A stormy fight is brewing between Weather Channel founder John Coleman and Bill Nye the Science Guy - who bashed a new movie featuring Coleman that denies the existence of global warming.
“I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie,” Coleman said Friday, according to ClimateDepot.com.
Bill Nye, the Science Lie Guy, AP Photo
The science smackdown started after Nye shunned the film “Climate Hustle,” which Coleman introduces, and warned viewers not to take it seriously.
“I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest,” Nye said if the movie, according to the climate change website.
But Coleman, who has been a meteorologist for 60 years, fired back that the flick is legit, saying Nye spouts junk science.
“As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the AMS (American Meteorological Society’s) ‘Meteorologist of the Year’ award, I am totally offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does. And I am rooting for the ‘Climate Hustle’ film to become a huge hit - bigger than ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Al Gore,” Coleman said.
Coleman also slammed Nye for claiming earlier this month that climate change skeptics should face jail time.
“That is the most awful thing since Galileo was jailed for saying the Earth was not the center of the Universe,” Coleman said.
“In 20 or 30 years, when Nye is an old man, he will realize how wrong he was as the Earth continues to be a just a great place to live,” he said.
Coleman was the original weatherman on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
(Aside: Here John was pictured with Icecap’s joe D’Aleo, who worked as meteorological producer for John on GMA , during which time they planned TWC)
The movie hits theaters May 2 for one day only.
Some of the original Weather Channel on camera staff that John Coleman and I hired back in 1982. TWC launched on May 2, 1982, ironically the day that Climate Hustle plays nationwide in theaters. How many can you name???
This photo was courtesy of Dale Dockus. he writes: “On May 2nd, 1982, The Weather Channel was officially launched on cable TV. Here are many of the original on-camera meteorologists:
First Row L-R: Gay Dawson, Charlie Welsh, Bill Schubert
Second Row: Brian Durst, Vicki Griffin Williams, Vince Miller, Dale Bryan
Third Row: Bruce Kalinowski, Dale Dockus, Charlie Levy, Gary Ley, John Hope, John Cessarich, Bob Richards (Schwartz)
Fourth Row: Herb Stevens, Dennis Smith , Will Annen
John proudly referred to the the entire OCM staff as “23 of the top meteorological minds in the country” Not pictured, but also original OCMs: Andre Bernier, Craig Weber, Mark Mancuso, Donald Buser, Bill Keneely, Jim Wegner, Rick Griffin, Steven Kaye (Kosch), Gene Rubin, Bob Brown, and the one & only Fred Barnhill.
Real World energy and climate
“The sky is falling” scare stories have no place in public interest science or policy
By John Coleman
Earth Day 2016 brought extensive consternation about how our Earth will soon become uninhabitable, as mankind’s activities of civilization trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change. President Obama used the occasion to sign the Paris climate treaty and further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth.
I love this little blue planet and do all I can to preserve it for my children and grandchildren.
If I thought for even a second that the civilized activities of mankind are producing a threat to our planet, I would spend the rest of my life correcting the problems. However, after devoting a decade to carefully studying mankind’s impact on our climate, I am firmly convinced that the entire global warming/climate change campaign is based on a failed scientific theory.
In short, there is no dangerous manmade climate change problem.
“Who cares about your scientific study,” many people respond. “This is about loving a native environment. This is about escaping from the horrors of so called civilization.”
That response is understandable because for fifteen years the Greenpeace-Sierra Club crowd has been constantly decrying the “ugliness” of civilization: cars, planes, trains, trucks, factories, power plants and all the rest. It seems they think things were better in pre-industrial times, or perhaps the world of Tarzan or modern-day central Africa.
There certainly has been a steady barrage of “research” that finds everything going drastically wrong with Planet Earth because of our civilized life. The media join in, of course, proclaiming “the sky is falling,” and Al Gore’s book, movie and “climate crisis tipping point” mantra stirred the media into an even bigger tizzy. Now almost the entire Democrat Party has climbed aboard.
As a result, billions of dollars in annual government funding keep the alarmist climate research and environmental campaigns marching on. Tens of billions more subsidize wind, solar and biofuel energy that is supposedly more “sustainable” and “climate friendly.”
Today, a high percentage of Americans accept climate change as a valid problem, even though the vast majority rate it at the bottom of their top ten or twenty concerns. Many accept news reports that tell us the United Nations through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has “settled” the science in the last fifteen years.
