John Kerry’s Global Warming Alarmism Is Flat Wrong

By 108 Comments 2,309 views

In 2006 Al Gore said we have 10 years until:

global warming may soon lead to catastrophic sea level rises, which could inundate cities such as New York (flooding the former site of the World Trade Center), producing scary nonlinear runaway spasms of extreme weather (bigger, badder hurricanes and typhoons), global pandemics and, depending on where you live, torrential rains or decade-long drought.

University of Pennsylvania Professor J. Scott Armstrong bet him that he was wrong:

He suggested a 10-year bet for which he would forecast no long-term trend in climate, while Mr. Gore could chose forecasts from any climate model.

Gore declined to take the bet of course but Armstrong has been updating the bet nonetheless. Guess who is winning?


Have we seen coastal communities submerged underwater in the last 8 years since his proclamation?


In 2008 Gore said the North Pole could be ice free by 2013.

Didn’t happen.

His alarmism has been wrong on so many accounts but now look who has stepped in to take over manbearpigs mantle? Mr. John Kerry.


He gave a speech last week (video here) in Indonesia full of Gore type alarmism. He said Jakarta would be half submerged (sound familiar?) due to man-made global warming and he also referred to man-made global warming skeptics as belonging to the “Flat Earth Society”

Now Professors of Atmospheric Science Richard McNider and John Christy take him to task in the WSJ:

In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV “science guy,” say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.


…“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.

I must disagree with McNider and Christy with one point. “Consensus” science is most certainly endangering lives. Stifling the economy here and abroad will force millions into poverty which most certainly endangers lives. But overall they do a good job of taking apart Al Gore…oops, I mean John Kerry, with his alarmism.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

108 Responses to “John Kerry’s Global Warming Alarmism Is Flat Wrong”

  1. 101



    What’s really interesting though, is this idea of the imminence of a threat.

    I would suggest that you are no different, you just happen to have a different political philosophy on which Ox to gore. You know that there is much more chance that you will die from an automobile accident than you will from either flooding because of global warming or of an asteroid hitting the earth, yet you have no problem getting into an automobile and tooling around waiting for the accident to happen. You do realize that automobile is creating some CO2 don’t you? Are you willing to give that up? You could be driving an electric auto, but it produces even more CO2 (generating electricity) than the gasoline power does.
    No, the whole thing is political and right now it’s the Dimocrats that choose to make an issue of it, but all of them still drive automobiles, all of them still use electricity in their homes, all of them still use electricity or gas to cook food. They don’t believe it enough to live it, just enough to try to cash in on it.

  2. 102


    Consider: If GW is occurring, then why was the level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations were substantially higher during the age of dinosaurs? It’s not exactly the dinos were burning “fossil fuels”. Second question, why are today’s GW scientists were yesterday’s advocates that global cooling was occurring and the weather modification was needed to increase Earth’s temperature by increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

    Undoubtedly, the human population has had an affect on the Earth’s climate. The level of that effect, it is the largest unmeasurable. Climate change always occurs – it’s the thing that explains why we have weather. Anyone who suggests the global climate is static and that it’s changing because of human interaction simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about. The modeling that is being used to suggest there is GW relies upon too many assumptions, assumptions you cannot make when applying the numerical analysis involved. It partially explains why the GW “scientists” needed to email each other about fabricating and distorting data to suggest GW was occurring. It was a way to keep the grant money rolling in.

  3. 103



    Again, I ask, where are the credible scientific challenges to the (I won’t call it a consensus, because that bothers people) hypothesis that human emissions are driving global warming?

    Dismissed by the left. Have you ever heard of Richard Lindzen? Harvard and MIT climate scientist. You can read some of his work here:
    Yeah, we have to find challenges to the “consensus” wherever we can because the left has shut down dissent. Actually, Watts Up With That has a great site overall. Lots of good debates, way over my head.
    There is also Ian Clark:

    “I am compelled to disagree that there is a consensus of scientists who agree that this [climate change] is the consequence of human activities. While the melting of permafrost, retreat of glaciers and waning of the permanent ice pack may be alarming, it is only alarming to those unfamiliar with past changes in climate in the North. Paleoclimatologists recognize such events as part of natural changes wholly unrelated to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, the waxing and waning of ice shelves, along with glaciers, ice caps and pack ice are largely related to changes in solar inputs.”

    As a matter of fact, you can go here and go through a list of scientists that don’t believe in climate change the way Michael Mann believes:

    I’m all for cash prizes similar to the DARPA challenge which – who knows – could lead to some guy building the world’s best battery in his garage.

    I’m all for it. I’m an engineer, I live for technology. I was a judge at a Magnet School Science Fair last year. I have much hope for the future. Some of the projects were simply incredible.

    And, of course, this part you’re probably not going to like, there is regulation of our existing power plants. It will cut into profits, but emissions can be cut back drastically right now.

    ~emphasis added mine.
    This is where the left and the right disagree. I’m not sure what school anyone went to that taught an outside action would cut into corporate profits. I work for a small company. When gas prices went up in 2008, we adjusted our pricing. We can’t cut into our profits or we won’t have a company that makes a profit. If material prices go up, we pass it on. If regulations incur more man hours, our prices go up. If productivity goes down because there isn’t enough work, we start thinking about laying people off. Cutting back on emissions will not cut into corporate profits, it will drive up energy prices. And the people that will suffer the most are the poor and lower middle class.

    What’s really interesting though, is this idea of the imminence of a threat.

    I don’t believe there is an imminent threat. I don’t even believe there is a consensus on an imminent threat. Be that as it may, I’m all for innovation and moving to renewable energy sources. But real innovation drives costs down.

  4. 104



    Again, I ask, where are the credible scientific challenges to the (I won’t call it a consensus, because that bothers people) hypothesis that human emissions are driving global warming?

    Yesterday, Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace testified before the Senate. It’s pretty interesting. Granted, he split with Greenpeace when they lost their minds, but he’s still an ecologist. He left the “whacko” enviro movement because it:

    abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism

  5. 105


    they must revise any inovation which is killing animals and birds,
    let the engeneers think further than the sciense of cutting the emanations of carbon,
    by trying to create new technology without including the rest of the creation,
    which we havent yet study their many positives roles in climate with their flying gifts given superiority on human, if the smart engeneers do let out those we have a responsibility on keeping them from arm’s way,
    they will have fail the citizens more than providing more heat, as they also will have fail on the smallest innocent birds as the biggest of them owning the air space any where in the continent they migrate, which would come back to haunt us in many sides of wrong doing, same as in our pocket by being sue for
    having deliberately extint many species of birds, not counting the prolification of insect tormenting human on a bigger scale, requiring instead of birds the need to poison those insects ,
    which would put us at the end of the food chain being poison, big time,
    there is no way to experiment new technology witout including all else surrounding us wich is alive ,to be in the project,
    because to eliminate one specie, is to call for our own elimination at the end,

  6. 106


    YES , and it bring me to the thought of wondering , if anyone has ever thought of calculating,
    what one of all citizens of any ages is needing of circonference of land to be healthy,
    i really think we have busted the answer by leaving a whole population down, with leaving the borders open to foreign people, foreign influence, foreign mentality to fill any cracks and cranny of this country,
    by on top of themselves, bringing their relatives from many generations and friends and their family to this AMERICA,to continue to procreate, ON THIS LAND THEY TAKE FROM US, THIS AIR THE BREED
    which would make the people reclaim their space of land,
    they are entitel to before anyone else,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *