A History of the Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming

j0437381John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has a great piece at KUSI News in San Diego on the little-known history behind the religion of anthropogenic global warming.

Coleman tells “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam” and takes us back to post-WWII for the story of Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. 

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.

Ah, a little free money. Who could fault Revelle for wanting to feed at the same trough so many others used, thanks to FDR’s rejection of our constitution’s limits on government?

But that was only the beginning.

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.

These guys used some of the alarmism about pollution back then–some of it valid–to push for still more government funding.

At this point in Coleman’s narrative, we get down to the real fuel behind the man-made global warming fire:

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.

Meanwhile, Revelle had gone to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. Here he inspired one young student to go on to be a major peddler of the theory of anthropogenic 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.

But many years later, while Al Gore was gathering steam and scaring other impressionable minds with his Earth in the Balance, his mentor Revelle was having second thoughts.

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.”

Unfortunately Revelle died of a heart attack before his re-examination of CO2 and global warming could be completed and made public. But Gore would foster no such doubts in his own worldview and “dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man.”

What does Coleman think about the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming and the effect of this religion:

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.

So much for Gore’s much-vaunted “scientific consensus,” eh?

You can read Coleman’s entire piece here.

You can also read Coleman’s remarks to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change from March 2, 2008 here.

The number of people who see through this facade of anthropogenic global warming is growing all the time.

It’s easy for so-called “experts” to make flash-in-the-pan pronouncements of doom that get people stirred up, but when many people stop long enough to take a hard look at the religion of AGP, it quickly becomes apparent that it doesn’t even pass the smell test.

We can only hope the Obama Administration will face the music on this massive scam before the American economy and our prosperity are are gravely damaged.

21 Responses to “A History of the Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming”

  1. For those uninterested in the rhetoric above and more interested in the science please click on the “Start Here” option at the top of this page:
    http://www.realclimate.org
    For the consensus by credible science academies:
    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

  2. The scientific consensus on AGW is not Al Gore's but that of the scientific community who operate and work in the field of earth science. Isotopic ratios tell us that CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans burning fossil fuels and the amount is consistant with the 9 billion tonnes of carbon released every year.

    Your story is nonsense.

  3. Those are some very interesting facts about the history of global warming that I wish I had known about when I wrote the article at the address below. Thanks, hope my article can help you with your next one as well.

    http://thelortonshow.com/Town%20Hall%20Meeting/

  4. No, the idea that human activity is causing the earth to warm up–in contradiction of common sense and all the historical and solar evidence–is nonsense.

  5. We cant get to the bottom of the Global Warming scam because it stems from political indoctrination in our schools (universities). These openly leftist boot camps are turning out people with a deep sense of responsibility to save the world. 8 years of GW Bush and the war on terror has refined their message into a single voice. The scientists that treat data like a political poll and the media who promote their findings all come from the same place.. None are brave enough to break from the pack and put their position at risk. This is how things fall appart when one lie leads to another. Obama claiming that its time to act on the facts… is very surreal. Obama claiming that he must save our economy and destroy it at the same time…is very surreal. Its easy to say most anything when a army of people will defend all that you say …Its much harder to bend reality when things dont line up. This left wing belief system, this mother gia religion is steeped in dishonesty with its cherry picked data and hollywood glitz.. Saving the world from imaginary dragons should be a personal choice and not a matter of public policy. The Emperor has no clothes!

  6. Good synopsis. There is also a Spike online journalist that wrote an excellent article on the history.

    One way to counter the leftist environment movement is to offer readily accessible data that undercuts the foundation of lies. This is important for both high school and college students looking for alternative info versus the forced propaganda they have to ingest.

    At our site, we have both data charts that refute global warming claims; and, we have quotes from a wide variety of skeptical scientists and authorities. Here are the two links:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-w

    C3H Editor

  7. I think this article by Colemen represents the death gurgle of climate change denial.

    Let's examine the child like logic here……

    The idea is that the climate scientists (97% of whom agree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change, by the way), are all in cahoots to try and pull the wool over everybody's eyes. The evidence for this bizarre conspiracy theory is that some of them get paid.

    This in comparison to the thousands in “unsolicited payments” people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer get from the likes of Exxon. And not to mention the hefty “Research Grants” they both get from the Heartland Institute, which shares their “skepticism” about the health effects of tobacco.

    This piece by Coleman (whose only real qualification in climate science is that he can read a teleprompter), represents the first major outing of the embarrassing, right-wing paranoid conspiracy theories that underpin climate change denial. And I think from this point on, it will become ever more the domain of internet cranks.

  8. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee! Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho! Oh, that's a good one, Defamed Raw Prawn.

    The fact that thousands of scientists see this fantasy for the bunk it is–and have gone on record–shouldn't stand in the way of the illusion of “consensus.”

    And let's forget about the government cash cow to be milked by global warming acolytes and concentrate on those evil oil companies…without which our modern world would grind to a screeching halt, without oil to power our cars and airplanes, and the oil that goes into the plastic used to create pretty much everything we use today.

    Ha ha ha, hee hee, ho, ho! Sorry. Excuse that uncontrollable outburst.

    First major outing, huh? Coleman has been pointing to the truth about the emperor's clothes about this for a long time, as have many others who don't mindlessly follow the herd.

