Lazy Man's Guide to Understanding the Global Warming Hoax

Video from the new John Coleman KUSI-TV one-hour TV special are included at the bottom of this page

By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
Originally Published January 25 2010

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not a scientist. I have to carefully read through and watch and listen, and then go back and do it again. And not being a scientist means that I can't then turn around and relate the details to you in highfalutin technical terms; it has to be in rather simple language.

I'm calling this the "Lazy Man's Guide..." rather than "Idiots Guide" or "Dummies Guide" because I'm not a dummy and if you are taking the time to read this then I don't think you are either (so please don't disappoint me with a bunch of stupid emails - we'd like to hear from you, but it should be with something that adds to either side of the issue).

What I wanted to do when I started to write this piece was to set forth the divergent thoughts and bits of information that have been swirling around in my head and then to put them down in an organized manner. This is a subsequent piece to the "Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming" editorial that I wrote on December 25, 2009.

In addition to attempting to organize and explain both sides of the argument a bit better, it contains revealing information about the so-called "Peer Reviewed Studies" that are always referenced by Global Warming supporters. These revelations are even more shocking and more damaging to their cause than the "Climategate Emails" that surfaced two months ago in November 2009.

There’s two parts to the man-made global warming argument:

Part One is the data that portrays industrialization as the cause of increasing global temperatures.

Part Two is the evidence and the cataclysmic effects that such warming will cause.

The data in the first part has been used by the Global Warming supporters to create graphs that illustrate how the “global temperature’ has increased in the past century (the period of great industrialization) to record historical highs. The supporters claim that the reason for the rise is a “greenhouse effect” in which a CO2 induced layer is being placed over our atmosphere by industrialization. A good, although incorrect, visualization of this would be a photograph of the Los Angeles city basin from Hollywood Hills: a brown cover of pollution locking in the air to bake like a giant convection oven. We’ve all seen photos like this and the resemblance to an image of a typical glass-enclosed greenhouse allows the comparison to be made and routinely accepted. Moreover, such photographs provide a simple, seemingly clear relationship between air pollution and global warming.

Breathable air is, of course, required for life as we know it. And there is ample proof to show that contaminated air can cause health ailments or death. One need not be a scientist to understand this. Therefore clean air, that is to say air that is as close to the perfect mixture of a breathable gas as possible, is better for our collective health. But there really is no relationship between air pollution (from vehicle or factory emissions) and any global change in temperatures. These are two disparate issues, which just happen to relate well when depicted together in a photograph as described above. In fact, the argument can be made that the blocking of sunlight will result in lower temperatures, i.e., taking shelter under a tree or opening an awning on your backyard patio on a sunny day.

Regardless, higher temperatures are not in and of themselves bad news. People travel to various locations specifically because they want to reside or vacation in a warmer clime.

But, in order to paint an ugly picture on what might otherwise be considered a happy portrait of the world’s people living in a tropical paradise, there has to be negative imagery. Visions of the death and destruction of living creatures and geographical features that we otherwise consider beautiful, cute, cuddly, and precious are perfect. Of course, there is great irony here, because while a polar bear in the wild or a majestic Antarctic scene might be beautiful to most of us, almost none of us would actually like to be standing next to the polar bear or at the South Pole due of the respective dangers. And the extinction of man-killing beasts and the warming of a whole new continent on a planet with a rapidly growing population may be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Again, in order to portray the negative effects of global warming (for reasons left to your own political imagination) there has to be visions of dire consequences. To wit:

1. Melting polar caps create raise sea levels that inundate islands and low-lying populated regions.

2. Less ice layer leaving cuddly polar bears without sufficient resting places from which they can stage hunting forays on their food sources, which happens to be even cuter, more lovable seals (but let’s forget that for the moment).

Consequently, in order to further Part Two of the Global Warming argument, supporters present statistics (occasionally with photographic evidence) that indicate dramatically rising oceans, glacial melting, and dying wildlife. Again and again, supporters of the man-made global warming arguments, and its disastrous effects, tout what they say is “PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.” For example, in a recent television appearance, Ed Begley, Jr., whom I respect for his long-time pro-environmental efforts, shouted repeatedly to Stuart Varney, the news show host who was questioning the theory, that the science was “peer reviewed,” thereby being virtually indisputable.

