Just received from Capitol News.
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman, KUSI, 6/13/08
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal.
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.
The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.
If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.
If only it was just a fraud, scam, hoax, …
How deeply and truly I wish it was.
Just because some crazed San Diego weatherman writes a rant against global warming doesn’t mean that the rest of the world scientific community is in some great conspiracy to push a false hypothesis.
The article is too full of myths, false statements, poor logic and misrepresentations for me to take my valuable time to respond to point by point.
I am a strong proponent of the first amendment and will support your right to irresponsibly spread this dangerous nonsense that serves more as a statement on our education systems and on human psychology than on energy or climate.
However, we can for now allow those that are unequipped to deal with reality, to find comfort in Coleman’s creed, and go back to sleep, while the rest of us undertake to save the planet.
Thank you Ken for adding your opinion.
That is what blogging is all about.
However, respectfully, to charge me with “irresponsibly spread this dangerous nonsense” is an unfair allegation.
Although I have yet to see the list referenced above, his reporting that “31,000 scientists” refute global warming only one month ago should make you pause for a minute and consider their assessment. Everyone can find one person to agree with a point of view. However 31,000 is a much bigger number.
Haven’t you noticed that there’s so much concern about gas prices that freeway speeds have slowed way down to 55 mph – ain’t happening – its all whining and hot air, but that won’t change prices any more than a scare about global warming. It’ll take centuries to determine who’s right about global warming and there’s no proof that any of the proposed remedies will have the predicted effect – they might actually make things worse – global climate isn’t something we should experiment with – the ice caps have already melted 2/3’s from their peak so I think we can adapt to the final 1/3 drop to zero ice more easily than going the other direction.
Ken,
Save the planet from what? Hucksters like Al Gore, the socialists who want central control, the equalization mongers at the UN? Or are you really so all powerful that you think we can remotely control the sun from our pathetically insignificant planet in this solar system, by some how limiting our CO2?
Let’s be very honest the argument for global warming is artificial by its very assumption that we can somehow control our environment. At this point we can’t even figure out how to control a computer program to try and mimic the weather. The NWS use several programs to predict the near term weather and then they guess which one will be right. Their accuracy is less than 50%. Now you expect us to believe that they will be right when they make predictions over decades..? Sorry, I have better odds on the crap tables, and that’s a fact!
Mars, increasing temperatures because of increasing use of autos on earth, or is albedo a result of warming?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html
“In particular, the slight increase in surface air temperature is similar to climate variations seen on Earth, even though the processes involved are significantly different,” added Fenton. Perhaps the simplest answers are the best and most logical. Solar output, we know has been fluctuating in recent history, so this is very debatable.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?
Very long and very well thought out in understandable (mostly) language read it and learn about the anthropogenic global warming hoax.
A couple of other web resources that tell the other side of this;
ICECAP http://icecap.us/index.php
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
Is the truth dangerous? Learn for yourself! Don’t take my word for any of this, search, read, learn for yourself, then you know what is and isn’t true. The truth is out there!
Prove that we are worthy of procreating and populating the planet and we aren’t fools.
Carl.
Thank you for all the support documentation you provide for our readers. Larry G
What a piece of bollocks.
May I suggest googling for peak oil?
Oh, and another thing: One billion Chinese all want to drive cars as well.
It is simple thing of supply and demand…
Geez, are all Republicans so ignorant of basic capitalistic principles???
Oh brother. Climate change deniers are the Luddites of the 21st century.
You’re wrong about just about everything…the world is passing you by…so you dig in your heels…
Ah, and the Lord created the world in seven days about 4,000 years ago…everyone knows that.
Oh yes, and intelligunt de-zine, how’s that one working out for you?
All dem huricanes and tornadoes and wilefires are caused by gay marriage, the bible says it and that settles it.
You’re all going to hell in fiery SUVs.
Joe. While I can’t speak for your travels we spent three weeks on the China mainland one year ago and saw huge auto manufacturing plants operating under joint venture/partnership agreements with Daimler-Chrysler, VW and GM. You bet they are parking their bicycles and driving cars. And with 400 million of the 1.3 billion who are not peasants working in the fields that’s a huge potential market. We either passed or drove on brand new tollroads as they prepare for their entry into the Capitalistic society. To get a permit to drive in Shanghai requires winning a lottery selection.
