Weather Channel Founder’s Thoughts On “Global Warming”

| June 14, 2008 @ 10:07 am | 33 Replies

This is a speech given by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, recently to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. All I can do is say “amen”. CO2 is the life blood of the planet, and I have great fear of “global cooling” in coming years due to low solar output.

We had John on our weekly WeatherBrains show late last year; take some time and listen to what he has to say.

The one thing we can agree on is that the climate is changing. It has always changed, and will always change.

I have been doing weather on television around here since 1978, and every single year I have heard literally dozens of people tell me “they can’t remember the weather being this strange”. The truth is that the weather is “strange” every year, with anomalies and extremes that include disasters. We simply have short memories.

Here is the speech by John Coleman:

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Category: Pre-November 2010 Posts

About the Author ()

James Spann is one of the most recognized and trusted television meteorologists in the industry. He holds the AMS CCM designation and television seals from the AMS and NWA. He is a past winner of the Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year from both professional organizations.

Comments (33)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. neverwinter zen | August 28, 2016
  2. fifa 17 points | September 5, 2016
  3. buy madden 17 coins | September 8, 2016
  4. sweden hockey jersey | September 22, 2016
  5. Nike Air Max popular | September 25, 2016
  6. Nike Sale Air Max | September 26, 2016
  7. yoenis cespedes jersey | September 26, 2016
  8. unique Nike Roshe Run | September 26, 2016
  9. Nike tiempo ronaldinho | September 27, 2016
  10. Nike Black Air Max | September 27, 2016
  1. Bill in Vigo says:

    This is the 4th blog that I have read John Coleman’s speech. I couldn’t agree more with him. I started last year to keep a record of the high and low temps and the precipitation and the type of precip. It seems that we do have short memories. We tend to forget the extremes and to remember the better times, that is except for disasters such as the “Blizzard of 93” so it is better to keep a record for sure.

    I think John has it exactly right.

    Bill

  2. Kevin says:

    Thank you, Mr. Spann, for posting this.
    I love the truth. And Mr. Coleman speaks it.

  3. adam wiggins says:

    hey James i totally agree with you 100% i beleive this is just a part of earth natural process. I do beleive one day this earth will burn up and it will be because of our actions,but global warming will not cause it.It will happen when the Lord comes back the bible says the lord will destroy this earth and make a new heaven and new earth.

  4. TBD in Pelham says:

    AMEN! I hope this speech gets shoved all through the media. Great speech!

  5. Sue says:

    Thanks for sharing this. Knowledge gives power beyond who has the best PR person. I believe we should learn more about and develop uses for other energy options and not allow any one type of energy source be used enough to give the power over us that petroleum-based energy supply (and supposed demand increases) have. In the 1960s, you could see the pollution over Birmingham by the time you got to Jasper and smell it before you got to Adamsville. Let us learn from the past, the progress and the mistakes, and go forward.

  6. Heather H. says:

    Al Gore and the UN remind me of the Catholic church and European governments in the 1400’s proclaiming that the Earth is Flat. My goodness. If people would look back through history, they would see that the Earth does go through these climate changes naturally. When Greenland was discovered in the mideval times by the vikings, they named it Greenland for a reason. It was not the chunk of ice it is today, if fact, duh, it was green! I guess, those vikings must have just made a mistake in naming it! Rick and Bubba made a wonderful comment about global warming not too long ago. They basically said, that as Christians, we cannot believe in Global warming. The Bible is the word of God. God does not lie. God will eventually destroy this world, not mankind. And, I for one, believe it is very arrogant of any man to think that we could destroy something that the wonderful almighty created. Whether you are Christian or not, global warming is just another…”the earth is flat”…”the sun revolves around the earth”…theory that people who run the world think that all of us underlings should believe in and endure their propaganda! If we are so concerned about our environment, they why is our government allowing China to drill for oil off the coast of Florida? How is that safe for our environment? Not that I have anything against the Chinese…but these are the same people who put lead in their paint and have such lax safety standards for their mines, that tens of thousands of their miners die a year. Yeah, let’s have them drill off our coast…I am sure they will take all the necessary precautions to prevent a major disaster on our coast. No, we need to stop listening to the pundits and let level headed people start making the decisions here for our country.

  7. kurt w says:

    I’ve always respected James Spann and his knowledge of the weather. It truly is impressive.

    With that said, he’s lost so much respect from me over this whole ordeal. You people are amazing.

    Some people will swear the a brick wall doesn’t exist even when they’re smacking their head into it over and over again.

