Weather Channel Founder: Life on Earth getting better – Al Gore is "guilty of scientific fraud"

Greenhouse Gases are making Our Lives Wonderful

By John Coleman, Meteorologist, founder of the Weather Channel

After more than two decades of study I am convinced that life here on Earth has been getting better and better for the billions of we people who make this little blue marble our beloved home.

The “tons and tons of carbon we are spewing into the atmosphere every day” as Al Gore puts it are actually a good thing. In his rants that the Earth will become uninhabitable former Vice President Gore is referring the carbon dioxide gas being released into the atmosphere as we power our civilization with fossil fuels. However, it turns out that as the “greenhouse gasses” we release combine with nature’s carbon dioxide to make the planet greener and greener.

GREENER EARTH

Yes, the increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causes our forests and grasslands to spread out and grow bigger and stronger and the CO2 also causes our food crops to grow faster and better increasing the food supply for people and animals. And these gasses are also warming the planet a little bit decreasing the impact of winter’s deep freezes, ice storms and blizzards. As a result life is better for all of the people and animals living on Earth, and it particularly better for the billions of people in live primitive lives in the undeveloped third world.

There are at least three reasons.

GLOBAL WARMING IN SCHOOL

First of all, for at least 20 years ALL of our schools and our Universities have taught the students that carbon dioxide is pollutant and powerful greenhouse gas. Every person has been taught that as a result of our use of fossil fuels which exhaust carbon dioxide into the atmosphere our climate is going to become unlivable. How did this become the accepted position in our schools? Well it started as it became the position of the United States Government thanks to the work of Senator Al Gore who had written a book about the threat of global warming and used it to get elected to the United States Senate. There he pushed his theory through Congress.


A must read: Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change


There was no organized opposition to his campaign and only a few lonesome skeptics tried but failed to be heard in opposition. Scientific papers supporting this theory were widely published in scientific journals. With a powerful Democrat politician advancing the theory and over 90% of college professors Democrats, the tendency was to accept the theory. First thing we knew the theory was in all the text books and presented as a fact in every class room. So classroom teachers and College Professors had accepted the theory about CO2 being a super “greenhouse gas” the Algorian position was totally accepted in the educational system. It would have been very difficult for a teacher or professor to look into an opposing position and very few did.

SORRY I WAS WRONG

Second, saying I was wrong and I have changed my mind is a very rare event. Only the strongest persons can do it. I only know of a couple of professors who have had the strength to look into the climate change frenzy theories skeptically and come to the conclusion that they are scientifically unproven and then ventured into the skeptics papers and articles and seen the light. I suspect there are dozens or even hundreds of others who have seen the light but don’t have the strength to say so. To face your wife, your boss, your friends, your former students and say I was wrong and have changed my mind takes far more strength than most people possess.

MONEY

Third, the power of money keeps the Algorian climate change theory firmly in place. Money is the second most powerful force in our civilization and our government now supports climate change with about 20 billion dollars a year. Dozens of Universities depend on that money. Research organizations are also heavily dependent. Everyone on the faculties and staffs have to toe the line without reservation. This process funds dozens of supportive research papers a year. Those papers lead to web posts and journal articles. Those articles lead to news stories in papers, on websites and on TV and Radio stations. This keeps the Algorian frenzy about the supposed climate threats in everyone’s mind.

ENDANGERMENT FINDING

I am in contact with a large skeptical group of Ph.D. climate scientists, attorneys, researchers and other well educated students of science such as me. We all devote a great deal of time each week to try to reach the public and elected officials on climate change. We are pleased that the President withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. We want very much to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding that classifies Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. There are numerous meetings being held, contacts being made, petitions filed, letters written and legal actions being undertaken or considered. My heroes at Heartland Institute continue their intense efforts to organize and support our activities. I wish I could shout it out in the halls of the Washington swamp, GREENHOUSE GAS IS MAKING OUR LIVES WONDERFUL.

GREEN EARTH

I hasten to add in closing, I am an environmentalist. I ask for no compromise in our efforts to provide an Earth of clean air and clean water. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is invisible (it is not responsible for any haze in the air), it is odorless and tasteless. Scientists and engineers have done wonders in the last 20 years to clean our fossil fuels and the internal combustion engines and power plants they fuel. Our air is the cleanest it has been in a century. Solar and wind energy is still far from the task of powering our civilization. We would have to give up our cell phones, computers, airplanes, air conditioning and heating to live without fossil fuels at this time. Science breakthroughs come along every year. I predict that in 40 years we will be able to shut down our power plants and retire the internal combustion engines. That will be a great day.

