This article published in the Wanganui Chronicle, 20 December reveals a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with Midwest Disposal regarding disposal of leachate into the Marton WWT Plant. These levels we’ve been told in earlier reports are regularly exceeding acceptable levels and the Plant cannot handle them. The RDC’s record keeping on the levels disposed of has been so lax, according to this latest article, that the true environmental impact has been ‘hard to calculate’.
This ‘gentleman’s agreement’ is somewhat disconcerting and something is not right here. We have:
an unsigned contract that is clearly benefiting only one of the two parties and to the detriment of the other
as a result of this ‘agreement’ the health of the local stream being compromised
one of the parties (trusted with the health of the public waterways) showing itself negligent in its duty to maintain clear records about the levels of disposal …. dating back to 2006?
The community needs to connect some dots here & demand to know why this negligence regarding the health of our local environment. Why is the water being compromised? Something is not right here … seven years of missing data, a gentleman’s agreement and now a consent application to carry on greatly increased operations for 35 more years. If that consent is granted then it needs to be with some strict adherences regarding disposal of its leachate and Council maintaining meticulous and transparent records.
An additional note, a recent report in the RangitikeiLine Bulletin (cited in the Feilding Herald, page 7, & dated August 14, 2014) regarding the volume of trucks bringing rubbish in to the landfill has concluded ‘the trucks are unlikely to become more numerous on a daily basis’ if the resource consent for an extended landfill is approved. The question needs also to be asked then, how can this add up when it is proposed the landfill’s capacity will quadruple? How can there be a continuation of the same volume of trucking with quadruple volume of rubbish?
Local feedback suggests there is a far greater volume of truck traffic than is being cited. One observer has counted a conservative estimate of 35+ in a morning, an average of one every 10 minutes. They are loud, often smelly, often dropping refuse and often speeding it’s been reported.
It is the same with the cited frequency of the leachate trucks. It’s said in the article cited above that a leachate truck dumps leachate once every second day, whereas an observer on the truck’s route presumably (in comments at the end of the article) has observed a leachate truck passing up to three times a day.
Note in this article … “Last year, Monsanto Co, the developer of Roundup, requested and received EPA approval for increased tolerance levels for glyphosate…” and… as usual the USDA don’t test for Glyphosate… so who knows how much is in our food? Now bear in mind why Glyphosate gets such free reign:
I struck up conversation with a person recently in the supermarket as one does in a rural town. In chatting about the truck traffic to the Bonny Glen landfill I was told that on an average morning (this person counts) there could be as many as 35 trucks passing to or from the tip. Now that’s a modest estimate I was told as there are other trucks coming and going which look like dump trucks heading to Bonny Glen but may not be so they were excluded in the count. What the person noted of concern is the smell (one company’s trucks in particular smells), the dropping or flying off of bits of refuse, their excessive speed at times and their noise. They can be heard as early as 5:30am, waking the household. The day 35 trucks were logged began at approximately 8am and finished around 1:30pm, although trucks were still passing beyond that time, theyjust stopped counting. This then averages one every 10 or so minutes! This is on one of the routes, a street that is in town and well populated. Bear in mind … the consent application sees the volume of rubbish quadrupling … do the sums. Not pretty for those on the truck routes.
For further info or if you have concerns about any fallout from the landfill that you are experiencing and would like to make known, please go to the Bonny Glen Page and/or the sub page ‘Local Feedback’.
On November 27th I presented to the Council Forum information (including credible research) regarding the need for some parameters around the spraying of chemical sprays in public places. Click on the documents to read:
Information presented to Council Forum on 27 Nov 2014
Of the twelve Councilors, two are interested in this issue. Clearly convincing people of the authenticity of the independentresearch is a hard sell. People will either not look at the research or they just don’t believe it … even the long term research of Scientists, Doctors and Professors in their respective fields … unmoved by the obvious conflict of interest that exists in Monsanto testing their own product. The product is not safe. Please read the expanded information on Professor Seralini’s two year long experiment on rats on the Glyphosate page. Monsanto tested their product prior to release for the required 90 days. Further to this, the following information offered by Dr Meriel Watts from Auckland (see PANANZ website & also link at the end) highlights quite explicitly the problem with the initial approval of glyphosate and Roundup. It follows a govt submission she has recently made regarding very high pesticide levels found in NZ’s baby food (800 times higher than the EU’s). She states that the testing of pesticide levels including Glyphosate, are industry funded, and therefore subject to a conflict of interests. I cite that info here:
1) No critical study in these vital toxicity assessment areas, that form the parameters used to approve our daily consumption, our RfDs / ADI’s, are ever supplied by an independent organisation like, say a university or public interest group.
2) Every animal study for glyphosate (the pesticide commonly known as Roundup) that the USA EPA and the WHO use to apply the ‘non-carcinogenic to humans’ rating, is sponsored and paid for by an agrichemical company.
