I will not argue with you.
This is his submission, and you say (without proving it) many things
that are definitely unproven, yourself.
I haven't got a political agenda, but this has all happened before, and
is even mentioned in the bible.(Im dont believe in that either!)
but it has some good observations.
It happens that truth is truth, and while you reckon your explanations
are proof, my command of spin isn't as good as yours.
These people who write this are against what the weather changers would
try and do. They have the freedom to be heard, especially if it affects
them.
We cannot change weather. We can improve our lives. We can slow or stop
major polution, but lets not pretend that the economic climate, and I'm
not talking about weather here, isnt involved with this and political
interference with science isn't on the agenda.
That is something that has been happening with every government of every
country since time began....


Testimony of John Coleman

before the

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

of the

Committee on Natural Resources

of the United States Congress

April 7, 2009

Thank you to the Committee for the invitation to appear here today. And
to any who listen to my remarks or read them later, thank you for your
consideration of my testimony.

I come before this Subcommittee with no allusions or expectations. I am
aware that for the majority of the Committee and most involved
government officials my conclusions will run counter to your interests
and agenda and will be ignored. None-the-less, I have made the effort to
be here today because I feel what I have to contribute should at least
be in the record.

Here is what I know as scientific fact: There is no significant man-made
global warming or climate change at this time, there has not been any in
the past and there is little reason to fear any in the future.

I did not say that the activities of man do not alter the weather and
climate, because it is clear they do. What I said there is no
significant man-made climate change and none should be reasonably
expected to occur in the future.

I have visited most of the National Parks in the United States and love
them. I have enormous appreciation for the efforts to protect our
environment and provide places and ways for the citizens to enjoy the
amazing beauty and powerful natural forces at work around us and
interact with the thousands of species that live in those parks and
related natural areas. Clearly, it is a huge task to balance between
access and protection. I honor that.

But here is crux of what I can contribute to the issue before us. The
science behind this current global warming, man-made climate change
commotion, has failed to verify. The hypothesis that our carbon
footprints produced by our use of fossil fuels is producing a
significant greenhouse effect that will lead to climate calamity has
failed to verify. So I repeat, there is no significant man-made global
climate change.

I have studied the research papers of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and examined the science
presented by Al Gore in his books, his movie and his power point. I have
traced the history of the development of the concept of carbon dioxide
in the exhaust from our cars, power plants and industrial plants
entering the atmosphere and interacting with the primary greenhouse gas,
water vapor, to magnify warming. It all collapses into a failed theory
when examined with scientific care. I am not alone in reaching this
conclusion. In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with
PhDs, have signed a statement debunking global warming.

There is solid scientific evidence that by burning fossil fuels our
civilization increases the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the
atmosphere. However, even after 150 years of burning fossil fuels, CO2
remains a tiny trace gas. To be precise only 380 molecules out of every
one million are CO2. Scientists with an anti-fossil fuel agenda
developed a theory of radiative forcing to explain how this trace gas
could create runaway greenhouse warming. They put that theory into
general circulation computer models. Their models then projected a
continuous rapid rise in global temperatures year after year. In the
1980s and 1990's the models seemed on track as temperatures climbed. But
in 1998 the warming stopped. By 2002 a rapid cooling had begun. That
cooling continues today. The computer proof has failed. It has become
clear the warming in the 80s and 90s was at the peak of a solar cycle
and now that the sun has gone very quiet, cooling has gripped the
planet. Yet the models continue to predict warming that is not
happening. There is no significant warming from CO2.

I am painfully aware that global warming has become a political issue. I
deeply regret that. The latest Gallup Poll documents the wide divide on
the issue: 66 percent of Republicans are of the opinion that the claims
of global warming are exaggerated; only 22 percent of Democrats are of
that position. I want to make very clear my conclusion is in no way
politically based.

I was a science reporter for ABC News in the 1970's when there was a
similar flurry of excitement about a coming Ice Age. Thankfully our
government and political parties didn't get involved so when the science
got things straightened out, the frenzy faded away. Unfortunately, this
time people with the anti fossil fuel agenda had jumped on the global
warming bandwagon and just won't let go. They have calmed the rhetoric
to climate change, but they are still all wrapped up in cap and trade to
tax our use of fossil fuels. This will do great harm to our economy but
do nothing of consequence to protect the environment.

My advice to the National Park Service and the Subcommittee is: Do
nothing to mitigate man-made global warming or climate change, because
there is none. Reject the extremist agendas and concentrate on your
wonderful work protecting our natural resources and making natural
experiences available to us citizens of today and generations to follow.

To any who have an interest in pursuing the sources behind my scientific
conclusions I provide a list of internet links with my written testimony.

Again, thank you for allowing me to present my testimony and place it
into the record.