    Maybe this was the first time a bit of light penetrated your trance, Defamed Raw Prawn, but you might try staying conscious long enough to take a real look at this silly idea. There's overwhelming evidence that any warming of the planet is due to solar activity (imagine that?) and is cyclic in nature. What's more, there is warming occurring on Mars and Jupiter–and they don't have SUVs, power plants, or evil oil companies there.

    This nutty idea doesn't even pass the smell test.

    But thanks for a great laugh.

  9. Trying to decide if you are for or against the Climate Change theory. On one side you make the argument of the lone voice of reason, and on the other you very eloquently point to why scientists support their theories with fact albiet sarcastically.

    FYI, the difference between being the lone voice of reason and the nut in the middle of the room screaming is huge.

  10. I excuse your outburst.

    No I do not believe that there is overwhelming evidence that any warming of the planet is due to solar activity because according to solar center at Stanford University, the Max Planck Institute for Solar Studies, and PMOD in Switzerland, TSI has been flat for at least 30 years, while over the same period global temperatures have been rising.

    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/6
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-clima
    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/compos

    Basically, there's overwhelming evidence that the planet has been warming for the last 20 years. This comes not just from NASA, but from the data compiled by the CRU, and the World Meteorological Organization.

    Solar does not work as explanation for this global warming, nor does the Cosmic Ray hypothesis. And simply saying “it's natural” or “it's cyclical” doesn't explain anything, and neither the historical nor reconstructed temperature support that assertion anyway.

    So the only the only resort for you lot is paranoid conspiracy theories about how all the world's climatologists are fudging the data.

  11. That big star in the middle of the solar system burning at 11,000 degrees has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth?

    See why I call this the “religion of anthropogenic global warming”?

    Excuse me while I go have another giggling fit!

  12. You've hit on the difference between scientists who based their theories on science….and those who develop a neat theory and try to bend every shred of science to fit that theory.

    That's the theory of AGP: take an interesting idea (man causing the planet to warm up and cause global catastrophe) and shape any available shred of scientific data (increases in CO2 levels, warming trends–albeit based on shaky data collection) to support your idea.

    That nasty contradictory evidence stuff keeps getting in the way, though. At least for those with open minds.

  13. “That big star in the middle of the solar system burning at 11,000 degrees has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth?”

    No, that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was: TSI (total solar irradiance) has been flat for at least 30 years, while over the same period global temperatures have been rising. Are you able to understand that?

  14. Are you aware that solar activity is at a 1,000 year high, and that sunspot activity has corresponded to climate change going back hundreds of years?

    Are you aware that other plants such as Mars and Jupiter–where there are no SUVs, power plants, evil oil companies or human beings of any kind are also warming? Yet that ball of fire in the middle of the solar system somehow isn't behind any warming on planet earth?

    Are you able to understand the implications of this information?

    (My sides are hurting from all the laughing)

  15. I don't know about solar activity being at a 1000 year high, but I'm pretty sure that stuff about global warming on Mars and Jupiter is BS.

    The implication of your post seems to be that climate change deniers are quite happy to ignore information, when it doesn't suit them, and make up stuff to fill the gap.

  16. You're pretty sure it's BS, huh?

    Well, NASA has put out some BS, that's for sure, but I haven't heard a single, solitary claim that discredits the NASA data which found warming on Mars, Jupiter, and I seem to recall at least one other outer planet or moon–just can't remember which at the moment.

    And yes, you are exactly right about the implication of this post. In fact, that willful rejection of evidence to the contrary has been demonstrated here today.

  17. OK all CO2 in our atmosphere is .038 of 1% aprox 1/30th. (man is responsible for 20% of that). Water vapor at 70 to 80% swings by a full 10% or more. How when the main greenhouse gas swings by 10% can such a small trace addition push us over the edge? Spare me the poision CO2 and the polution rant.
    One greenhouse gas is the same as the other in regards to what it does. Our greenhouse system has no constant levels.. Simple question deserves a simple answer.

  18. We are not nut jobs. We will fold up our tents and go home if you show us data that isnt cherry picked or from a computer model. Satellite temp data shows no warming. Balloon temp data shows no warming.
    This is real cross referenced data, not suspect ground station data and computer models. The Satellite temp data and balloon data is clean and clear, nothing added or removed. I trust that. I dont trust environmental zealots pointing to other environmental zealots as cross referenced. Thats a conversation.
    We all love the earth and want our children to enjoy a bright future. lets keep our feet on the ground and deal with the real problems head on. Keep the side door political games out of the science lab.

  19. OK all CO2 in our atmosphere is .038 of 1% aprox 1/30th. (man is responsible for 20% of that). Water vapor at 70 to 80% swings by a full 10% or more. How when the main greenhouse gas swings by 10% can such a small trace addition push us over the edge? Spare me the poision CO2 and the polution rant.
    One greenhouse gas is the same as the other in regards to what it does. Our greenhouse system has no constant levels.. Simple question deserves a simple answer.

  20. We are not nut jobs. We will fold up our tents and go home if you show us data that isnt cherry picked or from a computer model. Satellite temp data shows no warming. Balloon temp data shows no warming.
    This is real cross referenced data, not suspect ground station data and computer models. The Satellite temp data and balloon data is clean and clear, nothing added or removed. I trust that. I dont trust environmental zealots pointing to other environmental zealots as cross referenced. Thats a conversation.
    We all love the earth and want our children to enjoy a bright future. lets keep our feet on the ground and deal with the real problems head on. Keep the side door political games out of the science lab.