We were told that they expect to overtake Japan in the number of cars produced by 2010.
And right behind China is India who are also building cars for both domestic use and export.
That said, while Americans are actully driving less the world market will suck up all the oil that OPEC can pump.
Citizen of the Vern-O-Sphere
I told you to keep your hat on when we were in Sacramento Wednesday. Apparently you had too much sun.
Larry, I know who “Citizen” is – he or she does inhabit my sphere after all – and we generally agree on most issues – but it’s not me and I can’t answer for all his/her intemperate rantings, as close as we are!
Vern. I guess the fact that he or she references you could be taken as a compliment. Perhaps!
The earth is warming, the glaciers are melting, the northern icepack is breaking up, the weather patterns around the globe have been altered and we have allowed a little metal box to become the center of our lives around which everything in our universe revolves. We power it with a nonrewnable energy source that pollutes our environment and which is becoming scarce. And we call ourselves the highest form of evolved life on the planet. I would rather be a dolphin; most human beings are insane.
Joe, Cit-O-Vern,
A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Since “Global Warming” is a threoy and has not been established as fact by anyone with any kind scientific background, it is open to new knowledege and interpitation.
I have an open mind and am willing to listen to true scientific investigation are you?
—
Lud·dite (lŭd’īt) noun.
1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.
—
I am also open to learning new things, even those that chalange what I believe. Without ridiculing or marginalizing those who argue otherwise. But I believe you may have issue with the word below.
—
prej·u·dice [prej-uh-dis] noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing. –noun 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object) 6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.
Prejudice is ugly on everyone who wears it.
I strongly suggest you read this
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
and then come back to discuss it. Please leave the strawmen at the door.
Your scientists don’t add up. All they had to have was a BS to be included on that list. Any kind of BS degree. Most of the people on the list are not climate scientists and many are dead.
* W. Kline Bolton, M.D., is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
* Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled “Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials.”
* Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.
Your 31,000 scientists are a bunch of hooey:
“This is simply the Oregon Petition 2.0. It was originally mass-mailed to scientists with a fake cover letter from the National Academy of Sciences at the time that the Kyoto treaty was being debated in 1998. Apparently they’ve continued collecting dubious names since then. From Wikipedia:
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer?), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor?), “Robert C. Byrd” (the senator?), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author?). And then there’s the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.” Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. “It’s fake,” he said.
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?”
You have got to be kidding me! I cannot imagine a sentient human being so unaware of the facts of global disaster! It is not a “theory” but a rather obvious reality. Why would you deny this? What do you gain?
Larry. I know you are very jealous that there exists, to our knowledge, no “Denizen of the Gilbertocracy.”
And there’s more:
“Even disregarding the obviously weak signature criteria, consider the fact that in the USA there are tens of millions of people with bachelor’s (or better) degrees in science. If just 10% of the US population has such a degree (according to the US census, 25% of Americans have a bachelor’s degree or better), then the 31,000 names on the Oregon Petition make up ~0.1% of the pool of possible signatories. So what exactly is one-tenth of one percent supposed to prove?
Essentially the only purpose of these lists is to confuse people into thinking there is no consensus on the subject, because 400 and 31,000 sound like large numbers. In reality, even disregarding the many flaws with these lists, these are fractions of a percent of their respective populations.”
I am going to do something that I do not normally do. I am going to question someone’s credentials in their ability to understand science. Generally, I assume that when someone writes for pages on a topic that is highly scientific they A) Are a scientist and B) can back their claims up with their own experiments or the experiments of others and not just callg into question other people’s experiments and data). First, let me ask where in the article does Mr. Coleman proves his thesis? He states in the title that in a sense Al Gore’s promotion of global climate change caused high gas prices. There is neither evidence provided nor any resolute conclusions given to prove the thesis by either positive or antithesis. Neither standard argument of “supply and demand” nor fear of a lack of oil is presented. So I’m a little weary of the article as it stands.