---------------------

Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/


The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


An online article about the word “deniers” used to describe Global
Warming skeptics

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/1782/


United Nations IPCC Chapter 9, the key chapter on CO2 Forcing

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf


Natural Resources Defense Council Global Warming report

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp


Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(scientist)


Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s Paper refuting the Hockey Stick Chart

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf


Stephen McIntyre’s website

http://www.climateaudit.org

Ross McKitrick’s website

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html


NASA web pages on average annual temperatures

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...arth_warm.html


Dr. Mayhay Khandekar and Joseph D’Aleo’s post on the problems with the
NASA average temperature calculations

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PITFALLS.pdf


Dr. Roger Pielke Sr;’s post on problems with calculation average global
temperatures:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/an-...e-temperature/



Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels paper detailing how observation points
change over time influences global average temperatures

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf


Anthony Watts discovers serious site problems with many official weather
observation stations in the United States and conducts a national effort
to survey every location

http://surfacestations.org/


Dr. Ben Herman investigates questionable exaggerations in maximum
temperatures at locations where certain types of new temperature sensors
have been installed.

http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/gue...rature-trends/



The controversy about the influence of urban heat islands on global
temperatures is covered in the Wikipedia article at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island


Long term climate changes on Earth, resulting from natural causes,
primarily variations in the radiation received from the Sun are detailed
by D. Bruce Merrifield

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html


I write about the solar influence on climate variations on Earth in my
brief The Force behind Climate Change

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...al+Warming.pdf


Roger Revelle, the Grandfather of Global Warming and the man who
inspired Al Gore, cautioned against alarmism from the carbon dioxide
build-up

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../40867912.html


Carbon Dioxide characterized as a pollutant, the force behind global
warming

http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/


Typical newspaper article decrying carbon dioxide build-up in the
atmosphere

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._carbon22.html


Union of Concerned Scientists page on carbon dioxide

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...l-warming.html



The key Paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon
that explains that Carbon Dioxide Forcing is not valid

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...inson_Soon.pdf



Another excellent Paper by Allan M.R, MacRae showing that Carbon Dioxide
is not the primary force in climate change

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf


Dr. David Evans Paper showing that Carbon Dioxide does not cause Global
Warming

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf


Alan Cheetham details the history of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm

Dr. John McLean details the lack of significant peer review of the IPCC
documents

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nal_9-5-07.pdf



Dr. Vincent Gray writes about his experience as a member of the IPCC

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...155&Item id=1



The report on the over 700 scientists who have spoken out in opposition
to global warming

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...1-fc38ed4f85e3



The website of the global warming debunkers petition with over 31
thousand signatures:

http://www.petitionproject.org/


My webpage which contains numerous other documents and links:

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

On 15/01/2010 9:38 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Jonno wrote:
*In the USA they wished it was warmer...
http://tinyurl.com/y9x8dns*

This is like a religious cult to you. You feel you must proselytise
and at the same time you never apply any critical faculties to the issue.
Coleman gives us the same old one-line half truths that you have dug
up before but never once do you consider that the spin that he gives
has been debunked many many times. And some of them are so *obviously*
nonsense where you don't need to be any sort of scientist to see that
they are wrong..
Science is always open to question. You have a mind like a closed steel
trap. Coleman is right, the sky is not falling!
About CO2

- It's natural and plants need it. (true) Suggesting that therefore it
is totally benign (Not true). Being natural does not mean it cannot
cause harm if the complex systems that include it are forced out of
balance. Let me give you an example where the weakness of this
arguiment is clearer. Hydrochloric acid is natural to your body and
your digestion needs it, therefore it is benign.

The planet itself creates it. It shows no sign of causing direct harm,
only theorists say this. We are also having reports now that methane
from the Russian Tundra is creating another problem, but this is not
certain, but will be as soon as they work out the best way to use this
as propaganda.
- It's always been here and it is a trace gas (true). Therefore CO2 is
not causing harm. (false this is a complete non sequitur) He presents
no evidence at all that being present in small quantities means it can
do no harm He is if fact assuming his conclusion. Many things that
have always been in the environment in small amounts can be harmful in
excess.
So can hydrochloric acid in your stomach.
About glacial and intergalcial periods

- There have been warmer and cooler periods throughout earth's long
history that were not caused by mankind. (True.) This warm period is
just one of those. (Presented with no evidence and despite evidence to
the contrary) Therefore this warm period is normal and nothing to
worry about. (false conclusion)

You havent looked have you, nothing is presented here but freely seen on
the net.
About graphs of CO2 and temperature.

- The graph of temperature in the last 200 years does not follow that
of CO2. (true) Therefore the temperature change cannot be because of
CO2. (false,) This is a strawman
(scarecrow argument?)
argument, climate scientists do not say that these graphs must follow on
to the other, they say that the system is more complex than that but
nevertheless anthropogenic CO2 is forcing that system.
Still not proven!
- Radiation from the sun is responsible for the changes in temperature
seen recently because the graph of one follows the other (false) See
http://www.realclimate.org/ for the explanation.

And then we go into the "climategate" and "scientists take money for
this" smear campaign.
CSIRO scientists sacked for disagreeing in Australia (not once but
twice) a smear campaign? by whom? The governemnts?
Falsefied figures? And emails to this effect? Youre ignoring these at
your peril...

Jonno, please stop posting this stuff uncritically. Try checking out
what these deniers are saying and think about it instead.

They keep pulling the wool over your eyes.
You can only pull the wool over the eyes of sheep and they have done a
public opinion number on you havent they!

And BTW being a TV weatherman for 55 years makes you an old TV
weatherman in an expensive suit not a climate scientist.
He's good enough for me and 34000 other scientists, why not you?
What barrow are YOU pushing.
You must be involved with some organisation that wants to see it their way.
I'm not religious in any way, not do I treat it as such, but you have to
but in some.
Many have taken a stand....
David

--