[LINK] The Amazing Story Behind Global Warming - Was - The meaning of...

[TKoltai]

Quote/
[http://www.kusi.com/story/13167480/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-
warming-scam]
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 obtained major funding from the Navy to do
measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where
the US military was conducting post war 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. Suess was very
interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning
of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in
1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon
dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric
warming. The thrust of the paper was 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 1958 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.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a
pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and
poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from
the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a
valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this
pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to
demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards.
Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were
developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection
engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no
longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and
water vapor from their tail pipes. 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. Roger
Revelle's research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of
scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming
from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of
fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement.
Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

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 flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the
atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used
by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385
parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only
a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is
CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41
hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of
that fraction is from mankind's use of fossil fuels. The best estimate
is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result
of civilization.

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. As years have passed, the scientists have 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 meetings.

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 (UN IPCC). 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 UN funding so they
could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil
fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of
scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news
stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the
satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time 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. 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 movie "An Inconvenient Truth," his
Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits
business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre 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, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy
still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have
discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and 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 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 on 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, "Apparently." People who were
there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a
transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with
me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

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. He
might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's mea culpa as the actions of a
senile old man. 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 most of his cohorts have refused
to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult
us and call us names.

As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say
the climate is sensitive to a "radiative forcing" effect from
atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect
on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex
hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the
models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was
step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s
and 1990's and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two
decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar
cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of
the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns
during that period.

That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by
satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality
have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and
carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while
the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global
temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from
climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN's
computer model "proof" has gone up in a poof.

Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is
the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We
are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly
carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the
environmentalists for this sinful footprint. 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 the prohibiting of new
refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has
created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn
based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also
has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over./Quote

As told by: John Coleman