makes that (near) all climate models can be discarded in the dust bin, including their “projections” for 2050 and 2100.
      Thus the multi billion dollar question is: what natural force does counter the extra temperature increase from the 10% extra CO2 and if that is found, in how far is that also responsible for a (large) part of the warming 1976-2000… Unfortunately there is very little research money available to solve questions like that.

      • icouldnthelpit November 4, 2014 at 7:50 am
        I bet if you subtract ENSO effects from temps over the recent past you’ll see more warming.
        Too much noise, not enough signal.

        Is that excuse #55 or #57? I’ve lost count. Fact is: CO2 greenhouse theory is bunk and Coleman has the courage to say so publicly.

  20. No degree in meteorology. No degree in climatology. No credibility. Quick get him on Fox News to get his “expert” opinion.

    • So just like St Gore and the head of the IPCC and the poor cartoonists and his kick, the pop psychologist that claims others are conspiracy nuts which he knows because he see’s conspiracies everywhere, and 101 other ‘experts ‘ whose supporting words on climate ‘science ‘ are treated like then come straight from the mouth of god by the AGW faithful.

    • Does Al Gore have a degree in meteorology or climatology?
      Quick, get him on CNN to get his “expert” opinion.

      • Their lack of credibility has nothing to do with their lack of a meteorology degree and everything to do with their lack of critical thinking.

      • The difference is that Al Gore espouses the overwhelming scientific consensus which every single credible scientific body endorses

      • The dog sez:
        …Al Gore espouses the overwhelming scientific consensus which every single credible scientific body endorses.
        Wrong. First off, to the extent there is a consensus, it is solidly on the side of scientific skeptics, not Algore.
        Next, once you get some maturity you will see that real world experience counts for more than a degree. Much more. A degree only opens doors and provides networking opportunities, it does not confer common sense.
        Finally, your appeal to authority fallacy refers to a ‘body’, when you started out using examples of individuals. FYI, there are very few credible professional organizations in the climate field. It is always a small handful of directors who speak in the name of all their members.
        Wake me when a professional organization allows its members to freely communicate with each other through a shared membership list, and lets them be part of formulating a mission statement or other guiding policy. Some folks have learned to game the system, and now they all do it. But just so you know, it is not ethical, honest, or transparent. It is conniving, nothing more.

      • … and which credible scientific body doesnt endorse AGW dbstealey? (nipcc doesnt count as credible or scientific)

      • Perhaps you’re unaware that the planet that Al Gore refers to is not Earth.
        He has unambiguously stated that the sub-surface of his planet has a temperature of “SEVERAL MILLION DEGREES”. He goes on to say that the clever scientists on this unnamed planet have come up with tools that can withstand that heat.

    • If science were only progressed by those with degrees science would not exist at all. A science minded person cares not what papers and certificates one has accumulated, only that they have a falsifiable idea. Like your idea, that credentials should decide who’s opinion matters, is easily falsifiable. I will use an example already mentioned in comments, James Watts who revolutionized the steam engine is not only largely lacking higher education but also self taught. Interestingly enough, there was effort to hold his work back specifically because of this, by people like you. I would have prefferred the examples of Da Vinci or Faraday but I didn’t see them brought up.

      • That was a long time ago. Can you provide an example of someone in the last 50 years? Difficult isn’t it?

      • Willis Eschenbach. <– Multiple published, peer reviewed scientist.
        There's your example. Not difficult at all. I'm sure there are many more.
        Next question …?

      • dbstealey says
        “November 4, 2014 at 6:23 pm
        Willis Eschenbach. <– Multiple published, peer reviewed scientist.
        There's your example. Not difficult at all. I'm sure there are many more.
        Next question …?"
        Wow- this is absolutely priceless- dbstealy compares Willis Eschenbach to Albert Einstein and James Watt. Lets see, Mr Eisenbach has a total of 7 or so climate science papers from the last 10 years according to Google Scholar with about 50 citations in total (I can't be bothered working out how many of these are self citations or citations from other deniers). Not exactly a huge impact, but not bad I guess for someone who doesn't claim to be a professional scientist. It's not like he discovered the photoelectric effect or general relativity though. *One* of Albert Einstein's papers has 12731 citations and slightly more impact…
        Science has become extremely specialized over the last century. It's extremely unlikely that somebody without adequate training or at least training in a related field is going to make a paradigm changing discovery. There's a reason why there's overwhelming consensus by scientists on AGW, just like on the question of the ozone hole, on acid rain, on DDT, on statins and heart disease etc etc etc
        But thanks for your reply. It's comedy gold.

