Just a "Weatherman"?:

THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
REMARKS OF JOHN COLEMAN
As presented on March 2, 2008
At the Marriot Marquee in New York City
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
With those words, posted on the weather page of the website of the San Diego
Television station where I am chief meteorologist, I came out of the closet and into the
spotlight in the movement to debunk the wildly out of control, hysterical frenzy about the
supposed imminent climatic catastrophe of Global Warming. And, how does it feel to be
in the ring dueling it out with the global warming doomsayers? In the words of James
Brown, "WOW. I feel Good."
I feel Good because I know I am on the right side in this debate. I acknowledge the
sides are very unbalanced. On the other side are the United Nations, the leaders of the
many of the nations of the world, most politicians here in the United States including all
the current candidates for President, the Governor of my home state of California and
many other governors, virtually all of Hollywood's do-gooder stars, just about all of the
national media, seemingly every environmentalist on the planet, a half dozen
prestigious scientific organizations, many well known scientists, most teachers and up
to 80 percent of the people. They all stand alongside of the Nobel Peace Prize and the
Academy Award winner; the former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
So here I am now a part of an outcast, much assailed, way outnumbered group of
global warming deniers. At least that is what we are called by the other side. Deniers, a
demeaning and ugly term. I can handle their abuse. I don't like it; but I can handle it.
But here is what I decided is not acceptable: Being silent when I know I am right. And I
have pledged to make every effort to explain this scam and reveal the truth about
climate change to all who will hear me. To cave-in and give lip service to the other side,
the side that is wrong, dead wrong, is not an option. And no matter how it all come out,
"Wow, I feel Good."
My father was raised on a farm. Even after he became a college professor he still liked
to go on the farmer's evening walk to look at the weather and predict what tomorrow
would be like. As a young boy I loved to go with him. This was way back in the late
1930's when weather data was scare and weather forecasts were rudimentary. But in
those boyhood days with Dad, I developed a sense of connection with the atmosphere.
My future life as a meteorologist was being molded.
As a freshman in college I worked in a start-up, pioneering TV station. This was in
1953. One day the boss asked "Who knows about the weather?" My hand shot up and
from that moment on I was a television weathercaster. When I went to class the next
day, the Professor began, "I watched you report the weather on TV last night. What are
you doing here in Introduction to Meteorology?" I answered, "Trying to find out what I
am talking about." Everybody laughed, but it was true. Thus began the education I
needed to really forecast the weather.
All through college and for the 51 years that have followed, I have predicted the weather
every day. I have walked in the weather and felt connected to my environment. Here I
am, in 2008, still doing it. I walk in the weather. I predict the weather every day. I feel
one with my environment. And, I feel Good.
Somewhere along the way, perhaps a decade ago, I began to read about global
warming. I didn't take it seriously; after all, I had been through the coming Ice Age
frenzy in the mid 70's. None the less, I read and listened. I had my doubts but tried to
keep an open mind.
I am not a research meteorologist like many in this room with advanced degrees. I am
your student. But, I am a serious student and totally immersed in my field of expertise.
As I studied, I couldn’t believe what was happening around me. There was an
unprecedented explosion of global warming hype. All the media was filled with the bad
news that the sky is falling. We have been warned of the dire consequences our
civilization faces. The coasts will be flooded by melting ice caps. The crops will fail.
Millions will die. Species will be wiped out as their habitats vanish. Panic sweeps the
media. There are new alarms sounded every day. It has gone on for more than two
years.
I tried to stay calm. My studies had convinced me, beyond a shadow of doubt, this well
orchestrated media frenzy is wrong; dead wrong. There is no unprecedented,
unequivocal, uncontrollable man made global warming now and no evidence that it is to
come. The entire frenzy is just as ridiculous as it can be.
People I meet ask me about Global Warming. I tell them to relax it isn't for real. And,
some of them get very hostile with me. People with no scientific knowledge and no
reason I can see to take a position, have accepted global warming as their mantra; their
religion; their passion; their cause.
It has finally risen to the point, where, like Howard Beal in the movie "Network”, I can't
take it anymore. When Mr. Gore was given a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, when
CNN declared Earth a "Planet in Peril", when NBC went green to save the Earth from
Global Warming and turned out the studio lights on a football pregame show: That was
it. I essentially opened the window and shouted at the top of my lungs, "I am madder
than hell and I am not going to take it anymore". That is when I wrote and published my
global warming rant.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming; it is a SCAM.
That was mid November. Since I posted that first piece, I have written and posted 8
more briefs explaining the scientific basis for my stand on global warming.
I have intensified my studies. I have entered the debate where ever I have been
invited. And I stand firm. Man made Global Warming is not a problem. There is no
climate change crisis.