    It’s people like you who endanger the lives of the rest of us. You’re spread of apathy on this subject could very well threaten the existence of the human race.

    Open your minds, and look at the SCIENTIFIC LOGIC.

    Thankyou.

  8. John T says:

    hahahahaha . At comment 7. Enough said about the “other” side. This is what Mr. Coleman is talking about , the scientific log.

  9. Angie says:

    Kurt, we are looking at the science and at the bottom of it all, the science DOES NOT support man-made global warming. The key phrase there is “man-made.” The earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles repeatedly throughout history and nothing we’re doing is having one iota of an affect.

    Where I have problems is when it comes out that the temperature recorders that are being used by the global warming promoters are located at airports in unprotected areas, next to light bulbs, etc. Um, jet engine exhaust is HOT. So are light bulbs. That alone will skew data. If the numbers are wrong, how can the science based on those numbers be right? Maybe we’re not the ones hitting our heads against a brick wall…

  10. logan says:

    Scientific logic? Where, pray tell, is the logic in global warming? I’ve heard hundreds of people rant on how anyone who disbelieves global warming is wrong, I’ve heard very few voice why. Best answer I’v heard to date: ” 2500 scientist agree it is.” True enough. we have 31,000 names now and what do we get … Here’s my favorite rebuttal ” Oh so you said you didn’t want it to be a numbers game and now you say you have more? ” Oh please, UNIPCC made the scientists who disagree turn it into a numbers game with the constant “2500 2500” chants. There is no direct corellation between CO2 and anthropogenic global warming. Say it is a minor greenhouse gas, fine we can go with that. What kind of warming to you suppose this would entail when we are talking about even 5 molecules in 10,000? Thats 1 per every 2000 and a higher number than is actually occuring …. Want to know a greenhouse gas? Water vapor.

    This argument is grinding our society into obliteration. People aren’t going to starve to death, in fact if global warming prevails to be true, most areas would experience a healthier harvest (more C02 does that, shame huh?) and longer growing season to boot.

    What will make people starve to death is the consumtion of Bio-made ethanol derived from grains driving up the cost. Ethanol is great, serves many purposes. Replacing gasoline is not one of them

    What will starve

  11. logan says:

    airports located in cities angie. Dont forget that one… Urban heat island effect cities grow, blacktop where there wasnt and it gets hotter.. pretty simple

  12. Don says:

    There are some things so obvious you would think they did not have to get their own bullet points, but I suppose not. So:

    — You can sell far more books, movies and speaking engagements with a crisis than you ever could with naturally occuring phenomena. As always, follow the money!

    — As mentioned by James and others, people have short memories. We tend to see things in our own limited little area of time and space. Weathercasters perpetuate things when they say, “The high today will be 90, and that’s ten degrees above average for this date.” “Average” is determined by taking the high temperatures for this day all the way back to when recordkeeping began, adding them together, and dividing by the number of days we are considering. Not only does that ignore millions of years of history, but it is a math problem that smooths out a lot of temperature extremes!

    — People want simple answers to complex problems. Just like they expect murders to be solved and wars to be won in sixty minutes–less commercials–they want to be able to solve any perceived crisis in a simplistic way. If we stop driving cars and using electricity, the polar bears will survive and New Yorkers won’t be paddling rowboats down Broadway.

    Step back, broaden the perspective, and–as also mentioned–it would be comical, if it didn’t also mean the hysteria may have far more negative impact on society than the “crisis” we are supposed to be hysterical about.

    Don Keith
    http://www.donkeith.com
    http://www.n4kc.com
    http://www.n4kc.blogspot.com

  13. Lee says:

    Thanks, James for presenting the other side of this issue. In case anyone wants to Email the link to this speech (which I plan to do to EVERYONE in my address book), it is:

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

  14. Acid Reign says:

    …..Well said, indeed! What was the quote about lies, D—ed lies, and statistics?

    …..U.S. Costal regions may be in danger, but I think it’s more from erosion than rising water levels.

  15. SoHo says:

    Well I’m no P.Hd scientist but this does explain why it snowed more in south shelby county this winter than it has in any of the previous 10 years I have been living here. Ive been doubting this global warming thing for a while.

  16. Paul Johnson says:

    Straight from wikipedia:

    Burden on participating scientists

    Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists’ research programs.[66] Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.[67]

  17. Sue says:

    Logan, ethanol is the use of corn outside our normal thoughts that is in the media spotlight. Look at the labels of items in your pantry (especially sodas and snacks) and see how many of them list high fructose corn syrup as one of the first five ingredients. If that were changed, more corn would be available for more nutritious forms of consumption. Ethanol and corn on the cob are not the only versions of corn usage on the market!