While most of the media is busy bashing President Trump and all that, quietly important bureaucratic changes that will impact future Federal Government policies are underway. There is exciting new news from the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency that essentially validated the global warming/climate change frenzy during the last eight years as it classified carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of man-kinds use of fossil fuels as a pollutant. Scientific America published a little seen report on the EPA activities. That article was write from an Algorian point of view. I have cut those biased bits from it so I can share the important news from we climate skeptics. Here is the edited article:

Climate skeptics may soon join a key science advisory panel at U.S. EPA.

A number of people who reject the findings of mainstream climate science are being considered by the Trump administration for spots on EPA’s Science Advisory Board, a voluntary but influential panel that reviews science used in environmental regulations.

The selection of any of those researchers would be the beginning of a very different advisory board that would bear the hallmark of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, said Steve Milloy, an attorney and longtime EPA foe who worked on President Trump’s transition team for the agency.

Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said in an email: “We applaud any effort by Administrator Pruitt to bring qualified non-alarmist scientists onto the EPA’s advisory boards. There is a vigorous debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, and it’s vital that EPA acknowledge that fact and have a more balanced approach to the agency’s rule-making.”

The deadline for public comment expired Sept. 28. After that, EPA boss Pruitt has final approval on the candidates. The board has 48 member slots, 15 of which expire at the end of the month. It’s not clear how many positions will be filled.

Here are some of the skeptical nominees under consideration:

JOE D'ALEO

Joseph D’Aleo, a certified consultant meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel: He has run climate skeptic websites and has appeared as a speaker at Heartland conferences. D’Aleo said his priority on the board would be attacking the endangerment finding, the legally binding document that holds that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm human health and must be regulated by the executive branch. He said he wants to challenge the finding because it could otherwise be used later to build back Obama-era environmental regulations.

“We’re going to push for reconsideration, start from scratch and put together the best science,” he said. “If CO2 is not a serious pollutant, let’s focus the attention of the EPA on other issues.”

edwin berry

Edwin Berry, a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist: He has funded his own climate research and says human carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change. He has compared those who believe in human-caused climate change to “Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.” On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” [that]  has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters. Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. “Let’s get over this whole thing about climate change being an important thing, because in fact we humans have a negligible impact on climate,” he said. “And if we had the Paris Agreement and everything else, it wouldn’t do any good anyway.”

alan carlin

Alan Carlin, a retired EPA employee who is affiliated with Heartland: He fought the agency’s crafting of the endangerment finding. Carlin, an economist, was at the center of a political firestorm under Obama after he produced a widely criticized 93-page report comprising cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries concluding that regulating carbon dioxide was “the worst mistake that EPA has ever made.”

kevin dayaraatna

Kevin Dayaratna, a statistician at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His report was cited by Trump as a reason to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. It claimed that the agreement could shrink U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion within two decades (though Trump stated the impact as coming within a decade). The report was criticized by some as being misleading, because that amount is less than 1 percent of the aggregate GDP over that period and the report did not account for the cost of taking no climate change action. Dayaratna was invited to attend Trump’s withdrawal announcement in June in the White House Rose Garden.

graig idso

Craig Idso, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute: He has researched the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. His work has centered on highlighting how increased carbon dioxide will benefit plants.

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian environmental think tank: His organization handed out leaflets at a climate protest this year in Washington, D.C., that said, “CO2 is not the ‘control knob’ of the climate.” He also co-founded Climate Exit, or “Clexit,” which criticized the science behind the Paris climate agreement and holds that spiking levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide benefit the Earth. “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade,” the group stated in its founding statement. “Man does not and cannot control the climate.”

Gordon Fulks

Gordon Fulks, a physicist and adviser to the Cascade Policy Institute, an Oregon-based libertarian think tank: He has denied that net sea ice melt is occurring and that the Earth is warming. He has said those who express concern about climate change are like a “societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.”

Anthony Lupo, another founding member of Clexit: He has received support from the Heartland Institute and helped in the unsuccessful fight against the endangerment finding in court.