3) The toxicity studies for glyphosate (Roundup) are all private, obtained directly from contracted laboratories that only work with industry – Product Safety Laboratories, Dow, ABC and Covance. They are unpublished and unavailable for review by public sector health representatives or individuals.
4) The very studies that provide the parameters that end up being residue levels, within toxicity assessment, are only ever supplied by the very organisations that require the toxicity assessment to be declared safe. In the case of glyphosate, the studies for proving non-carcinogenicity are only ever provided by Syngenta, Monsanto and Cheminova.
5) Furthermore, no study ever uses the stronger, more effective complete formulation of Roundup, (only the weaker active chemical glyphosate is used). And I believe this ‘policy’ has profound ramifications for our health.
This is precisely why the lack of parameters around spraying Glyphosate and any other chemical sprays concerns me.
Geologist & author of ‘Heaven & Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science’
Professor Plimer, thank you for coming.
I’m a Geologist, and the one thing that we miss out on in looking at climate change is the past. Climates have always changed. Climate changes in the past have been greater and faster than anything we experience in our lifetimes. And sea levels have always changed. Not by the modest couple of millimeters that people are having connections about, but we’ve had in the past sea level changes of only 1500 meters. That’s a sea level change. And if we look back in the history of time, the atmosphere once had a very large amount of carbon dioxide in it. It’s now got less than .04%. Where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into chalk, limestone, gels and life, and we’ve been sequestering carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for only 10,500 million years. This planet has been de-gassing carbon dioxide since it first formed on that first Thursday 4,567 thousand million years ago. Carbon dioxide is a natural gas. It has dominated the atmosphere for an extraordinarily long period of time. And we now are at a dangerously low level. If we halved the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we would have no terrestrial plants. Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is not a pollutant. To use words like pollution with carbon dioxide is misleading and deceptive. But the past gives us a wonderful story. In the past we’ve had six major ice ages. We are currently in an ice age. It started 34 million years ago when Sth America had the good sense to pull away from Antarctica and there was a circum polar current set up which isolated Antarctica and we started to get the Antartic ice sheet. We’ve had periods of glaciation & interglacials. We are currently in interglacial. And during that 34 million years we have refrigerated the earth. But for less than 20% of time we have had ice on planet earth. The rest of the time it’s been warmer and wetter, and there’s been more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And what did life do? It thrived. Six of the six great ice ages were initiated when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was higher than now, in fact up to a thousand times higher. So we have from the geological evidence absolutely no evidence that carbon dioxide has driven climate. For some odd reason the major driver of climate is that great ball of heat in the sky which we call the sun. That’s … you heard of heat first, that’s really quite unusual, and we change our distance from the sun. Every hundred thousand years our orbit changes from elliptical to circular. And we have a cycle of 90,000 years of cold & 10,000 years of warm. We’re in one of those warm cycles now. And every 43,000 years the axis of the earth changes a little bit, and every 21,000 years we get a little bit of a wobble. Each of those orbital events puts us further from the sun. Every now and then we get bombarded by cosmic rays, coming from the super nova eruptions somewhere out there, and if the sun’s magnetic field cannot drive these away, we start to form low level clouds. We’ve got extremely good evidence that this process has been going on for a very long period of time. Every now and then continents start to move, and they move at very rapid rates. They move about (holds hands up to measure) 8 inches every year. And at one time a continent can be over a pole and at another time it can be at the equator. Those moving continents change the major heat balance on the earth. And that’s the ocean currents, the oceans carry far more heat than the atmosphere. Every now and then because of major geological processes we get a great bulge on the ocean floor of new volcanic rock. That changes ocean currents. Every year we have 10,000 cubic kilometers of sea water that goes through new volcanic rocks in the ocean floor. That exchanges heat. The reaction between sea water and the rocks stops the oceans becoming acid. When we run out of rocks the oceans will become acid, but don’t wait up, it will be a long time. We see 1500 terrestrial volcanoes on planet earth. We only measure 20 of them. And very few of those measurements are really accurate, but they tell us that a little bit of carbon dioxide leaks out of those volcanoes. But what we don’t hear is that there are at least 3.74 million volcanoes on the sea floor which leak out huge amounts of carbon dioxide. We have got pools of liquid carbon dioxide on the sea floor. So early earth’s carbon dioxide, where did it go? It went into rocks. Where did it come from? It came from rocks. What did it do to the planet? We did not fry and die, we didn’t have runaway greenhouse. Well that’s just geology. That’s not important so let’s look at more modern times we’ve had drill cores that have gone through the ice sheets. Snow when it falls captures some air. That air is then trapped in the ice and we can later extract it from drill core and measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. And we can see with our cycles of glaciation and interglacials that when we finish an interglacial event, then we release carbon dioxide some 800 years later. So, what’s that telling us? It’s telling us that temperature’s driving carbon dioxide, not that carbon dioxide is driving temperature. Oh yes but that’s only hundreds of thousands of years ago. Forget that. Well let’s go to more modern times. We’ve been measuring temperatures accurately since 1850 and the