Now I present the idea that Mr. Coleman absolutely lacks basic understanding of science or the scientific method. This is a common problem for non-science people and is usually presented in the same way that intelligent design is presented as science. Being that I do not see a Dr. or PhD in front or behind Mr. Coleman’s name and a cursory glance on the internet for a biography shows that he is not a scientist in any field as Meteorology is neither Climate Science nor Environmental Engineering (Here is a link to the current Atmospheric Science curriculum at the University of Illinois where Mr. Coleman got his degree some fifty years ago {I would definitely adjust downward since they do not have a meteorology degree anymore}, and the Environment Science curriculum at MIT). Atmospheric science (at the undergraduate level) lacks training in advanced mathematics and statistical analysis as well as solid basics in the scientific method and the complete understanding of the way the scientific community regulates itself in modern times. To my knowledge neither Mr. Coleman nor Fritz Coleman up here in the LA market on NBC have published a paper in what is called a “peer-reviewed” journal. For those of you not familiar with a peer-reviewed journal is something like JAMA, Science, Natural or the Physics Journal. You DO NOT get published in these nor win the Nobel prize on a whim. A board reviews your paper, rejects or accepts your paper then asks for input from others studying in the field. Your premise or theory is vetted before anyone in the public even gets a hint at what you are trying to get at.
“Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.” Mr. Coleman, science does not work this way. In “science” you have to prove things that you pull out of thin air (pun intended). Yes, CO2 is a trace element, but so is methane. The atmosphere is roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, some argon, some water vapor and the rest are trace elements. The flaw in Mr. Coleman’s logic is that he fails to mention that a basic experiment can prove that both CO2 and Methane (both trace elements, both emitted by humans) are indeed greenhouse gases.
Warming of the planet occurs when infrared light gets trapped (absorbed by CO2 and methane among others, not nitrogen or oxygen though). If you take 3 green houses, fill one with air, fill one with air + 1% more C02 and fill the third greenhouse with air + 1% Methane, you will see the second two having a higher temperature than the one filled with just air (control).
What I have just done in the above paragraph is called SCIENCE. I setup a hypothesis that is falsifiable (meaning that it can be disproved by experiment): CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and thus causes an enclosed system to retain more heat. I planned an experiment that would either prove or disprove that CO2 would have an effect on temperature. Then I evaluated the result of the experiment as it either proved or disproved my theory. Note that I did not make a claim and then say “That’s all there is to it; it is.”
Two other quick points: those 31,000 scientists who disagree, most of them were economists and not hard scientists or engineers. And most of them were paid off by Exxon
And second, you cannot say that we can not affect our environment and then say that we did by cleaning up smog by driving cleaner cars. Oh, and don’t forget about how we all stopped using CFCs and closed the hole in the ozone layer.
So I’m calling into question Mr. Coleman’s ability to “have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I [Mr. Coleman] have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories.” Where in his background or education does he deem himself qualified to understand complicated math and complex theories. He does not state that he talked with scientists that explained this to him; he states that he did it himself. Thus, I find his expertise and ability to analysis quantitative and qualitative data to draw his own conclusions. And being that Mr. Coleman was asked to leave the Weather Channel after it was in financial turmoil does not put a lot of my faith in his ability to run a business either.
I am going to do something that I do not normally do. I am going to question someone’s credentials in their ability to understand science. First, let me ask where in the article does Mr. Coleman proves his thesis? He states in the title that in a sense Al Gore’s promotion of global climate change caused high gas prices. There is neither evidence provided nor any resolute conclusions given to prove the thesis by either positive or antithesis. Neither standard argument of “supply and demand” nor fear of a lack of oil is presented. So I’m a little weary of the article as it stands.
Now I present the idea that Mr. Coleman absolutely lacks basic understanding of science or the scientific method. This is a common problem for non-science people and is usually presented in the same way that intelligent design is presented as science. Being that I do not see a Dr. or PhD in front or behind Mr. Coleman’s name and a cursory glance on the internet for a biography shows that he is not a scientist in any field as Meteorology is neither Climate Science nor Environmental Engineering (Here is a link to the current Atmospheric Science curriculum at the University of Illinois where Mr. Coleman got his degree some fifty years ago http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/academics/degree_req.html {I would definitely adjust downward since they do not have a meteorology degree anymore}, and the Environment Science curriculum at MIT http://eapsweb.mit.edu/education/undergrad/major/environmental.html). Atmospheric science (at the undergraduate level) lacks training in advanced mathematics and statistical analysis as well as solid basics in the scientific method and the complete understanding of the way the scientific community regulates itself in modern times. To my knowledge neither Mr. Coleman nor Fritz Coleman up here in the LA market on NBC have published a paper in what is called a “peer-reviewed” journal. For those of you not familiar with a peer-reviewed journal is something like JAMA, Science, Natural or the Physics Journal. You DO NOT get published in these nor win the Nobel prize on a whim. A board reviews your paper, rejects or accepts your paper then asks for input from others studying in the field. Your premise or theory is vetted before anyone in the public even gets a hint at what you are trying to get at.
“Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.” Mr. Coleman, science does not work this way. In “science” you have to prove things that you pull out of thin air (pun intended). Yes, CO2 is a trace element, but so is methane. The atmosphere is roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, some argon, some water vapor and the rest are trace elements. The flaw in Mr. Coleman’s logic is that he fails to mention that a basic experiment can prove that both CO2 and Methane (both trace elements, both emitted by humans) are indeed greenhouse gases.
Warming of the planet occurs when infrared light gets trapped (absorbed by CO2 and methane among others, not nitrogen or oxygen though). If you take 3 green houses, fill one with air, fill one with air + 1% more C02 and fill the third greenhouse with air + 1% Methane, you will see the second two having a higher temperature than the one filled with just air (control).
What I have just done in the above paragraph is called SCIENCE. I setup a hypothesis that is falsifiable (meaning that it can be disproved by experiment): CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and thus causes an enclosed system to retain more heat. I planned an experiment that would either prove or disprove that CO2 would have an effect on temperature. Then I evaluated the result of the experiment as it either proved or disproved my theory. Note that I did not make a claim and then say “That’s all there is to it; it is.”
Two other quick points: those 31,000 scientists who disagree, most of them were economists and not hard scientists or engineers. And most of them were paid off by Exxon. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange)
And second, you cannot say that we can not affect our environment and then say that we did by cleaning up smog by driving cleaner cars. Oh, and don’t forget about how we all stopped using CFCs and closed the hole in the ozone layer.
So I’m calling into question Mr. Coleman’s ability to “have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I [Mr. Coleman] have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories.” Where in his background or education does he deem himself qualified to understand complicated math and complex theories. He does not state that he talked with scientists that explained this to him; he states that he did it himself. Thus, I find his expertise and ability to analysis quantitative and qualitative data to draw his own conclusions. And being that Mr. Coleman was asked to leave the Weather Channel after it was in financial turmoil does not put a lot of my faith in his ability to run a business either.
I am going to do something that I do not normally do. I am going to question someone’s credentials in their ability to understand science.
First, let me ask where in the article does Mr. Coleman proves his thesis? He states in the title that in a sense Al Gore’s promotion of global climate change caused high gas prices. There is neither evidence provided nor any resolute conclusions given to prove the thesis by either positive or antithesis. Neither standard argument of “supply and demand” nor fear of a lack of oil is presented. So I’m a little wary of the article as it stands.
Now I present the idea that Mr. Coleman absolutely lacks basic understanding of science or the scientific method. This is a common problem for non-science people and is usually presented in the same way that intelligent design is presented as science. Being that I do not see a Dr. or PhD in front or behind Mr. Coleman’s name and a cursory glance on the internet for a biography shows that he is not a scientist in any field as Meteorology is neither Climate Science nor Environmental Engineering.
(Here is a link to the current Atmospheric Science curriculum at the University of Illinois where Mr. Coleman got his degree some fifty years ago: http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/academics/degree_req.html {I would definitely adjust downward since they do not have a meteorology degree anymore}, and the Environment Science curriculum at MIT http://eapsweb.mit.edu/education/undergrad/major/environmental.html).
Atmospheric science (at the undergraduate level) lacks training in advanced mathematics and statistical analysis as well as solid basics in the scientific method and the complete understanding of the way the scientific community regulates itself in modern times. To my knowledge neither Mr. Coleman nor Fritz Coleman up here in the LA market on NBC have published a paper in what is called a “peer-reviewed” journal.
For those of you not familiar with a peer-reviewed journal is something like JAMA, Science, Natural or the Physics Journal. You DO NOT get published in these nor win the Nobel prize on a whim. A board reviews your paper, rejects or accepts your paper then asks for input from others studying in the field. Your premise or theory is vetted before anyone in the public even gets a hint at what you are trying to get at.
“Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.”