      • Siberian Husky, you silly dog, I posted the example that you demanded, no more and no less. It was on your terms. You never said to compare the example to Einstein or Watt. Your exact criteria:
        Can you provide an example of someone in the last 50 years?
        Now that I did, you deflect once again, saying:
        It’s extremely unlikely that somebody without adequate training or at least training in a related field is going to make a paradigm changing discovery.
        I suggest that you take a look at these pages, and then try to continue with your pathetic denigration of a citizen scientist who puts many professionals to shame. The despicable alarmist crowd, of which you are a charter member, is filled with naysayers who try to find anything they can to tar skeptics. It is nothing but psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto others.
        You falsely claim there aren’t people without professional degrees who have made discoveries, but I think Willis’ writing on emergent phenomena qualifies, like other discoveries he’s made or greatly expanded upon.
        Now, I don’t expect you to read all of Willis Eschenbach’s articles. I know you won’t, because your mind is closed and you are well into in your comfort zone, impotently criticizing your betters. Convincing you to improve your mind by reading those articles would be like trying to teach a dog trigonometry. But for other readers there is a wealth of knowledge there, written in a pleasing and easy to read style.
        Now that we’re discussing the subject you raised, what exactly is your CV? Do you even have one? I doubt it. Do you have an advanced professional degree in the hard sciences? Or is it as I suspect: you are just a know-nothing member of the peanut gallery, yelling out catcalls about the accomplishments of people you could never hope to equal?
        You are a parody of the typical alarmist: you made up your mind before you had the facts, and now that the facts are destroying your belief, all you can do is try to put down those who have thought the problem trough and come to the right conclusion. You don’t amount to anything and you will soon be forgotten, while those who matter are making a difference.
        The really sad thing is, you are just a lightweight among many of the more vicious alarmist crud. This site keeps them under control. But as many of us know, other blogs host the most despicable dregs of humanity possible. See? I didn’t say things about you that I could have written. Nice guyt that I am. ☺

    • Siberian Husky, does that include the Father of modern global warming hysteria the astronomer and physicist Dr. James Hansen? Here are some more well known alarmists without a “degree in meteorology” or a “degree in climatology”.
      Siberian Husky, do you ever listen to the advice of this man?

      Dr. James Hansen
      “…it gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus…”

      As we all know the IPCC has told us that this claim is not supported in the scientific literature.

      IPCC
      “Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
      http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
      ————————–
      Sir John Houghton
      Atmospheric physicist
      Lead editor of first three IPCC reports
      There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”
      http://tinyurl.com/oqy42ej

  21. All that money and over 30 000 studies and we still don’t know how much warming we can expect. That isn’t science it’s more like a job creation project.
    Anyway, surely if we are going to destroy mankind with our burning stuff it becomes a self limiting situation. As we die off we burn less stuff until we are all dead and burn nothing and the blue marble goes on about its business as indifferent as ever.
    People are crazy.
    p.s. Thanks for a fine article, again.

  22. I could do with somebody simply putting together an assembly of graphs that verifies what Mr Coleman states above point for point. This would be most useful for my local work to convert “believers” to reality. This should be as a separate entry or inserted into a revised version of the above.

  23. Let’s all lock ourselves in a giant room and form a circle. Now everybody put your hands around the neck of the person to the left, and start squeezing. While you’re doing that, roll your eyes and look back at the next guy and say in an aggreived, self-righteous voice: ” you don’t understand the basic science”. Eventually we will all black out. Someone can then turn the lights off. Sorted.

  24. The conclusion can only be: “If you want to learn about climate, don’t ask a (former) TV weatherman”

    • Ask a failed politician instead ? and by failed we mean he lost his won state to Bush now there is a mark of quality !

      • No, probably not. But the mainstream findings of the Climate Science community might be a good place to start (unless you’re a conspiracy thoerist, then I’m fresh out of ideas)

      • mainstream findings of the Climate Science
        ========
        no one is disputing the findings – what is in dispute are the interpretations.
        people mistake science with truth. however science is not about truth, it is about fact. Truth belongs to the realm of philosophy. An entirely different animal.
        In truth your facts can be wrong, but in fact they are believed to be true.