In fact, President Obama and others say the matter is so proven that 97% of scientists agree on climate change. But this oft-quoted phrase has been totally debunked as fabricated or bait-and-switch. A group of scientists is asked, “Do you agree that Earth has warmed in recent years and Earth’s climate is changing?”
Probably every honest, competent scientist would answer “Yes.” But then the “survey” team changes the question to have them say, “Yes, humans are causing dangerous climate change.” Since 100% agreement would look suspicious, they back off a little and make it a “97% consensus.”
This leaves a somewhat David and Goliath situation for those of us climate experts who agree that Earth’s climate is changing, has always changed, and humans have some effects today - but do not believe that mankind’s emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate change, or that any current or future changes must necessarily be dangerous or cataclysmic. We are frequently insulted and dismissed as Deniers.
Our side is not as small as the media may have you think. Many notable scientists totally reject claims of a manmade climate crisis. Over 31,000 have signed a statement that rejects the manmade global warming scare and says we see “no convincing evidence” that humans are causing dangerous climate change. They and other experts have widely discredited the IPCC and other assertions about the climate.
There is even a Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). It has published several impressive 4,000-page books of scientific papers that totally dismantle IPCC claims. The NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered and other books are also published on-line.
Even the late, great author/physician/scientist Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame) debunked global warming and wrote about it in his novel State of Fear.
Our fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric powered civilization has made billions of lives much healthier, longer and more pleasant than in previous times. Heating and air conditioning, power for lights and computers and smart phones, and modern hospitals and schools are just a few of the blessings that bring incalculable value to our lives. What we enjoy today is the result of hundreds of generations of hard working men and women, each one moving us forward by inches or miles.
In my 80s now, I think about the world into which I was born. Radio was just beginning. Phones were few and far between and very primitive, requiring hand cranks and operators. Cars and trucks were slow and produced awful soot, smoke, carbon monoxide and other pollutants. Factories, power plants and home furnaces fueled by dirty unprocessed coal with un-scrubbed smoke billowing from their chimneys, left us all in smoggy, unhealthy air.
Doctors had few medicines to offer, and only primitive x-ray devices to peer inside us. Jet airplanes, computers, televisions, rockets, satellites and so much more had not yet been invented. Most people died in their late 40s or 50s. In this one man’s lifetime, civilization has made amazing progress.
Now think about what life on Earth will be like when you are my age. I predict the fossil fuel-powered society will have been replaced by systems only a few geniuses are even thinking about today. A long list of now fatal diseases will have been conquered, and people will live healthy life into their late nineties.
I predict our cars and planes will not need drivers or pilots, and space flight will become common. Robots will do much of the work, so people can enjoy their lives much, much more.
And I predict that anyone who looks back on the threat of climate change/global warming and all the threats to life on Earth will have a hearty laugh, as mankind will have progressed beyond accepting any such silliness.
Life is good. Enjoy it. And stop worrying about climate hobgoblins.
By Craig Idso, CO2 Science
Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R.B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P., Arneth, A., Cao, C., Cheng, L., Kato, E., Koven, C., Li, Y., Lian, X., Liu, Y., Liu, R., Mao, J., Pan, Y., Peng, S., Penuelas, J., Poulter, B., Pugh, T.A.M., Stocker, B.D., Viovy, N., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Xiao, Z., Yang, H., Zaehle, S. and Zeng, N. 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3004.
Among the many climate-alarmist fears of CO2-induced global warming is the concern that the productivity of the biosphere will decline if global temperatures rise to the extent predicted by computer models. Yet, for many alarmists, the future is the present. Since 1980, for example, the Earth has weathered three of the warmest decades in the instrumental temperature record, a handful of intense and persistent El Niņo events, large-scale deforestation, “unprecedented” forest fires, and the eruption of several volcanoes. Concurrently, the air’s CO2 content increased by 16%, while human population grew by 55%. So just how bad is the biosphere suffering in response to these much-feared events? Or, is it even suffering at all? A new paper by Zhu et al. (2016) provides valuable insight into this important topic.
Noting that global environment change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, Zhu et al. set about to discover just how significant this phenomenon is, as well as what has primarily been responsible for it. This they did using three long-term satellite-derived leaf area index (LAI) records, together with the output of ten global ecosystem models, which they employed to study four key drivers of LAI trends (atmospheric CO2 enrichment, nitrogen deposition, climate change and land cover change) over the period 1982-2009. And what did this effort reveal?
The 32 researchers—representing 9 different countries (Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom)—report finding “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).” And equally importantly, they report that “factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (4%).”