I am holding a document. At this point, I believe this is last remaining cornerstone
document of the global warming advocate's case. This 113 page scientific paper is
titled: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. It is the much debated chapter
nine of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wonder how
many people who are disciples of Global Warming have actually read it. I wonder how
many understand it. This paper portends to explain how carbon dioxide, CO2, drives a
radiative forcing multiplier that turns this minor trace compound in the atmosphere into
THE force behind uncontrollable global warming.
When the global warming hype was beginning, it was that hockey stick chart of average
temperatures over the millenniums, the chart featured in Al Gore's book and movie that
grabbed everybody's attention. That chart was reproduced everywhere. It was the
centerpiece of Global Warming.
Thank goodness for Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They lead the charge to
expose this chart for what it is; a scientific fraud. Their papers were widely published
and prompted others to conduct studies, as well. After a few years of debate, the
hockey stick chart is dead and buried. Rest in peace.
But there was more bad science to keep the battle going. With great fanfare NASA
began releasing papers that claimed to be detecting global warming in the average
annual temperatures of Earth. Each year was said to be warmer than the last or among
the warmest ten ever. However, it was not long before Madhay Khandekar and Joseph
D’Aleo, Roger Pielke Sr., Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, Anthony Watts, Ben
Herman and many others demonstrated the inaccuracy and data manipulations behind
these NASA pronouncements. At one point, NASA admitted its errors and issued
corrected figures that shifted the warmest decade from the 1990's back to the 1930's.
What has become clear is that any warming that took place in the last 20 years of the
20th century was small, less than a degree, and was not totally, if at all, the result of
mankind’s activities.
Urban heat islands, problems with the sites where weather instruments are located,
changes in the instruments themselves and even the paint on the instrument shelters all
play a part in distorting temperature data. Determining which stations to include in
averaging, the statistical methods used in processing the data, melding of sea surface
satellite data with land based temperature measurements, considerations of
measurements at different levels in the atmosphere are some of the complications in
producing global temperature averages. They leave lots of room for error and for
games to be played. The bottom line is, whatever warming may have occurred is not
great, not increasing year to year and not necessarily or entirely man made. After much
debate and study, average global temperature increases, another cornerstone of the
Global Warming frenzy, fell into discredit.
The global warming advocates fail to consider natural climate changes versus man
made climate influences. We all know Earth has always gone through constant natural
climate changes. There is no reason to assume that these natural shifts are not
continuing and will continue to occur in the future. For instance, it is well documented
that Earth has been in a long gradual warming trend following the last ice
age. Solar cycles and shifting ocean current variations overlay that long term warmup
producing fluctuations from year to year and decade to decade. None of this is
devastating, but it is important to consider when we produce climate predictions. I see
no convincing evidence that natural climate changes have been overwhelmed because
of the activities of mankind.
So that brings me back to this paper, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.
Since all of the other gambits of the Global Warming advocates have not withstood the
scrutiny of peer review, how about this one. It all boils down to carbon dioxide. The
Global Warming advocates claim the buildup of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere
resulting for the burning of fossil fuels is leading directly to an uncontrollable warm-up in
global temperatures which will accelerate over time and produce disastrous
climatological consequences. If their hypothesis is wrong, then the entire Global
Warming frenzy is without basis. This is indeed their last remaining cornerstone;
their bottom line. All the other stuff we hear about ice caps melting, polar bears,
hurricanes, droughts and heat waves is just antidotal noise. Most of it is wrong and
none of it really counts. The only thing that matters now is the issue of CO2 forcing.
I am confident that CO2 forcing is not valid. I tell you without equivocation, after
reading lots of research Papers, I conclude the CO2 forcing hypostasis has failed the
test of peer review.
The increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere were first measured and published
by Roger Revelle, who is known as the Grandfather of Global Warming. He was a man
of great accomplishment and stature; a true senior scientist. He was the founder of the
Scripps Oceanographic Institution and later a Professor at Harvard where one of his
students was Al Gore. Gore says his experience in Revelle’s class became the
foundation of his eventual Global Warming campaign. But, interesting enough, in later
years Revelle himself cautioned against the assumption that CO2 was the engine of
climate change.
CO2, the natural compound that we humans breathe out, that plants use in
photosynthesis, that oceans absorb and release, is also in the exhaust of the burning of
fossil fuels. It seems clear that much of the frenzy over Global Warming comes from
environmentalists who want to end the burning of fossil fuels. They try to frame Carbon
Dioxide as a pollutant that must be eliminated. Their case does not hold up. It is not a
pollutant. And eliminating fossil fuels would not eliminate it, only reduce it.