  25. Bravo, Mr. Coleman. Well done, although it could have used some editing for typos here and there, plus you did mischaracterize the ice ages, which is a nitpick, but that’s the kind of thing Warmenistas love to harp about, and try to use to discredit.

    • There not only is not “overwhelming evidence” there is virtually no evidence outside of models. Please show me even one observation that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise and is not, instead, a result off tmperature rise. No models need apply .

    • You seem to be mixing two things up.
      No, you are the one who inferred the “non-existence-of-CO2-as-a-GHG” from a Coleman’s proposition positing the “non-significance-of-CO2-as-a-GHG”.
      So, it is clearly your mixup, not mine.

  26. Judging by the comments on websites it’s good to know that people are very quickly warming to the idea that Agw is not something to worry about.

  27. This was mentioned before, there is little to say other than to point out that climate sensitivity appears to be very low. The physics supports that, since the direct effect of doubling CO2 would (theoretically) be only about 1C. In fact, the only way that you can even discuss catastrophic warming is to invoke water vapor feedbacks, but those are an untested hypothesis. They’ve never been observed or quantified directly.
    We’ve run an experiment for about 50 years and the preliminary results are clear. There are no amplifying mechanisms that accompany rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, there seems to be something that mitigates carbon dioxide’s radiative effects, so perhaps enhanced cloud formation is an area for research. Maybe their hypothesis about trade winds is correct, and once the planet starts to warm the additional energy creates conditions that allow heat to be sequestered in the deep ocean. At this point we don’t know enough to do more than guess, but the result of our experiment is unequivocal so far: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does not create dangerous climate change, and the hypothesis regarding water vapor does not appear to be complete or correct.
    Of course when you point this out to an alarmist, all of a sudden they become skeptics too. They’ll point out that we don’t know all of the confounding factors that influence climate, and that something is almost certainly happening that’s masking CO2’s true effect on global temperature. You’ll get hand-waving about “natural variability” or warnings about heat that will come roaring back from the depths of the sea. (As an aside, it seems like the same people who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment also want to repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics…what do they have against the number 2?) Of course when you point out the contradiction then they’ll take refuge in their last safe place: “Are you a climate scientist? There’s a 97% consensus…”
    I’m sure that there’s a consensus among parapsychologists that ESP is real. There’s a consensus among SETI researchers that extraterrestrial life exists. There’s probably a consensus among clowns that lapel flowers that squirt water are the height of hilarity. Sadly, none of these views are supported by evidence. They’ve been reinforced by like-minded individuals being drawn to the same field, and then fiercely defending their beliefs when challenged by outsiders. This isn’t how the scientific method is supposed to work.

    • Ummm no. There is a consensus among parapsychologists that there is no credible evidence for ESP. There’s a consensus that extraterrestrial life is likely to exist on other planets on the balance of probabilities, but as yet no good evidence that it does. As for the squirting water thing, you’ll need to ask dbstealy.

  28. My only thought on this is this – does climate research “sound” like cancer research? By that I mean all the papers that are written – did they say 30,000? – doesn’t that sort of remind you of all the research into “carcinogens?” Every one picks some item – in cancer research, it would be anything that someone doesn’t personally like – and wrap it up in a cancer research grant to create their own little never ending income, but only as long as it can be tied to the excuse for the research – in the case of cancer, a potential carcinogen, in climate change, anything that can be tied in anyway to climate change and CO2. In both cases, they have turned into “industries,” not researching to prove the truth about the bottom line.
    I wonder what would happen to all these “climateers” – sorry, Mickey, I had to borrow your group – if the world DID accept their premise and committed economic hara-kiri? What life raft will they grab on to in order “save their standard of living?” Instead, they are banking on this “industry” having the same staying power as “cancer research industry” with no true action taken to upset their apple carts.
    All it takes is dumbing down the population by depressing the actual level of education that people receive during their formative years, and fear mongering, and the industry will continue as long as there are taxes collected to support it as it isn’t self supporting on its own.

  29. I think it is a most excellent response by John Coleman.
    One question:
    “The average American family of four is already paying an additional 1,200 dollars a year for food, fuel and power as a result of the anti-fossil fuel initiatives.”
    I wonder if anyone has a source link for that statement.

