Well worth the listen...especially because it's absolutely true !!
John Coleman on Global Warming
Let me add a little to what John has said in this video...it's real important.
First I want to emphasize that every known interglacial is accompanied by a naturally occurring, but delayed, spike in CO2. And that these CO2 spikes are in large part responsible for, and fundamentally required for, the spikes in bio-diversity that come with each interglacial (great times for life on Earth...all life on Earth). But here is where it gets a little tricky. When we estimate the total manmade output of CO2, and compare that to the observed increases in atmospheric CO2, we can only account for approximately half of what we measure we are emitting.
Some have interpreted that this means that we are responsible for 100% of the observed increase. In fact the interpretation is even much more dire. Mother Nature is being forced to “choke-down” half of our emission, through various absorption processes, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere, to account for the observed increase. Surely then, we are responsible for 100% of the observed increase – and then some. And we are
dangerously tampering with a finely balanced system.
However, when we add up the total of all emissions, ours plus the naturally occurring sources, we find that our contribution is less than 1/2 of one percent. Fine... goes the dire interpretation; as small as it is, we are still 100% responsible for the observed increase. And we're very possibly upsetting the global system in a dangerous way. This is not so. Every known interglacial is accompanied by a delayed spike in atmospheric CO2. For major transitions, like the ones that occur with severity about every 100-150k years, the delay is most often a thousand years or more. But for small transitions, like the Little Ice Age (the one we are now recovering from) the delay is often 100-200 years. Well guess what? That Little Ice Age transition ended ~150 years ago; and the current spike in atmospheric CO2 is right on its natural schedule.
So another way of looking at what is happening is to say that 99.5% of the spike we are observing is natural while we add our half percent or so. But even that is not quite being fare to ourselves. Those organisms that would otherwise be here in our stead would likely be emitting more CO2 than we are. That is, we systematically limit the proliferation of micro-organisms and insects in the land we cultivate and occupy (~1/3 of all land use). And in the other 2/3rds of all land, microbes and insects are estimated to be emitting far more than 10 times our anthropogenic emission. That means that if we all went away, or died, or were never here in the first place, the current spike would likely be larger than what we now observe. We're under-contributing!! And as for the argument that we're tampering with a finely tuned balance, I have to say that there is great variability to the size, shape and magnitude of all previous CO2 spikes - far greater than our 1/2% under-contribution to this one. We are upsetting nothing
and, so far, we are under-contributing
to the CO2 Mother Nature would expect from this current period of time.
So what do you think? Should we continue to consciously deny power to millions of people in Africa? Not just power-denial for a more comfortable night-lit life, but power-denial for clean water and basic sanitation. Power to step out of an existence that none of us would trade for. Should we continue to confine them to a short life of misery and disease? That is what we have been consciously doing to millions; and over an utterly ridiculous, upside-down charade.
But you say we’re running out of energy. That simply is not so at all. We’ve consumed only a tiny fraction of the available fossil fuel – likely less than a small single-digit persentage. And we are making great progress at alternative forms. All matter is frozen energy. In principle, every element heavier than Iron can be exothermically split down to Iron. And every element lighter than Iron can be exothermically fused up to Iron. Energy is ubiquitous!! It’s everywhere and essentially unlimited in supply. We are just beginning to work both ends of this equation. It can safely be said that we will never run out of energy; not ever, period!!
So I say to you: We do have a serious energy crisis – one that we have self-imposed and carefully groomed into existence. Maybe we should quit doing that?
The argument above is powerful and could compel a major change in our direction. But with no Little Ice Age, the argument can no longer be made. There is also another inconvenient problem for AGW proponents. It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than today. This diminishes "sense-of-urgency" in an obvious way. If it is not yet as warm as it once was only several hundred years ago, why get upset just yet.
Some time back Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. cooked the books (literally) to remove the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period - it's called the "Hockey Stick Graph". This had the great effect of allowing and encouraging hyperbolic predictions of catastrophe. Later two Canadians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick took their methodology to task and put their graph in the trash bin. However, it didn't go into everyone's trash bin. In fact the graph is still widely used. Others have been trying to achieve a common understanding that this graph is a fraud. Recently I came across an accusation that within the Hadley e-mails is evidence that certain individuals were modifying the archival data (stored at Hadley) such that a re-analysis from the ground up would look close to what Mann had constructed in the first place. This action would allow others to redo the work and re-establish that there was no Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, so that hysteria of Armageddon could continue. Now maybe this archival data was not being tampered with. Or maybe it was. But if you wanted to allow for a future opportunity to drive yet further hysteria of Armageddon, manipulating this archival data would be the action to take. Let the dust clear a little. And then re-commission a new independent analysis where the new investigators had no knowledge of the data corruption. Then, "there you have it", a completely independent analysis has reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: Armageddon is coming.
I don't think many have yet grasped the magnitude of the money and power control that forms motivations behind AGW. The history of the world does not contain a rival.
Ronald D. Voisin