Here is another story that just came out today...written by none other than John Coleman, the gentleman who started the Weather Channel.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
The whole thing is a very good read, but here are some highlights:
<font color="red"> "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. " [/COLOR]
This is not simply alternate alarmism. There have been stories quoting Gore saying he was recommending that CO2 be labeled a pollutant. Gases that plants need to survive, a pollutant? ONLY politicians could come up with that.... show me ONE scientist who would recommend that (other than the obvious political animal Hansen) and we can talk.
<font color="red"> "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. "
snip
"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. " [/COLOR]
This is where the politics really started to mix with the science, although it was not overt. The thing that overtly disconnected the two was the "research funding". That has become much clearer in the past 10 years.
<font color="red"> "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. " [/COLOR]
I can (and will if requested by any readers) post an analysis from Dr. Roy Spencer who shows just how TEENY TINY total CO2 is, in addition to how miniscule the CO2 buildup has been.
<font color="red"> "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." [/COLOR]
The UN gets involved. Let us remember that the UN
is not a scientific organization! First and foremost it is a
political organization, committed to achieve political goals...quite often NOT in accord with the best interests of the USA or their people. But that is politics on an international scale. No surprise there. But when the UN gets into the business of proclaiming scientific conclusions....BEWARE!
<font color="red"> "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. " [/COLOR]
Here we have the "grandfather of global warming" (Revelle) pointing this (bold) out!!!
<font color="red"> "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. " [/COLOR]
You see, the politics have been entangled with "science" (bad science) for so long, that people are generally not aware of just how long Gore has been using such platitudes as "science being settled" (that is unscientific, in and of itself) and "the time for debate is over". Moreover, Gore does not even listen to the Harvard professor who got him all starry-eyed and on his tree-hugger quest!
<font color="red"> "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. " [/COLOR]
RMT