Many well intentioned scientists have done studies that they say link the buildup of
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere with warming of temperatures. Their historical
evidence has been proven wrong. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere follows warming,
perhaps as a result of the warming, but clearly does not proceed warming. It is not the
cause of warming. Studies of long term temperatures and CO2 prove that.
But still the Global Warming advocates rest their case on their contention that CO2 has
a special influence on water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
They say is multiplies the greenhouse effect of the water vapor. This is called CO2
forcing. Without this forcing effect, CO2 couldn't have a significant impact on
greenhouse warming because it is a mere trace compound in the atmosphere, around
38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 thousand molecules of atmosphere, a tiny
fraction of the air around us.
That brings me back to this paper, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. This
paper, done for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
been peer reviewed within the IPCC, accepted and made a part of the underlying
documents of the Global Warming predictions of the IPCC. And very importantly, the
CO2 forcing formula from this paper is what has gone into those IPCC accepted climate
computer models that predict climatic Armageddon. So this is it, the final and key
cornerstone document. If it is correct, the Global Warming frenzy is valid. If it is not
correct, the entire case is baseless. And this is a very substantial study building on a
referencing dozens of prior studies. A large group of significant scientists have worked
on aspects of and contributed to this final product. It is very substantial. Those
scientists and their work and this paper cannot be lightly dismissed.
Many of the scientists who are here today have commented on this paper. Some have
done studies that counter its findings; essentially they prove it wrong. I find the most
convincing work on this to date is this paper, Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie
Soon. To me they are absolutely convincing. But, I believe the debate on this issue
may continue for some time.
When I discuss Global Warming debate with those around me, I often hear the plea,
"John, if the United Nations and its panel of 2,500 scientists have concluded that global
warming is a major threat to our planet, you should listen to what they say. They are
the experts. The UN must be the final judge in this matter. You are a heretic." This is I
believe the hardest hurdle to jump. Debating the science is logical and straight
forward. People's view of the world structure is emotional and difficult to overcome. But
let me try, please.
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in
1988. Engineer Alan Cheetham has done an exhaustive study of how this came about.
It is an amazing political story with an undercurrent of effort to position third world
nations to gain restitution from the highly developed nations for the pollution from their
industrial activity. The history also documents how the politicians clamored to create
another bureau for the dream of a one world government and to entrench themselves in
power.
Once the UN IPCC was established, it had to create documentation of manmade
climate change to prove its own worthiness to exist and to gain funding for its activities.
Money flowed to scientist to produce to the needed research. Meetings were held to
validate their work, publications were made, publicity was generated and the
bureaucracy not only prevailed but grew in importance and budget and the cycle has
continued to compound.
What if the UN IPCC had produced studies that denied that man made climate change
was a problem and that there was no cause for alarm. The IPCC would have been
disbanded. No bureaucrat is going to let that happen. The bias to produce the desired
results overwhelms reality.
At this point, much is made of the IPCC panel of 2,500 scientists being in consensus on
Global Warming. But get this. We now know how few scientists actually reviewed that
key chapter of the IPCC report, the one that concludes that it very highly likely that
greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the global warming over the
past 50 years. Dr. John McLean has issued a detailed report on IPCC reviewers. He
reveals that there were as few as 23 independent reviewers of that chapter and that
only 4 explicitly endorsed the hypothesis. That’s a long way from 2,500 and a long way
from consensus.
The lack of consensus is also well documented by Dr. Vincent Gray who was a expert
reviewer and member of the IPCC since the early 1990s. He has detailed just how
contrived the IPCC process has been and how it hardly actually reflects a majority
consensus of scientists at all. Dr. Gray asked hard questions. They were ignored. I
conclude that the final report of the IPCC panel is a political not a scientific document.
Now, I turn to our media. Within the media, whatever the UN says is generally accepted
as fact. The UN says there is a man made global warming crisis and its panel of 2,500
scientists is in consensus, that good enough. And if a former Vice President is the
spokesman for the cause, well that’s all the evidence the media needs to beat the
drums for global warming. So now Global Warming is the American media's cause
celeb.
I am not the only television weathercaster who is skeptical of global warming. I know of
two dozen others who have made public statements. And two dozen others have
privately contacted me but cannot make public statements because of their employment
situations. In any case, we are not nearly influential enough to turn the media.
Marc Morano working for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has
released an impressive list of more than 450 scientists who took a stand against the
global warming frenzy in 2007. And there are the thousands of scientists who signed a
petition against the Kyoto Protocol. That is impressive. But, in the media world none of
this seems to count. What we need to move the media is a network anchor or a
Hollywood super star to join the side of the skeptics.
