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
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is
driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 lead 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
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high
jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in