http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman (Founder, The Weather Channel)


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 
led the public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is 
now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a 
pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big 
government? And how will we ever 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 led 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 meetings and 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 move, 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 they are asked about we skeptics, they 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
1-28-2009

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ShadowGovernment" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/ShadowGovernment
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to