Mr. Coleman, science does not work this way. In “science” you have to prove things that you pull out of thin air (pun intended). Yes, CO2 is a trace element, but so is methane. The atmosphere is roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, some argon, some water vapor and the rest are trace elements.
The flaw in Mr. Coleman’s logic is that he fails to mention that a basic experiment can prove that both CO2 and Methane (both trace elements, both emitted by humans) are indeed greenhouse gases.
Warming of the planet occurs when infrared light gets trapped (absorbed by CO2 and methane among others, not nitrogen or oxygen though). If you take 3 green houses, fill one with air, fill one with air + 1% more C02 and fill the third greenhouse with air + 1% Methane, you will see the second two having a higher temperature than the one filled with just air (control).
What I have just done in the above paragraph is called SCIENCE. I setup a hypothesis that is falsifiable (meaning that it can be disproved by experiment): CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and thus causes an enclosed system to retain more heat. I planned an experiment that would either prove or disprove that CO2 would have an effect on temperature. Then I evaluated the result of the experiment as it either proved or disproved my theory. Note that I did not make a claim and then say “That’s all there is to it; it is.”
Two other quick points: those 31,000 scientists who disagree, most of them were economists and not hard scientists or engineers. And most of them were paid off by Exxon. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange)
And second, you cannot say that we can not affect our environment and then say that we did by cleaning up smog by driving cleaner cars. Oh, and don’t forget about how we all stopped using CFCs and closed the hole in the ozone layer.
So I’m calling into question Mr. Coleman’s ability to “have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I [Mr. Coleman] have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories.”
Where in his background or education does he deem himself qualified to understand complicated math and complex theories? He does not state that he talked with scientists that explained this to him; he states that he did it himself. Thus, I find his expertise and ability to analysis quantitative and qualitative data to draw his own conclusions.
And being that Mr. Coleman was asked to leave the Weather Channel after it was in financial turmoil does not put a lot of my faith in his ability to run a business either.
I’ve seldom seen such a poorly-researched and badly-argued article.
Not much basis in fact: you have to argue for stuff, not just spout belief without foundation or logic.
Come on guys.
My Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has this right. Just go to his Congressional web page, and you can find a whole page devoted to links to places where you can find that science is a hoax.
Some of these links are broken, but that doesn’t bother Dana, any more than the slightly obsolete link to the Official Site to Re-Elect George W Bush on his campaign web site.
Science is just a bogus industry, perpetrated by guys out to make a buck with university jobs and research grants. It competes in the free market with the religion business, and we must remember that our only real faith in this country is the dogma of free markets.
Regarding gas prices, New York Mercantile Market and speculative trading of commodities (oil being one of them) has more to do with prices rising. Oil supply is decreasing and commodity trading is based on what is expected in the future.
No one can dispute that the ice pack is melting at an alarming rate. Climate change over the eons must be looked at in time spans of thousands and millions of years. The changes occurring presently can be measured within the last 100 years. These are unprecedented changes. We can dispute the causes but as a practical person I would rather make the changes that removes our dependency on oil just because it seems to lead to wars to obtain natural resources in the Middle East and move towards an infinite supply of energy which can be obtained from the Sun. No warring forces on that orb yet. If the side effect is to slow down global warming all the better.
Well, I may not be some college trained lawyer, but if all them cars out there cant change the atmosphere then I dont know what can. It turned the sky orange hereabouts awhile back (you kids won’t remember that) and we heard the same arguments from these conservatives then. I think they are relying on that old story about the nine problems rollin down the road towards ya, if you do nothing eight of them will fall into the ditch of their own accord.
Well, what if you are wrong? What if this global temperature is because of global warming and your mini-ice age happens because we stop the Atlantic current and super storms freeze the northern 48 and we sind up being refugees to Mexico? Given your actions the past two years we won’t be very welcome there, will we? What do you have to say to that Mr. Smartypants?
By the way all them cars out there have something to do with the price of gas as well as that war of the Bushes over in Iraq. Al Gore, right!
No No No.
There’s only two problems rolling down the road at us and that’s the illegal immigrants and the pernicious hidden government of redevelopment.
If we deported all the illegals and their legal families, and eliminated all redevelopment laws, we could cut taxes to zero and have twenty nine cent a gallon gas again.
Science is a hoax.