accuracy’s plus or minus one degree Celsius as ancient measurements. We have been told that this point seven degrees Celsius rise is going to create a disaster. I’ve only got to move over to here (steps one step right) and I’ve had a point 7 degrees temperature rise. Where do you people go for your summer holidays? You go to a warmer climate. We like warm climate. If someone from Helsinki moves to Singapore there’s an average temperature rise of 22 degrees Celsius. Singaporians don’t drop dead in the streets from the temperature. So we are creatures of warm climate, and we have been measuring temperature and we have seen a slight warming from 1860 to 1890, then a slight cooling til 1910 then a warming until 1940 so much so that the North West Passage was open. Then a cooling until 1977, and then a warming until the end of the century and now we’re in a period of cooler. So we’ve had these cycles of warming and cooling. Strange that these cycles are actually related to changes in the heat balance in the oceans. So we have these 60 year cycles over a long warming event. We are in a period of global warming. It has been warming since the minimum 330 years ago. These are the times when you had the ice fairs on the Thames. These are the times when the Dutch Masters painted hoar frosts and bitterly cold conditions. That was the time when the sun was a bit inactive & we had no sun spot activity. So we’re in a long period of warming and one of the questions that I ask in this book, which part of the last 330 years of warming is due to human activity? And which part is natural? This is the question that kids should ask their school teachers and they’re deliberately unanswerable questions. Because I am of the view that many children are getting fed environmental propaganda in the schools and are not being given the critical and analytical facilities to be able to dissect the argument. So we’re in a period of warming. What’s the worry? It’s quite normal. And let’s just look at history. The one thing that the climate industry, which it is, ignores, is history. In Roman times, it was warm, it was considerably warmer than now. We know that. They kept good records. They grew olives up the Rhine river as far as Bonne. They had wine grapes in Yorkshire. We know from their clothing that it was warm. Possibly they were going to an orgy but I think it more likely it was warm. And that warming suddenly stopped in 535 AD. And we entered the Dark Ages. And in 535 AD we had Krakatoa filling the atmosphere with aerosols. And it wasn’t a big volcanoe. Only 30 cubic kilometers of aerosols going into the atmosphere. We’ve had bigger ones. Yellowstone. We’ve had even bigger ones in NZ where 10,000 cubic kilometers of aerosols have gone into the atmosphere, and we pray for another one because that’s the only way we’ll ever beat them at Rugby. Wipe them out! We had two volcanoes, one in Rubal and one in Krakatoa in Indonesia in 535, 536. We went into the Dark Ages. It was cool. What happened? Crops failed. We starved. We had civil unrest. We had cannibalism. We broke out of that, into the medieval warming. First afield it was the Vikings. The sea became calmer. They could go further fishing. They actually went to New Finland which they called Vinland. In Greenland, grapes and barley were growing. In Greenland the graves were deep because there was no permafrost. It was a wonderful benign climate. Five degrees warmer than now. Eric the Red was saying ‘come to Greenland, it’s a wonderful climate’ and it was. And then we went through a period of silent inactivity and in 23 years we went from the medieval warming into the little ice age. And that little ice age ended 330 years ago. So what do you think would happen after a little ice age? Would it get colder or do you think it would get warmer? The only reason that the arguments of science have got any traction in society is that they have been related to the last 30 years or 40 years of temperature measurements. I see with great interest the Met office is telling us that this is the hottest year on record, but you might be on a different calendar to me but I don’t think this year’s finished yet and this time last year I was in London as I was the time before the year before and it was miserable, it was cold, it was very cold. So those sort of predictions made just before a climate conference, one has to be very skeptical of. So in science skepticism is not a pejorative word, there is no concensus. In science there are constant battles. A good example, we all knew that we got ulcers from an acid stomach and from stress & we took pills and rubbed our bellies & hoped the ulcers would go away until two scientists who were not following the mainstream, were not following the consensus were arguing that this was due to a bacteria, and no one listened. Ultimately one of them took the bacterium, developed ulcers, took the antidote, and for that they get a Nobel Prize. You do not get a Nobel Prize for following the consensus or saying the science is settled. I believe we’ve had enormous corruption of science and the scientific method. I believe that the monies that are floating around for climate research, which is a current fad and fashion are quite perverse. I believe we’re putting science backwards. And come the next inevitable pandemic we may not have the weapons to handle it. We might go waving herbs and chanting rather than creating an antidote. So this for me, this climate industry has been a huge attack on the scientific method. It has been an attack on my science, and history and things fortunately are changing. I’ll finish with one last point. You’ve got your climate change Act, we’ve just had a carbon tax in Australia. Nineteen bills went through parliament, and our carbon tax is to lower the emissions of carbon dioxide from our employment generated industries in Australia. And it’s wonderful. We’ve led the world in suicide, and our carbon tax is to knock down our emissions by 5%. Now you can do the sums, and the sums are very simple. The IPCC says that 3% of annual emissions are from humans. Why is it that 3% drives climate change and not the other 97 is beyond me but that’s another matter. Australia puts out 1.5% of the world’s CO2 emissions. You can do the calculations, and by Australia knocking back their emissions by 5% we will by the year 2050 have lowered global temperatures by 0.00007 degrees Celsius. So I do hope you enjoy our sacrifice in giving you a warmer climate here in England. Thank you.