  18. Mark C says:

    Kurt W:

    Open-mindedness runs both ways. Explain why those that don’t believe that there is significant anthropologically-created global warming are ignored by the media or are presented in a denigrative light. It is obvious that you have developed an emotionally-charged judgement of those people. Have you given any objective attention to their interpretation of climatological data? If not, then who is not being open-minded?

    The global warming issue has taken on the appearance of a religious movement instead of a scientific one. The proponents of global warming are, by and large, non-scientific people who seem to base their emotive arguments on alleged causative relationships between sets of measurable data regarding terrestrial thermal properties.

    While thermal transferral methods include convection and conduction, those exist only within the closed terrestrial system, so they really extraneous to a discussion about global warming. The only transferrals that matter are the incoming and outgoing radiation. The outgoing radiation is heavy in the infrared and comes from any matter that has been heated to relatively low levels, including the land, water and excited gases. Incoming radiation includes solar radiation as well as radiation coming from other relatively hot bodies in the universe (gamma rays, X-rays, etc). However, solar radiation makes up the vast majority of our incoming radiation because of proximity. The amount of solar radiation that we receive corresponds linearly with the amount of solar radiation that is produced by the sun, which is called solar irradiance and is denoted in units of W/m².

    There is an observed correlation between sunspot activity and solar irradiance. Over the last 100 years, sunspot activity has, on average, doubled. The correlation between sunspot activity and irradiance is basically thus: during each sunspot cycle (sinusoidal, period of 11 years), irradiance varies by as much as 1 W/m² ( between the maxima and the minima. That is from the last few cycles. The variance was likely higher during the cycles of the mid-20th century when the variance in the sunspot activity was higher. NASA irradiant forcing data shows that on average, the irradiance is about 1 W/m² higher now than 100 years ago.

    So, we’ve had 100 years of increased solar output, a percentage of which is stored in the terrestrial atmosphere. Therefore, we know for a fact that we are storing more thermal energy now than 100 years ago even if no increase in greenhouse gases were a factor. The atmospheric temperature must go up because more thermal energy is being delivered by the sun. The land mass may be able to store heat also seasonally, but at some point it will be released into the atmosphere.

    Most of the noise being made over global warming is made by people with no scientific education who are simply grabbing at the issue (on both sides) for emotional reasons or because it furthers their somewhat related political agenda. The majority of the scientific community falls on one side or the other because of their disagreement over whether the data truly shows causation between man-made greenhouse gas increases and global warming or if it is merely correlation. I can respect those that admit that they “believe” that anthropologic global warming is taking place. However, as a member of the scientific community myself, I have no respect for those that brazenly consider it a fact and have closed their minds to further discussion. The philosopher David Hume warned about scientific dogmatism:

    “Nothing can be more unphilosophical than to be positive or dogmatical on any subject; and even if excessive scepticism could be maintained it would not be more destructive to all just reasoning and inquiry. When men are the most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have there given reins to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities.”

  19. logan says:

    Sue, Ethanol is derived from corn, large amounts of corn are made into ethanol thus raising the cost of any materials made from that including corn syrup.

  20. Amy says:

    This is the founder of the Weather Channel saying all of this when the channel does more about global warning now than it does about the actual weather currently happening? I find that a little ironic.

  21. Saint James glaznerAmen says:

    So good to hear truth,for all men are liars,that is why their lies sound so good,but truthhas a much better ring to it thank God for THE TRUTH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AS A MYTH

  22. hh Bounty says:

    Kurt I couldn’t agree more. I’ll still trust James with my life where the weather is concerned but I have to just shake my head at his stance here.

    There is something called a standard of truth. A disgruntled weather channel employee writing an op-ed in a local newspaper who isn’t a doctor has never written one single piece of published peer-reviewed research is held to the same standard as the IPCC or the National Academy of Sciences from every major country on this planet. It’s simply outrageous.

  23. Bill Taylor says:

    the ipcc is a group of government hacks NO scientists involved in the actual wri8ting of the summary report…..many that did some of the research have asked to be REMOVED from the summary report because it was NOT what the actual research showed.

    IF co2 causes global warming why on earth has there been COOLING while co2 goes up please?

    in the mid 20th century and again over the last decade, cooling while co2 goes up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.