  30. New paper by PNAS says the models have gotten ocean absorption of far infrared totally wrong. That is one of the keystones of global warming theory. That the oceans will absorb the infrared trapped by CO2 and warm. The oceans are about 70% of the planetary surface in case anyone asks.

    • Well just because oceans are 70% of the planetary surface is no reason to consider it a primary factor in driving planetary climate and temperature. Heck we should also ignore waters that flow beneath the land, along with all other activity below the earths surface. We should also ignore vegetation, insects, fish, micro life and any other kind of life on the planet except for humans.
      /endSarc

  31. Pachygrapsus
    November 4, 2014 at 5:50 am
    “…
    I’m sure that there’s a consensus among parapsychologists that ESP is real. There’s a consensus among SETI researchers that extraterrestrial life exists. There’s probably a consensus among clowns that lapel flowers that squirt water are the height of hilarity. Sadly, none of these views are supported by evidence.”
    ^This

  32. While I agree with the article – can we remove the bold? It looks like an angry rant spam email my mother in law would send me about the dangers of Islam…

  33. Gareth Phillips November 4, 2014 at 1:06 am
    “Experience tells us unequivocally that there is no significant relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature.” Non, this does suggest Mr.Coleman rejects the idea that Co2 has any impact on temperatures, and as such it goes without saying that he does not believe it is a greenhouse gas. It is very difficult to put any other interpretation on such a statement.
    ———-
    That’s because you can’t read. Try again.

    • So tell me Einstein, what is the real meaning of the sentence ” “Experience tells us unequivocally that there is no significant relationship between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature.” I suppose it means that Mr.Coleman regards Co2 as the major factor in warming eh? Maybe John the Cube is an extremely accurate pseudonym for the author of these sort of comments 🙂

      • It was a long article. I suppose if he had time to rewrite it several times he would have tightened up some of the ambiguity, whether he should have said insignificant, marginal, minor or whatever. Hell, we’ve all written stuff and later thought, well I could have said that better. Don’t be so pendantic.

  34. Almost every bit of warming CO2 can cause is in the first 100 ppm’s, and feedback from water vapor must be an overall negative or the Earth would have destroyed life when ppm’s s were over 5000.
    Now what is difficult about that.
    The climate is self regulated between bounds or we wouldn’t be here to debate the obvious.

  35. The U.N is about the most worthless entity on the planet. Why is that building still in N.Y and why is it they always make some backward assed third world a’-hole Secretary General?
    I’m sure while compiling their propaganda report somewhere a genocide was happening that they as always do nothing about. Wait. Yes they do. They furrow their brows and issue sternly written memos.
    The U.N. Another failed legacy of the leftist intellectual that we continue to pay for.

  36. “…30,000 scientific papers…” Maybe its because I’m a geologist and most of our work employs a Sherlock Holmes type of deduction given the cold case nature of our subject, so to me this over the top number says it all. I remember a Cree freshwater fish processing plant up in the Lynn Lake district of northern Manitoba back in the 1950s where I was an assistant mapping the geology of the district. Now ravens are a common bird up there, but with the fish plant, each morning, many thousands of shrieking, crapping birds flew over our camp and in the evening they flew back over again. We wound up having to move our camp from under this major flyway.
    I think the metaphor is clear. Here we have one theory with some simple math to define it on CO2’s (control knob) effect – surely one paper would do if this settles the science. A few other papers would show that observations dovetail with the theory. Other papers by biologists, etc. would be needed to show unequivocally that species are impacted, the ocean is dying, etc. Okay, let’s say 200 papers (I’m being generous here) would be sanely sensible – so we are talking about 10 scientists to do the job. What we have here, though is the fish plant type funding model and even nature responds to such largess by multiplying itself to get in on the goodies. Many thousands of ravens packed into a relatively small area just isn’t natural otherwise. Now suppose there is a plan on the table to close the fish plant and many thousands of ravens show up at the meeting to resist this! That’s my model of the situation.

  37. If I were a “climate” scientist with a PhD and wanted a safe, well paying job, where I didn’t have to go out in the field for observations, or measurements, or collecting samples, and a job with a good pension, I’d probably try to get a government grant.
    .
    Then I’d play computer games for a living and predict a coming climate catastrophe so I’d get more money next year … and the year after … and the year after that.
    .
    Saying the climate is normal and I am only seeing harmless short-term variations, even if true, wouldn’t pay the bills.
    .
    The coming climate disaster I, and my fellow PhD computer gamers, predict, would always be in the future so we could all retire without ever being proven wrong.
    .
    If the actual temperature measurements seemed contradictory, then a few “adjustments” would solve that problem — maybe small adjustments every year so no one would notice.
    It’s all about greed and money for the “scientists” (climate astrologers) … and government that spends a little money on bribes to scientists, in return get the ability to seize more power over corporations, and tax them for energy use,”to save the Earth”.
    .
    This has been going on since the 1960’s with only changes to the MacGuffin
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

  38. All of the comments, everyone of them, has been read and considered. I am grateful for the nice comments and appreciative of the corrective and question comments and able to take with a laugh the ugly comments.
    When I emailed this item to Anthony (and several others) the question I asked was if they had any contacts or could help me get this printed by some newspaper or magazine as an opinion page article. I intended it for the non-scientist general public. I was surprised when Mr. A posted it on WUWT. But, as I think about it, this has been an excellent activity because it gives me tons of feed back to correct and rework the article based on the many comments above.
    For the record, back in the pre-internet dark ages of the 1950 and 60s it was very difficult for a man with a degree in Journalism, a major TV job and a family to obtain the desired education in meteorology. I had taken all three courses in Meteorology that the University of Illinois offered at the time, but that was not enough. So I signed up for coorespondence classes with Penn State. It was a slow process with library books, mimeographed course work and tests arriving via manila envelope and returning the same way. It took months and then years. But eventually, the American Meteorological Society of which I was an Associate Member contacted me and said it was clear I had obtained the equivalency of a BS degree and elevated me to full Professional Membership and offered me the AMS seal of approval for my TV weathercasts. Then in 1982 the AMS awarded me its Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year award. So I have been studying the weather and predicting the weather for over 60 years. I think I don’t have to hang my head in professional shame and would appreciate a bit more Professional respect.
    So with that said and thanks for all you interest in my efforts, on I will go to see what I can contribute to our continuing long term effort to convince the people of the world that there is no significant man-made global warming now, has not been any in the past and there is no reason to expect any in the future.
    (please note the word significant)

    • Well done, John. I too have written a paper proving that carbon dioxide does not warm the world. It is in press now but if you would like to see a preview send me a note at:
      arno@arrak.ee

    • “Blog-review” is a wonderful thing if you have a thick skin and an honest eye.
      “Professional respect”? I think you have it. But those who have “turned to the dark side” won’t admit it. Otherwise, why did what John Coleman said raise a ruckus?
      I’m reminded of those journalist that said Reagan had to read off of 3X5 cards etc. implying he was a bit slow admitting that he was really very sharp after he died.

    • Hi John,
      Start ALL your presentations with “Co2 is a greenhouse gas without which the world would be much too cold……………….” This disarms your critics immediately and makes them listen.
      You need to add water vapour feedback to get the speculated dangerous warming which is not happening etc. Our host can guide you on that. Just my 2 cents.

  39. “But, I admit I am amazed after the huge and continuing teaching of global warming in our schools (partially through the continued showing of the Al Gore Si-Fi movie “An Inconvenient Truth”) that anyone under 30 holds on to any skeptical view of global warming.”
    Never underestimate the cynical nature of youth. Another decade of flat or falling temps will just seal their opinions that they’ve been lied to. This will make them better citizens by being more, not less, questioning of the “accepted view of experts”.
    My son and I have had lots of talks about CO2 and global warming over the years and when you lay out the facts they just start to question everything. Funniest one recently was when he had to do up a biology report on CO2 and one question was “Is this a problem?”. I cited a bunch of research showing it was helping and not a problem.
    The feedback was hilarious “Dad, me and all my friends loved your stuff but we want to pass the class so we’re just going with the BS answers they expect”. I laughed and told him to “game the system” to his heart’s content.
    Every pronouncement from the AGW camp these days just screams “DESPERATION”. I think they know that Dr Libby and Dr Easterbrook are correct and we’re heading for a lot of cold times. They know they have to get their agenda done now or their goose is cooked.

  40. Well done, John. I too have written a paper in which I exposes the warmist lies and prove that carbon dioxide cannot warm the world. Only simple science and Miskolczi greenhouse theory is needed to see that this follows logically from the existence of the warming hiatus/pause. As Anthony has pointed out, they have written more than fifty papers attempting to explain that hiatus away, with no success. My paper is in press now but if you wish to see a preview send me a note about it at: arno@arrak.ee.