Leighton Steward,

Leighton Steward, a former energy company executive and a founder of groups that promote the rise of carbon dioxide as a benefit: He has also encouraged the United States to drop out of the Paris climate accord and says that natural warming is raising the temperature of the Earth.

David R. Legates

David Legates, a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware: He has denied that human-caused climate change could have catastrophic consequences and has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc.

Republican lawmakers and other conservatives have long wanted to revamp the board.

Pruitt seems determined to leave his mark on EPA’s advisory boards. In April, EPA dismissed about half of the 18 members of its Board of Scientific Counselors. That board is largely tasked with technical and management reviews of EPA research programs.

…..

Since Joe D’Aleo was a key employee of mine when I was on “Good Morning, America” and when we founded The Weather Channel, I am very excited that he is included in this group.  He is a Meteorological power house.  Yeah.

Read much more here: https://johncolemanblog.com/

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
garymount
October 10, 2017 3:01 pm
willhaas
October 10, 2017 3:15 pm

At first the AGW conjecture seems quite plausable but upon closer inspection I find that it is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. One major problem is that these so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat because good absorbers are also good radiators. It would be the non greenhouse gases that are more likely to trap heat because they are such poor radiators to space. The primary transfer on energy in the Earth’s atmosphere is not by LWIR radiation as the AGW conjecture would have one believe. A real greenhouse is not kept warm because of the action of LWIR absorbing gases . Instead a real greenhouse is kept warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. There is no radiative greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on earth. Gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere as well as the depth of the troposphere act to provide a convective greenhouse effect athe keeps the surface of the Earth roughly on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the abount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction. Hence tha AGW conjecture is fiction.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  willhaas
October 10, 2017 5:56 pm

Wilhaas, I will add that there is a radiant energy affect that warms greenhouses – short wave radiation received from the sun. It is the sun that warms greenhouses, and it is primarily clouds that reduce that warming.
Applying this well-known situation to the world as a whole – It is the sun that warms the Earth, and clouds reduce that warming.
SR

fxk
October 10, 2017 3:52 pm

I am happy to see changes to the EPA, however as so many of the candidates are associated with the Heartland Institute, and with one with the study quietly funded by the Koch Brothers, I wonder if this list does not play directly into the hands of the Algorians. I would like to see the changes, but the candidate pool is so stacked it will be hard to maintain the air of credibility. Will a list like this backfire?

ran6110
October 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Al Gore knows life is getting better, he just wants to make sure his get’s a lot better than everyone else’s…

October 10, 2017 4:43 pm

John, you say “I predict that in 40 years we will be able to shut down our power plants and retire the internal combustion engines. That will be a great day.”
I fail to see why that will be a good day. More CO2=Better Life

John Harmsworth
Reply to  cap6097
October 10, 2017 5:43 pm

I agree, and if natural warming continues, even better!

Brett Keane
October 10, 2017 5:45 pm

It is heart-warming to see the drainage work in progress, quietly under all the media squawk.
A new paper on real physics of the atmosphere:
A Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the
Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse Thesis
Thomas Allmendinger
I think it may prove to be a companion to The Berthold-Klein ;Mylar Balloon’ paper, and Prof Robert Wood’s refutation of Arrhenius c.1904-6.

Mike O
October 10, 2017 5:56 pm

“On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” [that] has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters”
WTF? Why would you bring religion into this?
Maybe it’s time to for me to find another website that isn’t at least overtly racist.
Disappointed!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Mike O
October 10, 2017 9:46 pm

“WTF? Why would you bring religion into this?”
I believe the was a quote from the Sci. Am. article.

Roger Knights
October 10, 2017 9:33 pm

I think there’s a missing word (“joined”) in the head post about Berry below:

“And if we had [joined] the Paris Agreement and everything else, it wouldn’t do any good anyway.”