I’m John Coleman and the name of this presentation is ‘There is No Significant Global Warming’. And I’m the guy that is just doggone sure of that. Now you may think that I’m just a paid off shill, Big Oil or something of that sort. No, no, no, no … they’ve never given me a nickel. I’m a television weather caster with 60 years experience … a meteorologist. I was the first weather man on Good Morning America, and the man who founded the weather channel, and this is my accomplishment… Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year, from the American Meteorological Society of which I was a professional member for many years. I finally quit the AMS when it became very clear to me that the politics had gotten in the way of the science and it was time to talk about something else. Now did we have a Winter or what in 2013, 14, oh man did we ever? When I called for my brother in Ohio, his wife said he wasn’t coming in from shoveling the snow to talk to some guy in California. How could you talk global warming when it was the coldest, bitterest, snowiest winter in 30 years which it was across the United States, and it would take a lot of gall to put out a statement as our NOAA, National, Oceanic and Atmospheric agency did, claiming that 2013 was the warmest year … I mean it is sheer silliness, it is manipulation of the data. Now look, let’s get something clear right from the beginning. I love this planet earth. I’ve been a citizen of this earth now for darn near 80 years, and it’s all I got. If I thought that we, mankind, were damaging this beautiful little sphere, this blue marble on which we live, I would be terrified, and give every ounce of energy to stop what we were doing. But I have studied the issues of so-called global warming, or now they call it climate change since the warming has stopped. I have studied the issues as carefully & completely as a good scientist can, and reached an absolute firm conclusion that there is no global warming. Now this earth, it’s spinning around the sun at 17,000 miles per hour. It is travelling with the sun, in our little spiral, off the Milky Way Galaxy, at over 100,000 miles an hour, and that galaxy is flying out in the universe, as the big bang continues to expand the universe, and we are all travelling very very fast. What a ride. The earth has been travelling for four and a half billion years, and as best I can tell it’s going to stay just fine for another four billion years, but wait a minute. During that period we have had Ice Ages, and we have had inter-glacial periods, and we’re going to continue to have those natural variations in climate, but man-made climate change? I’m sure it’s not going to happen. That’s why I sent out this Tweet today. This Tweet went out to Al Gore, it went out to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, to the Seierra Club, to the Democratic Party National Committee. And what it said is, where is your so called global warming, because if you chart the temperatures, you can go back into the ‘70s and come up to today, and there’s almost no warming, I mean less than one degree warming since 1978, and absolutely no warming since 1998! What kind of deal is that? Well I’ll tell you what kind of deal it is. It’s the kind of deal that’s full of silliness if you’re promoting climate change and global warming. We are in one of the most stable and beautiful periods of earth’s climate you could hope for. And look at the stark contrast between the spaghetti of the many mottles of atmospheric warming created by various people who’ve gotten tens of millions of dollars of federal grant money and worked for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … and there’s the average of all their models, and then here’s the real temperatures as measured both on earth and with our satellites, and folks, it’s just not happening. That’s why I posted on Facebook, this memo today, to the scientists and organizations that take that 4.7 billion dollars a year tax money to continue your so called global warming research, and I say to them, it’s bad science. Ladies and gentlemen, please cease and desist that global warming and climate change scare campaign, it’s harmful to the continued advancement of our civilization. The government actions to counter so called carbon pollution, have already raised the cost of food, electricity and fuel by an average of thousand dollars a year for the average American family of four and, the 4.7 billion dollars of our tax money a year being issued to you and your organizations is funding a wide range of meaningless studies based on this bad science that says that carbon dioxide is causing warming. That money could be productively spent on energy research, including thorium and other new energy sources. Your manipulated climate computer models have dramatically failed both in temperature predictions and their predictive warming signatures. Please admit your errors, it’s time to put principles above personal wealth and status and help restore basic scientific principles to climate research. So I posted the memo, I sent the tweet. I know you are highly skeptical of what I’m saying, how can you believe me when you see this constant stream of global warming news reports day after day, year after year, printed on the internet sites, in all the newspapers, they still print with ink on paper and roll it up and throw it on your driveway… send it in a magazine … and it’s full of this stuff … even our government, our National Oceanographic Atmospheric Agency of the Federal government has established websites to promote climate change, and of course the New York Times it’s been reading that all along … and that’s the power of money. That four point seven billion dollars a year is buying all of this bogus research that is leading to all of these bogus reports. So let me just give you the hard cold facts. I showed you this when I tweeted it … there isn’t any warming going on, there hasn’t been …. Nothing significant is happening, oh we have extreme natural variations in temperature, that’s a hard cold fact, but this recent warming, it’s no different than