  41. “So the basic theory that man is causing climate change by burning fossil fuels has failed to verify. Scientifically it is just plain dead.”
    Although I’m a skeptic, I would not pronounce the theory completely dead yet. It has definitely “failed to verify.” But 18 years of no warming is not long enough to disprove the theory any more than 18 years of past warming was long enough to prove it. I wish it was, but it’s going to take more time. If it is wrong for the alarmists to jump to extreme conclusions in one direction, it is also wrong for skeptics to do the same in the opposite direction. We should definitely point out when alarmist predictions fail to come true, but we need to let the science play out before drawing extreme conclusions of our own that may come back to discredit us.
    There’s still the possibility that natural climate variation is currently masking greenhouse warming, just as it may have enhanced the warming previously. One thing’s for sure. Whatever ability CO2 has to warm the climate, if any, it is not strong enough to overwhelm natural climate variability. But that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a small greenhouse effect and that the current climate might be cooling more than it is if not for CO2. It’s going to take some time (and accurate temperature data) to even get an idea of what effect CO2 may actually have on global temperature. But even then, it will only be a rough estimate due to how little we know about negative feedbacks and the unpredictable nature of natural variability.

  42. I really enjoyed reading that at lunchtime today. What I like about John Coleman is that he speaks in terms laypersons can easily understand. He also strikes me as a perfect gentleman and consumate professional.
    What he was thinking as he read the IPCC’s outright lies in this latest ‘report’ will no doubt be, broadly, what many of us here were thinking. But what really gets me is that for the vast majority of the public – who get their news input from MSM and never read a climate blog – believe the scare stories (“endless series of hobgoblins”*).
    They believe the scare stories because they see them everywhere: the scientists, the UN, the government, the BBC – they can’t all be wrong! They know what they’re doing, they’re the experts, after all. And they’re just trying to protect us, and make a safer future for our children. CO2 is evil.
    Honestly, how can they get away with such blatant lying? Well, because it’s instigated by the UN, trickled down through compliant western politicians, promulgated by ALL the MSM media outlets, almost ENFORCED in acedemia and then flaming well paid for by the very suckers who’ve been BRAINWASHED into believing that CO2 is a problem. If you’re not brainwashed and not a sucker then you still have to pay, obviously.
    Listening to BBC radio Scotland on the way to work this morning: Scottish Renewables needs more money – they’re talking about issuing “climate” bonds, cause, oh, climate change is so scary. I remember this exact quote: “as the data on climate change continues to get worse…”. WTF?
    Reading National Geographic at the dentist wating room later on in the day: “As the earth continues to warm”…. “Due to climate change…”, bla, bla, flaming bla. See what I mean about the outright lying from the very institutions which people expect to be able to trust? See how this works?
    And then on the way home from work I have to listen to some twat on the radio saying that we need to let the security services have free access to everything we do online because evil t3rror1st5 use the internet and they hate us for our freedoms and our way of life is under threat if we don’t give up privacy.
    Honestly, sometimes I wish I could just give up caring.
    * “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
    ― H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women.

  43. I agree completely with what Louis says above, and I think most skeptics do. It’s a pity that Coleman included some inaccuracies in his comments, especially his denial of the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect. Most of us spend a lot of effort pointing out that there is a greenhouse effect and that this does not imply catastrophism because climate sensitivity is low.

    • As Coleman stated above in a comment:
      ” But, as I think about it, this has been an excellent activity because it gives me tons of feed back to correct and rework the article based on the many comments above.”
      So he will correct any inaccuracies in his comments using the “peer review” of this thread. That’s what is great about WUWT.

  44. John Coleman,
    Thanks! – for your enjoyable dissection of the AP story, as part of my daily lunch time perusal of WUWT.
    Mac

    • He didn’t. But his wording could leave that impression. Clarifying that he’s referring to the “Burning Fossil Fuel CO2 is going to make Earth a Globe-ka-bob” hype should clear that up.

    • I think you mean me, David Ramsay Steele. In several places, including “the failure of the CO2 greenhouse theory” and “the failed CO2 greenhouse theory”.