Could one hope for anything more promising than this? Quite the opposite of what the world’s climate alarmists contend should be happening to Earth’s vegetation, rising atmospheric CO2 enrichment is proving to be a tremendous biospheric benefit, overpowering the many real and negative influences that society and nature have inflicted upon it over the past three decades, as shown in the figure below.
Research university hides results of fracking study which fails to prove it’s dangerous
POSTED AT 5:01 PM ON APRIL 26, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW
What happens when a university research department is tasked with conducting a study of the harmful effects of fracking on ground water and other environmental concerns? Well, that depends on who provides their research money and what the results turn out to be. In the case of the University of Cincinnati, a lot of their funding comes from groups which have a vested interest in proving how harmful fracking is so it’s hardly a surprise that they lost interest in the study when it failed to produce any evidence of ground water contamination near commercial fracking sites.
Jeff Stier, senior fellow and head of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington provides a detailed report at Newsweek.
Geologists at the University of Cincinnati just wrapped up a three-year investigation of hydraulic fracturing and its impact on local water supplies.
The result? There’s no evidence - zero, zilch, nada - that fracking contaminates drinking water. Researchers hoped to keep these findings secret.
Why would a public research university boasting a top-100 geology program deliberately hide its work? Because, as lead researcher Amy Townsend-Small explained, “our funders, the groups that had given us funding in the past, were a little disappointed in our results. They feel that fracking is scary and so they were hoping our data could point to a reason to ban it.”
The funding groups were a little disappointed in the results. How terrible for them. We do so hate to see anyone go away disappointed. But to have this research basically squashed with no public release after three years of investigative work is unforgivable. I wonder if it also added to their disappointment to discover that the oil and gas industry was providing more than 2 million jobs in the United States and is projected to increase that number to 5 million by 2025.
None of this will be “news” to anyone who has been following developments in the industry. This evidence has been stacking up for a while now, as we saw in previous studies conducted in both Texas and Ohio which were originally going to prove how terrible and toxic fracking is.
A review of the available research bears out both claims. Consider theGround Water Protection Council’s recent study on gas exploration in Ohio, from 1983 until 2007, and in Texas, from 1993 until 2008.
According to that report, neither officials in Texas nor those in Ohio “identified a single groundwater contamination incident...at any of these horizontal shale gas wells” during those periods.
Hillary Clinton is making her bones during the primary telling voters that she’ll be working to curtail fracking. In a previous debate against Sanders she blasting the technology to the point where her team expressed concerns that it could cost her votes in New York. She wound up winning the primary, but it’s yet another example of an issue where Sanders had dragged her so far to the left that she’s providing endless fodder for her Republican opponent come November. And when we get to that stage of the race, it’s not New York she has to worry about, but places like Pennsylvania and Ohio where the oil and gas industry kept many communities afloat while the rest of the nation languished.
Good luck with that, Madam Secretary. Perhaps you’d better take a look at this “secret” study before your next energy policy speech.
John Coleman, USA TODAY
Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.
On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.
With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.
The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?
Another U.N. official, Ottmar Edenhoffer, has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”
When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.
As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.
Weather Channel founder John Coleman has spent more than 60 years as a meteorologist, including seven years as the original Weathercaster on ABC’s Good Morning America. He was founder of The Weather Channel.
Obama’s top climate advisor visits Reed College
By Gordon Fulks
In the pagan world of climate worship, the highest of all high holy days is “Earth Day.” This is when Al Gore rises from the dead to save us from carbon dioxide. In the days before his ascension, his many disciples proclaim throughout the land that we will be saved from warm days if we repent our sins, cut our carbon footprints, take public transportation, support taxes (especially carbon taxes), and vote for Democrats.
It’s sooo simple, you do not need any scientific training to master climate, just follow others who have no training either, like Obama’s “senior” climate advisor Brian Deese. He is the recently minted lawyer from Yale University who is an expert on everything. Just ask him!
Deese showed up at Reed College a week before Earth Day to a very friendly reception from their Environmental Studies Department and its Chairman (Assistant Professor of History Joshua Howe). I kid you not. Reed’s top climate expert is an historian without scientific training!
So what do these “experts” talk about? Deese liked his trip to Paris in late November for the annual UN climate conference. It was “truly historic,” as the leaders of China and India humored Obama’s climate obsession with soothing promises, forgetting to mention that they are planning to build 500 new coal fired power plants to keep their industrial revolutions going. These will not be highly efficient and clean American coal plants. They will be primitive plants that spew vast quantities of noxious pollutants into our atmosphere. Yet Deese saw the non-binding Paris Agreement as “Humanity’s best chance to save the planet.”