Wow, Larry, look at that! Make a wish and it comes true – you have got your Denizen!
Of course he spells “Gilbertocracy” wrong, but then spelling I’ve always considered to be an elitist left-leaning conspiracy myself.
email response
How can you say what you say? Al Gore is a world renowned Climatologist and Meteorologist. He must know what he is talking about. ………….. Stan
Clever, e-mailer Stan #26 … but of course Al Gore is not expecting us to take him at his word alone, he has the vast body of scientists behind him.
Didn’t I mention that global warming is irrelevant? Oh yeah, I did.
Anonyms –
As I recall the sky was brown, not exactly orange. Eww!
SMS
Denizen of the Gibertocracy
Someone, anyone, please stop feeding him such heavy duty med’s. They have impacted his brain.
When did I ever write about illegal immigrants?
Thank you for your contributions to this debate.
To all those arm-chair experts on “global warming” let each of us consider the following.
As this is a highly charged topic, and we are each degree’d scientists who have published multiple peer reviewed papers on greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps we can take a backseat and look at the international effort to address this concern.
We have all heard of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead of bantering around which of us has the most credible sources let’s see what Kyoto means to “developed” as well as “developing nations” who have work to do within a two tier approach in addressing this concern.
“The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the international Framework Convention on Climate Change with the objective of reducing greenhouse gases that cause climate change.It was adopted on 11 December 1997 by the 3rd Conference of the Parties, which was meeting in Kyoto, and it entered into force on 16 February 2005.
The United States has not ratified the treaty. Among various experts, scientists, and critics, there is debate about the usefulness of the protocol, and there have been cost-benefit studies performed on its usefulness.
One hundred thirty-seven (137) developing countries have ratified the protocol, including Brazil, China and India, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions.”
From the Wall Street Journal. An article confirming that neither President Clinton nor President Bush promoted US signing Kyoto compliance.
“Global gabfests can be fun, which may explain the paradox of the 12-day U.N. conference on climate change that ended yesterday in Montreal. On the one hand, the conferees spelled out the fine print that will make the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by 156 countries, “fully operational,” according to conference chairman Stephane Dion. On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a failed instrument for achieving their goals.
“The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge,” says British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
He can say that again. India and China, which are exempt from Kyoto’s emissions cuts, have no plans to submit to those mandates any time soon, though China is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
The U.S. has also consistently rejected Kyoto. This has been true throughout the Bush years, but it was equally so during the Clinton ones. In 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton Administration not to sign any climate-change protocol that “would result in serious harm to the economy.” In 1998 Al Gore signed the Protocol. Yet President Clinton, who was in Montreal yesterday to scold the Bush Administration for its inaction, never submitted it to the Senate.”
Carl: The person with the closed mind is you.
You obviously don’t understand the difference between a theory in the sense it is used in the general public and a theory in the scientific sense. How about opening your mind and learning things for a change?
Your ideological mindset has blinded you for the reality. Global warming is happening.
Larry: I do know that China is cranking out cars like crazy. That’s one of the reasons gas prices are going up. It has nothing to do with Al Gore. It has everything to do with supply and demand. Demand goes up, and supply is dwindling. Since we have most likely reached peak oil, i.e., the world production has peaked and it can only go downhill from here, the simple economic (scientific) theory of supply and demand says that prices are going to rise.
Oil production in the US reached its peak in the early 70ies. That is known as Hubbert’s Peak, it was predicted by M. King Hubbert, a geologist working for Shell, in 1956.
Geologists like Ken Deffeyes, who was a professor at Princeton and worked with Hubbert at Shell in the 60ies, extrapolated his predictions to the world level. According to these calculations, we have reached the peak or are already past it.
The $4-$5 per gallon that we are seeing now is nothing. This will go much much higher. And of course, the politicians were asleep at the wheel.
Joe. Setting the unsigned Kyoto Protocol aside our government has been asleep at the switch for the past 35 years. Yes, we are dealing with supply and demand as it relates to gasoline. And I would agree that over time we are facing a “finite” supply of oil. However, in the interim, please tell those obstructionists to cooperate in addressing this challenge rather than simply saying that we cannot drill for oil and gas in ANWR where we only need 2,000 acres out of a total land area of 19.6 million acres. It has been reported that we could access one million barrels per day in ANWR which would represent the equivalent of 17.3% of current US production. That’s a huge chunk of domestic oil.