the warming that’s occurred many times before naturally. We had a medieval optimum when the Roman Empire flourished, and we had the little Ice Age when times were very tough. This little warming we have now? It’s no big deal, it’s no big deal. Now you want to talk about big deals … this is a hard cold fact, from the ice cores, we have determined that we have vacillated on earth between extreme ice ages and these beautiful inter glacial periods of warming weather, and we live in the most recent of these inter glacial periods, we’ve been in it for 12,000 years, probably have another 10, 12,000 years to go before the next ice age comes on naturally, and can we cope with that? Now you hear about the ice melting at the North Pole. What ice melted at the North Pole? It got pretty low in 2007 but this is the last bunch of years since we’ve had satellite observation, about 35 years, and here’s where the ice is now and it’s no big deal. And those polar bears, there are more polar bears living today than have been alive any time since we’ve been counting them, and they’re living all around the North Pole in 19 populations, they’re doing just fine, that’s a hard cold fact. How about the South Pole, well our South Pole as I record this is in Summer time so the ice melt is near the peak for the season, there’s more ice there than above average, it’s near an all time high. Oh, but the water is rising! Along the coast. Is that right? Well it’s rising at about the rate of 6 inches per hundred years as part of this interglacial period. I mean when North America was covered in a four hundred foot thick ice core at the end of the last ice age the oceans were low and then the ice melted and of course the oceans have risen but that rise has been gentle and it’s not important. And then, oh, the super storms … we didn’t have a hurricane hit the US in 2013, the year before only a meager effort and that so called super storm Sandy, it was no big deal as hurricanes go, it didn’t compare with Katrina, didn’t compare with Andrew, and neither of those compared with the Galveston hurricane of 1900, long before man had any influence on climate. Oh the tornadoes, how about those tornadoes, well here’s the chart of tornadoes, strong tornadoes have been diminishing, we now have so many good radars, everybody’s taking pictures with their phones, we see every tornado it seems that form, but folks, there are fewer, and less strong. And drought, well we had a big drought in Texas that vanished, now we have a big drought in California getting a lot of publicity. If you look at the records California falls into drought about once every 11 or 12 years, then we get an El Nino and California gets the rain, comes out of the drought, I mean we’ve got 40 million people living in a desert, of course they’re going to have a water problem, so what, it’s natural, it’s not man made and it comes and it goes, it takes care of itself. Heat waves, what heat waves? We haven’t had a killer heat wave since the ‘50s, so I’ve brought all of these hard cold facts and presented them to you, and compared them to what you read in the press, what you hear on the air, what the networks tout and you say, man what a difference between reality and what’s there. Does Coleman know his reality? You bet I do folks, I study it every day.
But how did this strange strange bad science, how did this global warming, climate change, this crisis, how did it get started? Well that story I’m going to tell you today, that story begins with this great scientist, a man named Roger Revelle who was a graduate of the University of California at Berkley, in Oceanography in 1950, who then served in the Navy during World War II, then became director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and who led research on the environmental impact of the atomic tests on those atolls out in the Pacific following World War II, both atmospheric & ocean impact, as that was coming to an end, he had a greatly grown the Scripps Oceanographic Institution from an isolated small organization to a huge professional organization with many ships and hundreds of employees, it became clear he had to have something new to work on, and that’s when he decided that something had to give. So he hired this man, Hans Seuss, a Professor from the University of Chicago who had done studies on the effect of carbon on the atmosphere, and Revelle thought maybe there was something to that, so he and Seuss did a research paper & they put it out, in which they asked the question, is mankind’s burning of fossil fuel, our coal and our stokers that were heating our homes, the oil in our cars, the fuel, old fashioned gasoline and old fashioned cars, was all of that creating a climate issue? That was the 1950s folks. And the world was pretty much caught in a smog. I remember as a boy, most of you are probably too young to remember, you choked in the smog that hung over your towns or winter months when those coal burning stokers were going and the cars were just spewing out ash, it was ugly. We were burning old fashioned untreated fuel in old fashioned cars. Well that was the beginning, that paper that Seuss & Revelle put out, is actually the paper that started the global warming frenzy. Oh man did they start something. And Revelle then, he became a powerful man, on the basis of that, the science was used all over the world by other scientists, and he started campaigning to establish a campus at the University of California, co located with his Scripps Oceanographic Institution at California. That was a big darn deal. Well guess what happened? It was located there but something happened. Revelle suffered the greatest defeat of his life. He had campaigned to get that university there & thought he’d be its first Chancellor. But the politics back fired on him. And he wasn’t named Chancellor of that university and he was hurt. So what did he do? He suddenly made a big move. He changed his life. He packed up and went to Harvard where he started the Centre for Population Studies. So there he was in Boston in 1967. Now what does this have to do with the global warming