The amazing story behind Global Warming Scam

[Guest guest]

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman, 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 hypotheses 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 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 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 highjacking of

public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

 

To email John Coleman:

"

jcoleman " .

For more info on the global warming scam, check out:

 

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner " .

Source:

 

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

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090201-0, 01/02/2009Tested on: 2/02/2009 1:58:19 PMavast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.