John Coleman
John Coleman is a weathercaster with KUSI NEWS of San Diego, California. This article is republished with permission from KUSI.com.
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide a pollutant and enact laws that tax citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economy times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. The public is now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprint from the use of fossil fuels is going to lead to climatic calamities.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
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 U.S. military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest, and 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 carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to have been 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. In1960 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 the 1950s 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, 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-1970s cars were no longer big-time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from 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. 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 trend and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in the 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.
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. He developed an UN committee of scientists, environmentalists, and political operatives to continue a series of meetings.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations to benefit the underdeveloped nations for the climatic damage from the burning of fossil fuels, 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. Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a purely 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 has 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 Roger Revelle, the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming. He had been very politically active in the late 1950s 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 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 is indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work 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 to a semi-retired position at UCSD. He had time to rethink carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who inspired Al Gore and gave the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote cautionary letters to members of Congress:
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. . . . We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.
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 asked about 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 that we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments at all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The 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 U.S. 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 having no drilling and no new refineries built for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. And corn-based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, driving up the cost of food. This is a long way from over.
I am convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming is a hoax. It is bad science. It's a high-jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history. *
"Better faithful than famous. Honor before prominence." --Teddy Roosevelt