Click PLAY to watch the Ed Begley, Jr. interview

Over the past couple of decades for reasons that can also be only best explained according to your own political imagination and conspiracy theories, a large part of the population of the world has been brainwashed into believing that man-made global warming is occurring and that the horrendous results are imminent. The brainwashing has been particularly insidious in younger age groups (some of which are ready to move into adulthood with positions of responsibility). To try to present arguments against global warming to these groups is tantamount to espousing religious heresy.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

Opposition to Global Warming alarmists has been rallying a dramatic rescue, aided by shocking revelations this past week that the so-called “peer reviewed” research proving the effects from man-made global warming was false. It turns out that the “research” was nothing more than a “speculative” comment made in 1999 by an Indian scientist, and neither the comment nor any research paper derived from the comment were ever submitted to peer review study.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s go back to Part One of the Global Warming Argument. Ever since the data (that allegedly shows global temperatures have increased in the last century) has been used to create visually compelling graphs, such as the ones featured by Al Gore in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” opponents of the man-made global warming theory have been able to show how the statistics indicate that we are not experiencing historically high temperatures, and that there was not a relative change of global temperatures to correspond with the most significant growth of CO2 puking vehicles and factories (in the mid 1900’s). They also show that, in fact, temperatures over the past eleven years have actually fallen.

To make matters worse, for the Global Warming supporters, temperature data that is being used to try and show rising temperatures has been manipulated and cherry-picked to help their argument. This issue of data manipulation is covered in detail in the John Coleman TV show segments that are included below.

Contrary to public perception, which is fostered by the claims of the Global Warming supporters, there is and has been a sizable community of scientifically qualified people arguing against the alleged “peer reviewed” science and the army of scientists who are said to have “signed-off” on the correctness of the data and its resulting physical evidence. Unfortunately, because of the pervasive job done in brainwashing the general population, our vote-pandering politicians and most of the general media, news and information as to the strength of legitimate scientific opposition has been under-reported or ignored.

To compound the difficulty in fighting the Global Warming juggernaut, the debunkers have to fight against “star-studded” circus-show events such as the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, wistfully dubbed “Hopenhagen.” Regardless of the news that had broken just weeks earlier revealing emails carrying admissions of evidentiary fraud in the Global Warming argument, the Copenhagen love-in steamrolled all attempts to derail the movement (although, fortunately, the much-feared “new world order” agreement that was supposed to be ratified never came up for vote by the member nations). What did remain to be claimed by the GW supporters was the same old refrain, “Evidence of man-made Global Warming and its effects have been scientifically peer-reviewed.”

THE NEW REVELATIONS

Last week, facing imminent public exposure, came the confession from the chief of the United Nation’s IPCC that the underlying research that is the basis for almost all claims of peer-reviewed scientific evidence of global warming effects is false. The Sunday Times (London, January 24th) carried multiple stories of this confession along with subsequent admissions of misstatements, wrongful attributions, fraud and duplicity. The lead article, with links to supporting stories can be found at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece.

However, this is what I have deduced from my reading of the materials:

1. The research (evidence) that was purported to have been conducted was not done. It was based upon a speculative anecdotal comment made originally in a phone conversation with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. The conversation was then included in a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine. The comment concerned one specific glacier in the Himalayas and that same comment was never again made by the same scientist in any later reports or studies.

2. The research (that was never really conducted) was said to be “peer reviewed.” However, the research, which as it turns out was nothing more than an uncorroborated comment regarding one specific mountain in a range of mountains, was never “peer reviewed.”

3. This fictitious research was used as evidence of disastrous GW effects in claims made around the world. Some of the claims had no direct correlation to melting ice or mountains.

4. In 2007, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a paper that warned of catastrophic weather related events (that we’re currently experiencing as well as events that are expected to occur in the future). That warning was based upon the “peer-reviewed research” that was actually never conducted and never peer-reviewed.

5. When the paper eventually went to publication, in 2008, it was supposed to contain a new stipulation that some of the IPCC group thought should be included. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." Despite this desired disclaimer the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also been revealed that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts. Their words of caution were ignored.

Thus we have the entire Man-Made Global Warming argument and the billions of dollars that have already been squandered, along with the millions of lives that have been affected by this hoax. This is the inconvenient truth; inconvenient for the already justifiably beleaguered United Nations; inconvenient for a former Vice President of the United States that has made millions and millions of dollars by participating in this fraud; inconvenient for enemies of free market economies and capitalism; and inconvenient to all those entrepreneurs of diverse political persuasions that are trying to get on the gravy train to the detriment of their fellow man and woman.

On August 6, 2011, Joe Bastardi, Chief Forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics and former Long Range Forecaster at Accuweather, gave the following TV interview about man-induced climate change. Joe is known for the plain-speaking style of his forecasts and his opinions on weather and climate change.

SPECIAL: John Coleman and KUSI-TV recently produced and aired an entirely new one-hour program "GLOBAL WARMING: The Other Side." We have the show in 5 parts below. This really breaks down the whole issue and presents startling information about how climate study data has been fraudulently manipulated to arrive at results that show global warming. This is must-see TV. There are four additional videos from some of the same scientists interviewed in the one-hour show. Much more information about John Coleman can be found at www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

The Following video is the complete unedited interview that John Coleman did with Joseph D'Aleo for the TV show

The next three videos were produced prior to the December Copenhagen Climate Conference in order to try and tell delegates that man-made global warming is untrue