Warren in New Zealand
October 10, 2017 9:43 pm

Griff
“Renewables slow the rate of warming to something our agriculture, environment and civilisation can probably handle.”
Really Griff?
As far as Agriculture is concerned, until you have at least a Nurserymans Certification, please stop making stuff up.
I suggest you read Hartmann/Kester/Davies Plant Propagation.
And please, as noted above, make a claim, show your work. Links etc.
Take care

Griff
Reply to  Warren in New Zealand
October 11, 2017 4:57 am

sorry Warren… my time here is limited lately and I was posting in haste…
Drought and storm also impact crop growing and there is not a universal benefit for plant life as CO2 increases (e.g. nutritional content falls).
Plenty of info out there on this…
for example this which summarises both pros and cons
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops

Warren in New Zealand
Reply to  Griff
October 11, 2017 4:55 pm

Griff, from that link
“The results were synthesized from an ensemble of 30 simulations produced by six global crop models driven by climate data from five different global climate models under a “business-as-usual” greenhouse gases emissions scenario, whereby concentrations of carbon dioxide double by the year 2080 compared with 2000. Two sets of crop experiments were conducted: one which considered the effects of both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and their associated climatic changes, and one in which only the associated climatic conditions were taken into account, which meant keeping carbon dioxide concentrations at 2000 levels.”
So they ran computer simulations, called them experiments, and published without actual field trials.
I don’t doubt that they are sincere in their method, but then they end with stating
“There is also a need for research that explores the impact of elevated carbon dioxide levels on crop nutrition, which wasn’t investigated in this study.”
Which is something they can’t do on a computer. I’d have more faith in their report if they had actually done field trials, and had product to handle and test.
But 8/10 for finding a relevant link.
Take care

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Griff
October 11, 2017 5:22 pm

Oh for crying out loud, Griff! That study uses 30 ‘simulations’. Why bother with that when you can look in an *actual* greenhouse – one fitted with a CO2 generator – and see the effects first-hand? Possibly because the answer will be different to the one the authors want? Sorry mate, there are no (real world) downsides for plants when CO2 increases.

sunsettommy
Reply to  Griff
October 11, 2017 6:25 pm

Griff, why do you persist in making stupid claims based on computer simulations,when I long ago gave you this website that has a lot of FIELD work showing the positive effect of CO2 on plant growth.
Here it is:
Plant Growth Database
In this section of our web site we maintain an ever-expanding archive of the results of peer-reviewed scientific studies that report the growth responses of plants to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Results are tabulated according to two types of growth response (Dry Weight and Photosynthesis). To begin, click on the response you are interested in below.
Dry Weight (Biomass)
Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate)
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Here is example for RICE,must look in the link to see the results of actual field experiments,based on changes of CO2 concentration,
Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for 300, 600 and 900 ppm
Increases in the Air’s CO2 Concentration:
Oryza sativa L. (Rice)
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/description.php

Gabro
Reply to  Griff
October 11, 2017 6:54 pm

Griff,
Agricultural reality has been explained to you over and over again, but you remain impervious to education. Are you incapable of learning anything?
More CO2 is better for C3 plants. Period. Full stop. Actually also for C4 and CAM, since they can get by with less water under richer CO2 levels.
Nutrition does not suffer. You fail to understand even the most elementary biology and chemistry. What happens under higher CO2 levels is that carbohydrate production in plants increases, which means that the RELATIVE proportion of protein goes down. But just as much protein as before is produced. Hence, more food overall.
If you combine more CO2 with more N in the soil, then both carbs and protein increase. The limiting factor is the amount of nitrogen, from which amino acids, thus proteins are made.
Why is this hard for you to understand?

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
October 14, 2017 1:04 pm

“Griff,
Agricultural reality has been explained to you over and over again, but you remain impervious to education.”

You’re wasting your time on that one, he is entirely impervious to information too.
Despite being entirely free of any scientific or engineering qualifications whatsoever, he airily patronises and pooh-poohs professional scientists and engineers with a lifetime’s experience, based purely on some claptrap he read in an article in a newspaper or glossy magazine
You can explain it, complete with chapter, verse and links to peer-reviewed scientific publications as many times as you like, he will come back a week or two later and post the same old lies from his A4 sheet of AGW activists’ propaganda yet again.
ALL his “knowledge” comes from spurious propaganda publications like this http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ and he believes it with the fervour of a martyr being led to the stake – apart from making the odd bit of beer money from posting his propaganda too, of course.
If he lives long enough, he will be spouting his mendacious drivel when the next Ice Age arrives and the glaciers roll over his house.

John@EF
October 11, 2017 5:44 am

You know that John Coleman is NOT a meteorologist, right, Anthony? He’s a TV weather guy who graduated in journalism …