How does Deese expect to save the planet? In the nonsensical world of politics, renewable energy works just fine. We can install ever more megawatts of wind and solar generation at great cost and appear on paper to have plenty of electricity, “cheaper than coal.” But what happens when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, namely most of the time? Deese has apparently never considered such ‘details’ that make renewables so costly and impractical.
Although Deese loves to talk about his experience with world leaders, he has a decidedly myopic view of the world experience with renewables. While the Germans, Spanish, and English have clearly seen the enormous downside to politically-based technology and are trying to scale it back and build real power plants, the Obama faithful refuse to see anything wrong. They want European disasters repeated here. Endless subsidies at taxpayer and ratepayer expense provide the life support for renewable energy companies in America, a fact that has not escaped the Obama Administration, but one that they keep very quiet. And they are especially quiet about the bankruptcies.
As with all climate alarmists, Deese throws around a few numbers that he does not understand. To keep up the hysteria, he talks about widespread starvation from “an expected 30% decrease” in agricultural production with rising carbon dioxide. Never mind that agricultural production greatly benefits from higher atmospheric CO2, such that we can now feed the seven billion people who call this planet home. And should they be correct about CO2 driven warming (which they are not), crops generally benefit from warmth.
When the President’s young advisor finished with his preaching and asked “If you buy my case...” I wanted to jump up and say “NO!” But I waited for him to invite “a conversation” with the audience. There were many adoring comments from the audience, and a few mildly critical ones that seemed too technical for the audience of non-scientists to comprehend.
So when it came my turn, I suggested that perhaps Deese’s claim of ‘settled science’ was based on the fact that the President did not listen to the many of us who questioned his theory. I asked why Obama had not responded to an open letter that more than a hundred prominent scientists had written to him seven years ago. I told the audience that it addressed Obama’s frequent statement on climate: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Our response was: “With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the facts...”
At that point Deese and the audience tried to cut me off. I politely asked to finish the sentence but was shouted down. When a coed grabbed my microphone, I continued anyway with what they deemed so heretical: “Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
I tried to point out that the letter was signed by a Nobel Laureate in Physics (Ivar Giaever) who is a Democrat, but the audience did not want to hear anymore blasphemy. After all, this is monochromatic Reed College where only politically correct comments are permitted. It is about as far as you can get from a model campus, where all credible ideas from the well-educated get a respectful hearing, and tolerance reins supreme.
Deese ended his presentation with the ironic admonition to “get educated on the facts and science.” When I attempted to talk with him afterwards, his very embarrassed hosts tried to physically block me from doing so. But I managed to thank him for coming and shake his hand just as he was leaving. He grimaced. It was a perfect ending for an event where the President’s advisor expected only the admiration due an apostle.
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. lives in Corbett, Oregon, and can be reached at email@example.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
Gordon also responded to a story in the Huffington Post about Old People Not Caring about Climate Change
The Climate Scam is fashioned in all sorts of ways to convince the gullible to play along. Pitting seniors against young people is but one. Traditionally rebellious youth love to take on their elders. But are they really taking on the Establishment when supporting hysteria over science? Of course not! They are supporting the Establishment that sees Climate Change as a way to control them.
A major casualty in this political struggle is science itself. A whole generation is growing up thinking science is a political exercise, especially if they want to earn a living from it. Supporting Obama Administration “science” is good for their careers, while opposing it can be catastrophic.
I was lucky to grow up in a different era when politics and science were largely separate human activities. I never had to concern myself with a fellow scientist’s political beliefs, because they were irrelevant. We could discuss a scientific issue without any political interference. It was wonderful.
Today, political considerations heavily influence beliefs among scientists who have signed on to climate hysteria. A recent study of professional members of the American Meteorological Society (Stenhouse et al., BAMS 2014) showed that those supporting the prevailing paradigm did so for completely unscientific reasons: their liberal political views and their belief that virtually all of their colleagues were in agreement. This made the authors of the study, who were alarmists, uneasy, because they realized that those supporting their perspective were doing so for the wrong reasons. Competent science is anything but a political exercise. It properly pivots on logic and evidence only.
Furthermore the study showed that the claimed “scientific consensus,” that alarmists hold more dear than the paradigm itself, is far from true. Alarmism is on very shaky ground with scientists who do not earn their living from it.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
And from elders who have heard it all before from impending ice ages to global warming notw climate change. they know its politicized nonsense.