|
by John Coleman
29 January 2009
from
Kusi Website
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 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
footprints 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 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 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.
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 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 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 move, 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.
|