A 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, un–board 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 non–Ph.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.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
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.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
There is money going into apologies for the lack of warming. The current meme is the ocean ate it e.g. Chen and Tung 2014. Of course the ocean didn’t eat it because it is always warmer than the atmosphere on average.
http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2014/10/05/the-ocean-ate-it/
The tragedy is that you are absolutely right. We have no clue what really causes climate fluctuations.
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.
No degree in meteorology. No degree in climatology. No credibility. Quick get him on Fox News to get his “expert” opinion.
Lame
And more than 60 years on the job. He did weather before the abominable Mann was even born.
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.
Oh no! A skeptic who threatens my ideology! Quick, do an ad hominem, and run away.
Does Al Gore have a degree in meteorology or climatology?
Quick, get him on CNN to get his “expert” opinion.
Trouble is that CNN probably HAS had Gore on as a climate ‘expert’.
No but he attended Divinity school!
Al Gore, the man who invented the internet and came second. He is desperate to become important instead impotent. Someone astutely wrote: “Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch.”
The difference is that Al Gore espouses the overwhelming scientific consensus which every single credible scientific body endorses. John doesn’t have a degree and espouses an opinion held by a smattering of libertarians who have a bachelor’s degree in an unrelated science from second rate universities at best, don’t like paying taxes and who are convinced that AGW is some big UN conspiracy to take their guns from them. CNN is a news organization. Faux News is not.
RE: Siberian Husky November 4, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Here are just two of Mr Coleman’s statements:
”Global temperatures have been essentially plateaued for 18 years.”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png
The Antarctic Ice is at an all-time maximum in the modern satellite era in which accurate measurements have been possible.”
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
So if Mr Coleman bases his opinion on the above data, are you then saying that the NSIDC, the Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois and Remote Sensing Systems are, in your own words, peopled with:
Do you have any evidence of this?
Siberian Husky November 4, 2014 at 2:14 pm
The difference is …. don’t like paying taxes
No, that’s you alarmist Kerry.
John Kerry Saves $500,000 By Docking 76-Foot Luxury Yacht Out Of State
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/john-kerry-saves-500000-b_n_656985.html
Gore…Kerry…Obama…DeCaprio….No degree in meteorology. No degree in climatology. No credibility
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. ☺
dbstealey
So you can’t find a single example then? lol.
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?
As we all know the IPCC has told us that this claim is not supported in the scientific literature.
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.
This needs to be published in a newspaper to be of any significant use
Peer reviewed?
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.
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.
The conclusion can only be: “If you want to learn about climate, don’t ask a (former) TV weatherman”
A pathetic drive by, by ….ahem….. a self confessed idiot
Our little Village is truely a looking-glass community 😉
All the credibility of a village idiot…
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.
Ask a Village Idiot?
Mr. Mann is qualified to comment?
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.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
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 .
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
How about most of the 20th century?
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.
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.
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.
Wonderful responce Pachy, best I’ve read today Bravo
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.
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.
Anandamide, a natural cannabinoid, fights breast cancer. According to a 1998 NCI paper. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandamide
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.
I like Polywell Fusion.
So do I. It’s just a shame it doesn’t work.
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
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
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…
+1
AndyZ
I have no idea what your mother-in-law’s rants look like, but your comment looks to me like an off-topic sniper-shot.
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.
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.
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.
“…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.
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
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.
“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.