story? This is what it has to do with it. That first year, one of his students was this young man, Al Gore. The only science class Al Gore ever took. Revelle didn’t remember having him in class, but Al Gore who got a D in the course was highly impressed. He was the son of a politician out of Tennessee and he used what he learned there to start his global warming campaign. He wrote a book called Earth in the Balance, he ran for the US Senate, he claimed that the earth was being challenged by the burning of fossil fuels and it got him elected to the US Senate, and there in the Senate he conducted hearings, bringing in scientists and spreading the scare of global warming, & that’s when the money began to flow to the government research, and this was the booby trap, because once billions of dollars of government funding was going out to these organizations and universities & research groups from across the nation, and they had this back that global warming claim that Al Gore was promoting with their research, the research began to pile up, and if you were a young scientist you didn’t have a choice, you couldn’t put out a research paper that said, oh, what warming? You’d be out of a job, you’d lose your car, your family would be walking on the streets. No you had to support it. Al Gore had taken Revelle and Seuss’s research paper & used it to start the global warming campaign. Now what did Al Gore say? He said Roger Revelle is my mentor, he’s my hero … he’s the man who spread the alarm. Well there’s another man who picked that up. This man, Maurice Strong. Maurice had become a Democrat at the United Nations. In 1972, he had a conference in Stockholm on the environment and his whole goal was for one world government, & he used that impetus of global warming scare, at that Stockholm conference to start the initiative that set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Now we had the US government and the United Nations both promoting climate change, & it all came from that Revelle Seuss paper and the research that followed and the dollars that were now flowing and man it was under way big time. And so the IPPC had scientists and bureaucrats & politicians from throughout the world. It had the WWF, the Sierra Club, all the environmentalists, and they all got together and they voted that global warming was for real. Well I’ve got to tell you something, you don’t sell science by a vote, it’s not a political issue, it’s not a vote, it’s science. Ah but never mind they put out their reports and they spent a lot of time telling us how we were destroying planet earth & they had fancy meetings in tropical locations throughout the world, and the scientists who supported global warming, paid vacation trips to these big meetings, & got to write these books and have their names and their careers and man it was a big deal. And what did Al Gore do? Well he wrote a second book about global warming called, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, and we all know what became of that. His liberal friends in Hollywood turned that into a documentary, a sci fi documentary I might add, all about global warming, and they voted themselves an Oscar, best documentary film of the year in 2007, and then they turned around and Al Gore stood behind the IPCC President & they got the Nobel Peace prize. All for scaring us about global warming. So, Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth became an absolute mainstay in American schools… how many times did you see it in school? Over and over again, and the global warming frenzy had truly reached its peak when all of that happened. Well what happened with this man, Roger Revelle who had started it all, the great scientist? Well he kind of lost interest in this Population Study Centre at Harvard and missed San Diego I guess and the beautiful Sthn California climate and he swallowed hard for his defeat there and he came back to the University of California San Diego as a Professor and there, there he wrote these letters and I want you to look at them. The first one goes from his desk to US Congressman, Tim Worth, quote, ‘We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm about the rate and amount of warming before it becomes clear’ and he wrote another letter here to Congressman Tim Bates, ‘Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that climate this year is the result of greenhouse warming. As you very well know, climate is highly variable year to year. The causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10-20 years to really be convinced that the green house is going to be important for human beings and in positive and negative ways. So there it was, the man who had started the global warming campaign had put up the flag of warning. ‘Hey folks, this may not be for real, caution, caution’. Well he even wrote an article that was published in a new science magazine called Cosmos. And he teamed with a Professor Ted Singer to write that article, and that article was called, ‘What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap’. And the article concluded and I quote; ‘the scientific basis for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time’. Wow. The man who had started it? Well how did Al Gore react to that? Well he said, ‘I’ve made up my mind, Revelle is now senile, pay no attention, the debate is over’ and you’ve been hearing that now for 20 years. Al Gore won’t debate anybody and he claims it’s for real. Well we lost Revelle, he passed away of a heart attack in 1991. And after he died his family joined with the people at Scripps to make him the father of global warming. They rejected his denial and so did the UN and IPCC. But Dr Singer, he was made to be the scapegoat for it all. They said that he had caused it. Well I finally was able to interview Dr Singer about this controversy. ‘Dr Singer what was Roger Revelle’s view of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas when you co authored that Cosmos article back in 1990?’ Reply: ‘he was very relaxed about it… he basically looked at this as a grandeur physical experiment … after he and his collaborators like David Keeling found that CO2 was in fact increasing in the atmosphere, he and his colleagues were wondering if it would have any impact on climate. He wasn’t about to make any judgement on the matter until the data were in. of course at that time, by 1990 we had about more than 10 years worth of satellite data & the satellites didn’t show any appreciable warming & this is what actually set off my own thinking on the matter. I wondered why; what was going on? After all Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it’s increasing. There’s no question about that. Where is the warming? Well it turns out that the atmosphere is much more complicated than the climate models believed, and the warming is offset probably by a kind of negative feedback that comes from clouds and water vapour in the atmosphere. Are you saying that back in 1990 that Revelle was somewhat regretful of the excitement that he had caused about global warming? Ah Revelle, um at that time, had written some letters to his Congressmen and to Senator Worth, telling them to calm down, not get excited about it, but wait and see what would happen to the climate. In other words he was telling them, don’t assume that things are going to warm up just because the models say so. He was actually very skeptical of climate models, much moreso than I was. I was always more optimistic hoping that they would improve enough so they could really simulate what’s going on in the atmosphere. Revelle had not much faith in models. Well since that time many people have said, that you were the one that manipulated Revelle, that you kind of calmed him down or changed his feelings in the way you put that article together; that Gore said he was a senile old man when you co authored that paper, and that therefore you took your position on CO2 and more or less assigned it to Revelle and they put a lot of blame on you. Well that’s absolutely untrue. First of all if you knew Revelle, you would know that he was sharp right to the very very end and you could not change his mind … he knew what he was doing all the time. And furthermore we have written proof. We have the letters he wrote to his Congressman and the Senator, we also have an interview in Omni magazine, so there’s plenty of evidence to show that he was quite independent minded, and that he didn’t believe in global warming until the day they would show him a warming and by 1990 they really weren’t, the satellite data were not showing the warming. Did you and Revelle talk about Gore at all? Actually no we never did come to think of it. We only discussed the science. Revelle’s politics were very different from mine. He was a supporter of Gore. He was a Liberal Democrat by inclination and I think and every other way. But when it came to science, we completely agreed.
The interview that I had with Dr Singer, now he’s not the only scientist, please understand this, who questions this global warming frenzy. This climate change scare. In ****fact there are 9,000 PHDs have signed a petition denying that CO2 is causing global warming. There’s 31,000 scientists in total who have signed that petition. There is a whole organization of them. A huge group from NASA recently wrote to the UN and to the US Congress saying please stop the global warming scare. There is a strong movement opposed to global warming. You don’t hear about it in the media because the media has that Al Gore liberal bias so it becomes very tough. And at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, they gave Al Gore the first Roger Revelle award … in recognition of his environmental work.
‘We’re honoured tonight at Scripps Institute of Oceanography … he was given an award in recognition of his environmental work, KUSI Tom Jordan is live in La Hoya with more on that … Tom, Al Gore was the first ever recipient of the Roger Revelle prize here at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, honoured tonight for his work in environmental preservation. A rousing welcome for a man continuing his continuing campaign on environmental awareness and protection. Former Vice President Al Gore being honoured for his efforts with the first ever Roger Revelle prize. (Gore) ‘I want to express my very deep & genuine gratitude for this honour…. ‘
The award presented at this dinner marking the 100th birthday of the late Roger Revelle who headed Scripps Institute of Oceanography from 1958 to 1964. Gore studied under Revelle at Harvard University in the 1960s and credits him with igniting his passion on the environment.
(Gore) ‘As a former student … still a student, trying to learn, but still inspired by a great teacher, who was a great scientist and a great man.’
Roger Revelle’s work back in the 1960s was at the time considered revolutionary. Today many scientists consider that work almost prophetic.
And at that time they wrote a short report and we were told it was a very short report saying that climate change is becoming an issue, the earth is heating up, and therefore something needs to be done about that.
Al Gore says he was deeply moved by Revelle’s early work, he now considered at the forefront of the global warming movement. A Nobel Peace Prize winner, an Oscar winning documentarian all from his work on the environment. Now he adds a new distinguished & personal honour to that list.
(Gore) I am deeply deeply grateful.
And tonight’s celebration was part of 3 days of celebrating the life of Roger Revelle. He would have been 100 years old tomorrow. We’re live in La Hoya, I’m Tom Jordan KUSI News. Thanks Tom, John Coleman believes there is no significant man-made global warming & he travels the nation speaking on the topic. John has some insights now on Roger Revelle’s scientific research and the effect that it had on Al Gore.
(Coleman) …. Well Revelle was a powerful man, a noteworthy scientist and a significant force here in San Diego in the 1950s. There’s no doubt that he’s largely responsible for the high status of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in its field, and for locating the University of California at San Diego, and UCSD at La Hoya.
