View Full Version : The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

02-03-2009, 01:24 AM
By John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel)

January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international mand reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "...we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman


02-03-2009, 07:54 AM
but we are noticably having warmer winters (no significant snow fall in the last 5 years) hotter and unbearable summers (record highs since 1930 ies) What is the answer to those evidence ? Local warming ???

02-03-2009, 07:55 AM
interesting read dharma. thanks..

02-03-2009, 02:17 PM
Here's an interesting interchange between a couple of guys on one of the oil boards. I thought about giving it a new thread, but since we're discussing the shortcomings of global warming theory, back to the beginning, I think this one will do. First, from "yadkinvalley":

There are plenty of scientific problems with the modeling process for CO2 effects in the atmosphere. To start with there is the problem of accuracy. They are trying to calculate monthly changes on the order of .1 K or so on a mean temperature of about 300K. That a change in the fourth decimal place. It is very difficult to do a large number of calculations and maintain the six or seven figures of accuracy you would need to have a meaningful result in the fourth decimal place. A similar problem occurs in trying to calculate the drag on an airplane using computational methods. You have to calculate pressure coefficients on the order of 1 and then integrate them over the surface to get a drag coefficient on the oreder of .001. It has been about ten years since I was in that business, but at that time computational results for drag on transonic aircraft were unreliable.

Then there is the modeling problem. You cannot afford to run calculations on a grid scale small enough to resolve temperature changes on the order of 0.1 K. So you have to develop models that represent the effects in a macro sense over a large area. The results are only as good as the model. Again, there is a similar problem in computational aero with turbulence. You cannot afford to refine the grid on an airplane to the scale required to calcuate turbulence effects directly. So there have been various turbulence models developed, studied, and modified for fifty years or so. Modelling the effects of turbulence has had little success in calculations where three or four figures of accuracy are required.

Then there is the problem that the actual absorption of energy by carbon dioxide is not what "causes" global warming directly. The optical depth at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs is on the order of a few thousands meters at most at the current levels of concentration. If the concentration doubles that cuts the optical depth by a factor of 2. No more energy is being absorbed. The distribution of absorption and the processes of emission and reabsorption are modified, but the actual increase in temperature comes from secondary effects, which have to be modeled. And they have to be modeled accurately enough to calculate temperature chages on the order of 0.1 K.

The problem in a nutshell is that you have to model all the important processes on a global scale accurately enough to calculate temperature changes on the order of .1K. I have never done climate calculations, but I have tried to calculate aircraft performance and things like how jet exhaust diffuses through the atmosphere and can tell you that trying to model things accurately enough to get meaningful results is a challenge. If you can get the trend right that is a major accomplishment.

02-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Now, from our old friend amstocks 82:

The problem is even much more complicated than your paragraph above suggests. There are several greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is only one of them. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that is most prevalent. The tricky thing about water vapor is that as a colorless vapor, it absorbs similar wavelengths as does CO2. But water vapor can form clouds at various altitudes. Low altitude clouds tend to cool the atmosphere and high altitude clouds tend to warm the atmosphere. As the composition and temperature of the atmosphere change slightly, it also impacts where in the atmosphere clouds are likely to form. And this warming/cooling impact is much greater than the impact of CO2 and would be even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were 100 times greater than it is.

In the global warming models, things like cloud effects were approximated and held as constants rather than dynamic components of the global warming/cooling model. However, new research using satellite data shows that as the atmosphere warms - for whatever reason, the altitude of cloud formation changes and tends to counteract warming or cooling. In other words, as the world warms, clouds form lower counteracting the warming and as the world cools, the opposite happens.

Other variables not taken into account into the global warming model were multi-decadal changes in ocean currents. The global warming climate model in fact considered the ocean as a type of heat sink and used simple approximations to determine the impact of the ocean and global warming. But the Ocean can't be modeled that way. So what happened was that from the late 1970s to the 1998/1999, there was a strong warming trend. The global warming model attributed this warming to changes in CO2 and the model was tweaked such that everything came out correct. CO2 increases seemed to match changes in temperature with the model. However, the dominant ocean current for changes in global temperature is the PDO. In the late 1970s, it turned positive bringing warmth where before it was causing a cooling effect (which is why in the 1970s some scientists thought we might be entering a new ice age). In 1998/1999, the PDO turned for a time negative and then was more or less neutral until 2007/2008 time frame. The PDO is now in a cooling trend.

The global warming model continued to be correct with CO2 changes matching warming until 1998/1999 at which time the warming trend stopped. And when the PDO turned negative in 2007/2008, average global temperatures began to decrease. Obviously then treating the ocean as something that is a can be modeled as a simple "heat sink" was incorrect.

The other major problem with the global warming model is that even using the global warming scientists math for determining the "direct" impact of CO2 increases, the temperature changes directly attributable to CO2 are small. Therefore, to get to the "nightmare" scenario that they have of the ice caps melting and etc., they hypothesize "positive feedback" mechanisms. In other words, they hypothesize that if CO2 doubles increasing temperature directly by a 2 degrees Celsius that there will be a positive feedback mechanism that will multiply this. The positive feedback multiplier used is normally around 3X. And from the late 1970s to 1998/1999, everything seemed to be working. Unfortunately, the positive feedback multiplier was actually the impact of multi-decadal changes in ocean currents. Without the positive feedback, the "direct" impact of changes in CO2 are small enough that they won't cause any major disasters. The global warming scientists calculations for the direct impact of CO2 increases are in my opinion overstated which means not only will there not be any major disasters from changes