  45. When authority is used to claim CAGW is real, I recall my school years where phenomena of our world was both told to us a being real, the consensus view (the earth is round) and an explanation of how this was determined (insert examples here 🙂 ), the experiments that were conducted, etc.. So the student was given a solid foundation of the scientific method and its application in real world examples. Authority was never expected to be the sole determination of the science.
    So when it comes to CO2 as a driver of climate change, it is we, the skeptics that are providing the scientific methodology, the examples drawn from the real world that so far seems to clearly show, well exactly what John Coleman has written, with the additional corrections by the WUWT reviewers.

  46. Thank You very much dr. John Coleman for this long and eccellent view of a Scientific issue gone bad and turned into a political, Money-grabbing scheme, where we all will die if we do not all bow to the pope and the inquisttion. They are selling their lies and their unscientific wabble as did those folks back in the dark ages, as letters of indulgence. Meanwhile real science and proof is tossed out, playstation 5 models of temperature, simulated, not real world environment ‘trips’, are presented to School-kids as reality. In propaganda films polar bears and whaleruses drown, ice-shelfs melt, and the globe sinks down into extreme weather, hurricanes, floods, heatwaves, squid die from ocean acidification, drought and malaria kills kids in developing countries and so on.
    The Public is being grotesquely mislead, using their own hard-earned Money as a ransom. Reality and real facts about the climate, and the environment is no longer shown on TV, anywhere in the western countries. Thiefs and conjurers get Rich, liers win noble prizes, Young scientist have to become Hustlers themselves and cheat to get any funding, the peer-review process has been hijacked by political manipulators. Temperature records are being distorted and destroyed. We are told the same lies time after time after time, for decades now this Circus of dadaism and propaganda has been touring the world, to the dismay and disbelief of anyone that has invested even as little as a couple of days to study the subject matter of climate change.
    The IPCC, the Obama administration, the EPA and the EU, Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, mr Pachuri, alongside all their dilutional supporters, will now make the final push of the light brigade. They will probably succed in ruining the economies of all western countries exept Australia, leaving the communist Block to rule the world in the future. The agenda of the warmers will not save the world, it will ruin what ever is good in it for those who love it, and can appreciate the beauty of human Development and western civilization. They will not succeed in reducing global human CO2 emissions, these will continue to rise, as China, India and the rest of Asia goes coal-driven. They will not succeed in lowering temperature on the Earth, for the temperature is not governed by human greenhouse emissions anyway. The real scare for me, is that if this charge of the idiots prevail, that will be the doom of western civilization, Democracy, Liberty and science.
    So keep fighting, dr. Coleman, and Antony Watts, and all of Your other distinguished and unsung heroes of climate realism. And all of You People who are supporting us and Our cource. We will win. The globe is cooling. Real science and reality trumphs all models and simulations, trumphs all propaganda and scare-mongering. Keep fighting for our children, for coming generations, and for the western way of life, built on science, liberty, democracy and freedom. The forces of darkenss shall not win this Battle.

  47. ” But I have read several papers by Ph.D. Climate Skeptics that totally debunk the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory. And, as for the evidence, what is going on now is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. …”
    I saw some troll up-thread made a big deal of the above statements by John Coleman. But the truth is that Mr. Coleman was spot on target with his statements.
    The “greenhouse gas theory” is not well defined and means various things to various people. They use “greenhouse” because the common people will think of a commercial greenhouse and then think that the climate really works that way. It is purposeful obfuscation.
    What they want you to think is that the magic molecule CO2 forms a glass-like roof over our heads bouncing back “heat” to the surface. When called on that, the alarmists then trot out a more complicated and more realistic version of the same “theory”. (delusion?)
    In reality, the idea that we can even measure the net effect of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is delusional. The molecule mostly bumps into another molecule (probably nitrogen or oxygen) before it has a chance to radiate and so we see that convection is the real driver of the whole deal in the lower atmosphere. (as we were taught in college before the madness set in)
    So John Coleman is darn right — the simplistic B.S. spewed by the rent-seeking grant-eaters is not really science at all. It violates common-sense, observation, and established physics. CO2 does have an effect on what some people call the “atmospheric effect” (rather than the “greenhouse”) but it is so small we can’t tell if it is a positive or negative.
    CO2 is innocent!

  48. Thank you John Coleman. Your wise words give me hope that common sense will prevail one day. Just hope I live long enough to see it.

Comments are closed.