Let me put a few things into perspective. The media won't, so allow me to try. Through
government we create an orderly civilization, or at least a reasonable facsimile of
same. The media seems hung up on government. But the real advancements of the
civilization are the product of science, not government. Science created the healthcare
that cured me of cancer and has saved my life twice, so far, and provides the
medications to keep me alive so I can be here today. Science created the power and
machines and systems that made air and auto travel possible, that warm and cool our
spaces. Science created our means of communication: our phones, our television and
radio, our internet and most of all science created computers that extend our human
capabilities by the power of millions. Science, not government, is the driving force of
civilization. That is why I am so excited to be here at a meeting of scientists. I honor
you and all your brethren around the world. You are the prime force of civilization.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Debate among scientists is the healthiest condition possible in our society. From
disagreement is born study, serious considerations and re-considerations. To declare
the debate about Global Warming to be over is anti-science, regressive and, in a word,
dumb. Let the debate flourish.
In conclusion, here are things we should not expect: The UN will never withdraw its
report. Al Gore will never admit he is wrong. The scientists who have developed the
case for CO2 forcing and global warming will not admit they erred. Environmental
extremists will never relent.
Things we can work for: The media might be persuaded to give some coverage to our
side of the debate. A significant percentage of the public may become climate change
skeptics. As a result some politicians may come to our side of the argument. These
are things we need to work toward.
Here is one question from me; a question, not a charge. If CO2 is not the culprit in
global warming, is the selling of carbon credits a financial fraud?
And, to paraphrase David Letterman, the number one thing to expect is: In 20 years we
will have the last laugh. When the climate has not changed, the ice caps have not
melted, polar bears are flourishing, the oceans have not flooded the shores, when
climate change has not destroyed our lives, Ah, we will have the last laugh.
The frenzy will fade away and there will be global warming jokes and Al Gore's prizes
will be tarnished.
Yes, we will have the last laugh.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.
Global Warming...it is a SCAM.
And because we are standing up to the horde of Global Warming alarmists and doing
our best to set the record straight, to calm the frenzy and provide proof that the sky is
not falling; yes, because of the work of all of you here today,
Wow, I feel good.
Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks
KUSI Television, San Diego, John Coleman’s comments on Global Warming
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...l+Warming1.pdf
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
The late James Brown
http://www.funky-stuff.com/jamesbrown/
An online article about the word “deniers” used to describe Global Warming skeptics
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/1782/
My father, Ernest Claude Coleman, PhD
http://www.thecolemannet.com/index.htm
United Nations IPCC Chapter 9, the key chapter on CO2 Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf
Natural Resources Defense Council Global Warming report
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s Paper refuting the Hockey Stick Chart
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf
Stephen McIntyre’s website
http://www.climateaudit.org
Ross McKitrick’s website
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
NASA web pages on average annual temperatures
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html
Dr. Mayhay Khandekar and Joseph D’Aleo’s post on the problems with the NASA
average temperature calculations
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PITFALLS.pdf
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr;’s post on problems with calculation average global temperatures:
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-...veragesurface-
temperature/
Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels paper detailing how observation points change over
time influences global average temperatures
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Anthony Watts discovers serious site problems with many official weather observation
stations in the United States and conducts a national effort to survey every location
http://surfacestations.org/
Dr. Ben Herman investigates questionable exaggerations in maximum temperatures at
locations where certain types of new temperature sensors have been installed.
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/gue...theuniversity-
of-arizona-maximum-temperature-trends/
The controversy about the influence of urban heat islands on global temperatures is
covered in the Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Long term climate changes on Earth, resulting from natural causes, primarily variations
in the radiation received from the Sun are detailed by D. Bruce Merrifield
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html
I write about the solar influence on climate variations on Earth in my brief The Force
behind Climate Change
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...al+Warming.pdf
Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming and the man who inspired Al Gore,
cautioned against alarmism from the carbon dioxide build-up
http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...9-778c0973526e
Carbon Dioxide characterized as a pollutant, the force behind global warming
http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/
Typical newspaper article decrying carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._carbon22.html
Union of Concerned Scientists page on carbon dioxide
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...-globalwarming.
html
The key Paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon that explains
that Carbon Dioxide Forcing is not valid
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...inson_Soon.pdf
Another excellent Paper by Allan M.R, MacRae showing that Carbon Dioxide is not the
primary force in climate change
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Dr. David Evans Paper showing that Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global Warming
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf
Alan Cheetham details the history of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm
Dr. John McLean details the lack of significant peer review of the IPCC documents
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...an/mclean_IPCC
_review_final_9-5-07.pdf
Dr. Vincent Gray writes about his experience as a member of the IPCC
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...=155&Item id=
1
Two dozen Television meteorologists who are global warming skeptics are listed on
ICECAP
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts
The report on the over 400 scientists who spoke out in opposition to global warming in
2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport
The Petition against the Kyoto Protocol
http://www.oism.org/pproject/