While serving as Director at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Revelle & one of his researchers wrote the first modern scientific paper that linked carbon dioxide released into the air from the burning of fossil fuels & the greenhouse effect and the warming of temperatures. Well this triggered an avalanche of research that eventually became the impetus behind the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & the entire global warming movement. In the 1960s Revelle moved to Harvard to establish a center for population studies. This is where Prof Revelle encountered student Albert Gore. He involved Gore & his classmates in the tabulating of data from a carbon dioxide study. Gore was so impressed he wrote about it in his 1992 book, ‘Earth in the Balance’ that became the story for the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, the Oscar & the Nobel Peace Prize, and some people say one hundred million dollars all came from that. There is no doubt Roger Revelle had a major impact on Vice President Gore’s life.
(Coleman) … there’s a twist. In 1988 Roger Revelle was having second thoughts about whether carbon dioxide was a significant greenhouse gas … he wrote letters to Congressmen about it. And in 1991 he co authored a report for the new science magazine, Cosmos in which he expressed his strong doubts about global warming and urged more research before any remedial action was taken.
(News again) At that point Mr Gore pronounced Revelle senile & refused to debate global warming. He continues to refuse to debate. Many offers of thousands of dollars have been made for debate but he refuses. Today sequestered the media to set forth rules, no questions, no interviews.
(Coleman) I have learned that in 1991 Roger Revelle made what was his final speech at the high powered very private summer enclave of powerful men and politicians from Bohemian Grove in Nthn California. There he apologized for his research, for sending so man people in the wrong direction on global warming. And he worried about the political fallout from the UN IPCC and Al Gore. A man named Don Michael Schmedman who lives in the San Francisco area was there that day. And he remembers the Revelle speech very well. He has told me about it in some detail. So think of the irony today. Al Gore received the first Roger Revelle award honouring the man who sent him on his global warming campaign. But Revelle had realized that it was a false alarm and that the science was flawed before he died.
(Coleman) … Revelle died of a heart attack in 1991. it would be interesting to know that if he had lived would he be approving of the award that was given tonight? Or perhaps would he be joining me at the international conference of global warming skeptics in New York next week. If you want to read the article on global warming that I have written you can go to KUSI dot com, click on Coleman’s corner.
This is really interesting. We haven’t heard this information at all before.
Well I’ve done a lot of digging over the last year or two to find all of this, and really fascinated me when I stumbled across the Bohemian Grove speech … it’s not documented anywhere.
This is the first time your orbits have crossed, you and Al Gore. You’re both in the same city for 24 hours and we couldn’t get the two of you to meet.
Well Mr Gore of course is the former Vice President, he’s the man who got 52 million votes for President, served very honourably as a politician, I think he would have little regard for me.
You’d like to debate him wouldn’t you?
Well sure I’d love to debate him, but you understand, this isn’t political, I’m a journalist, a meteorologist, my interest is strictly in the science.
Thank you John.
So that’s the report, and I’m sure you’re wondering why I have I never heard of all this before? Why hasn’t the media full of it? Why do I keep hearing about global warming and its threat to our civilization? Well it’s 4.7 billion dollars a year of our tax money, and that’s the power of money. Now everything I’ve had in this report is posted, including the complete interview with the Dr Singer. You only saw part of that interview. And a lot of other material is posted on my Coleman’s Corner website at KUSI dot com. Now I’d be delighted to have you look there. I’m also a regular reader of a site called ‘What’s up with that?’ where my friend Anthony Watts hosts any number of skeptical papers on global warming, the research flows there on a daily basis. Now what’s going to defeat this global warming scare? It’s like David and Goliath. I don’t think we can defeat $4.7 billion, the Democrat Party, the UN & the Sierra Club and the Wildlife Federation and all of them. They just claim that we’re deniers and old goats and they think we’re bought and paid for by the big oil companies which we are not, we don’t have anything to do with them, but I don’t think we can defeat them. What’s going to defeat them? Time. A few more bitterly cold winters. A turn towards a colder climate. When the global warming fails to materialize in time, people will begin to believe and I have noted that recent gallup polls show that more and more people are saying, global warming that’s not the big deal. We got a lot of big deals going on, you know employment, jobs, govt too big, that sort of thing. The list of their concerns is very interesting. Those are on it. The global warming’s down toward the bottom of the list.
Oct 19, 2014 Bernard Hickey from the NZ Herald writes here on the ‘unseen risks of a fiscal haircut’. Most New Zealanders are not aware of the Open Bank Resolution….
Do you think the money you have in a bank term deposit is Government guaranteed? If so, you’re wrong, but you’re not alone.
A survey for the Financial Markets Authority by Colmar Brunton and published during Money Week found 52 per cent believed the money in a bank term deposit was guaranteed.
To be fair, during the global financial crisis, these deposits were guaranteed, from October 2008 to December 2011. Banks paid for the privilege, but that scheme is over now. So what would happen if a bank fell over? Would the taxpayers of New Zealand make sure you got all your money back?
Environmental Health Watch NZ 
You must be logged in to post a comment.