The Porcupine Caribou would still have millions of acres to roam freely.
I drove in the 70’s when we were only able to fill up on alternate days based on our license plates. If we don’t take action soon, regardless of cost, you will see motorists pull up to the pump only to find out that the guy before him got the last gasoline. Increeased price may be a factor but lack of supply will cause riots. You may find abandoned cars on the freeway which have run out of gas. No, this is not a joke. It can happen unless we do something to prevent it. Finger pointing today is not offering any solution.
For anyone still interested…
Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. It was not for science. There is a lot of politics involved in the Nobel Prizes. In 1994 they gave one to Yasser Arafat.
The ozone situation; a good model to understand this problem can be found at:
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonelayer.htm
Uncertainty in polar ozone depletion. Have we gone far enough yet?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/uncertainty-in-polar-ozone-depletion/
The ozone problem is far from being over from the looks of things. World wide production of CFC’s is still going on, China phased out production just last year, but we seem to have had some luck with the ozone layer getting better anyway. But…
Closing the Ozone hole may have major impact on global warming, possibly not for the better. Ok, so they may not have figured out how this thing works after all…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141015.htm
Let me just say once again, they don’t have enough observation time to jump to the panicked conclusion they have. They certainly don’t know enough to try to control it in any way. On the same page should be a link to Global Warming Skeptic.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html?gclid=CJz91_TF9ZMCFSY1agod6VlwWg
While I have not looked at all of it, the site appears to be pretty well done and the pages I read were on point. Happy reading!
Direct email from Carl as he doesn’t wish to hog the discussion. After reading it I agree that it warrants being posted. Each of us participating in this ongoing debate should recognize one fact. Namely, that none of know what lies ahead. My sense is that while we may differ on the global warming topic, often driven by partsian bickering, let’s at least try to keep our minds open. We just might become better informed on these vital issues beginning with myself.
Email. If you should decide to post it, be my guest.
Carl Overmyer
—–
“Joe,
You’re factually challenged and you have no clue who I am or what my educational background is on this subject. Your statement about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming is not proven by any stretch of the scientific imagination. There is no scientific PROOF. If you think you have evidence that you believe is proof please give us all the links to it. Remember that relativity and string theories are just that, they have no proofs and we know parts of Einstein’s theory are wrong now, as well parts of string theory have others uneasy too. That’s scientific method.
There is anecdotal evidence based on short term observations and extrapolated over time using computer models, that I stated earlier, was similar to those NWS uses for forecasting the daily weather. As we know it now, we do not understand all of the elements that go into our climate, nor do we have any kind of successful first hand knowledge in trying to control it in any real way.
Just so you have a little better understanding why I am so admit about this subject, my stepfather was a high altitude weather forecaster for the military for many years, he had a Q3 clearance and worked at Rand Corp. when he got out of service. Then at CalComp was in charge of the main frames and their programming and redesign. He was fluent in over 50 computer languages and did hexadecimal conversions in his head. Best guess he was about 185-190 IQ. I wish he were still alive to debate this with you.
Before he died a few years back, we had long conversations about the dynamics of climate Vs weather and this subject was one of his pet peeves, especially when it came to lack of acknowledgement of historical cyclic climatic observations in any of the anthropogenic global warming theories. As he stated, after reading everything he could find, the assumptions are based on bad data sets and extrapolated by bad programming with less knowledge about the natural engines that drive our planets climate than most observers have in dealing with the daily weather and they get that wrong half the time.
Believe what you wish, to some of you, no matter what facts are presented, you will still believe the witch doctors of your religion. I believe in science, pure and simple. Scientific observation, practices and thinking, no claim to the contrary by you, is going to change that. Public panic is not a scientific tool, it’s a political tool, think about it.
Please consider that in each one of my rants on this subject I implore people to learn for themselves what the truth is, rather than telling them to believe what I say. I also provide links to information by educated and informative individuals on the subject so that others may learn.”
Aren’t we supposed to be entering an ice age? –and instead the ice caps are melting? Co2 is not to blame?
Global warming is not made up, it’s man-made. Just read these, especially the IPCC’s 2007 statement that there is an unequivocal link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the warming trend over the past 50 years:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html