Credibility is what’s really melting

Take the disappearing Himalayan glaciers.
Turns out that ‘research’ was idle speculation.

Credibility is what’s really meltingWhenever I write about “climate change,” a week or two later there’s a flurry of letters whose general line is: la-la-la can’t hear you. Dan Gajewski of Ottawa provided a typical example in our Dec. 28 issue. I’d written about the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit’s efforts to “hide the decline,” and mentioned that Phil Jones, their head honcho, had now conceded what I’d been saying for years—that there has been no “global warming” since 1997. Tim Flannery, Australia’s numero uno warm-monger, subsequently confirmed this on Oz TV, although he never had before.

In response, Mr. Gajewski wrote to our Letters page: “Steyn’s column on climate change was one-sided, juvenile and inarticulate.”


Yes, yes, but what Steyn column isn’t? That’s just business as usual. A more pertinent question is: was any of it, you know, wrong?

Well, our reader didn’t want to get hung on footling details: “The disproportionate evidence supports the anthropogenic cause of global warming,” he concluded.

Yes, but how did the “evidence” get to be quite so “disproportionate”?

Take the Himalayan glaciers. They’re supposed to be entirely melted by 2035. The evidence is totally disproportionate, man. No wonder professor Orville Schell of Berkeley is so upset about it: “Lately, I’ve been studying the climate-change-induced melting of glaciers in the Greater Himalaya,” he wrote. “Understanding the cascading effects of the slow-motion downsizing of one of the planet’s most magnificent landforms has, to put it politely, left me dispirited.” I’ll say. Professor Schell continued: “If you focus on those Himalayan highlands, a deep sense of loss creeps over you—the kind that comes from contemplating the possible end of something once imagined as immovable, immutable, eternal . . .”

Poor chap. Still, you can’t blame him for being in the slough of despond. That magnificent landform is melting before his eyes like the illustration of the dripping ice cream cone that accompanied his eulogy for the fast vanishing glaciers. Everyone knows they’re gonna be gone in a generation. “The glaciers on the Himalayas are retreating,” said Lord Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and author of the single most influential document on global warming. “We’re facing the risk of extreme runoff, with water running straight into the Bay of Bengal and taking a lot of topsoil with it. A few hundred square miles of the Himalayas are the source for all the major rivers of Asia—the Ganges, the Yellow River, the Yangtze—where three billion people live. That’s almost half the world’s population.” And NASA agrees, and so does the UN Environment Programme, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the World Wildlife Fund, and the respected magazine the New Scientist. The evidence is, like, way disproportionate.

But where did all these experts get the data from? Well, NASA’s assertion that Himalayan glaciers “may disappear altogether” by 2030 rests on one footnote, citing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report from 2007.

In fact, the Fourth Assessment Report suggests 2035 as the likely arrival of Armageddon, but what’s half a decade between scaremongers? They rate the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent. And the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that report, so it must be kosher, right? Well, yes, its Himalayan claims rest on a 2005 World Wildlife Fund report called “An Overview of Glaciers.”

WWF? Aren’t they something to do with pandas and the Duke of Edinburgh? True. But they wouldn’t be saying this stuff if they hadn’t got the science nailed down, would they? The WWF report relies on an article published in the New Scientist in 1999 by Fred Pearce.

That’s it? One article from 12 years ago in a pop-science mag? Oh, but don’t worry, back in 1999 Fred did a quickie telephone interview with a chap called Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. And this Syed Hasnain cove presumably knows a thing or two about glaciers.

Well, yes. But he now says he was just idly “speculating”; he didn’t do any research or anything like that.

But so what? His musings were wafted upwards through the New Scientist to the World Wildlife Fund to the IPCC to a global fait accompli: the glaciers are disappearing. Everyone knows that. You’re not a denier, are you? India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, says there was not “an iota of scientific evidence” to support the 2035 claim. Yet that proved no obstacle to its progress through the alarmist establishment. Dr. Murari Lal, the “scientist” who included the 2035 glacier apocalypse in the IPCC report, told Britain’s Mail on Sunday that he knew it wasn’t based on “peer-reviewed science” but “we thought we should put it in”—for political reasons.

I wonder what else is in that Nobel Peace Prize-winning report for no other reason than “we thought we should put it in.” Don’t forget, the IPCC’s sole source was the cuddly panda crowd over at the World Wildlife Fund. Donna Laframboise, a colleague of mine from the glory days at the National Post, did a simple search of the online version of the IPCC report and discovered dozens of citations of the WWF. It’s the sole source cited for doomsday predictions of glacier melt not only in the Himalayas but also the Andes and the Alps, as well as for a multitude of other topics, from coral reefs to avalanches. This would appear to be in breach of the IPCC’s own guidelines. The WWF is a pressure group. They’re not scientists. They’re not even numerate: one of their more startling glacier-melt claims derives entirely from an arithmetical miscalculation arising from a typing error.


Go back to that Berkeley professor mooning over the loss of that “magnificent landform” he once thought “immutable, eternal.” From his prose style, one might easily assume Orville Schell was a professor of creative writing or some such. In fact, he’s the former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism. Yet, for all the limpid fragrance of his poignant obsequies, professor Schell would seem to lack the one indispensable quality of a journalist: basic curiosity—the same curiosity that led Miss Laframboise to see just how much of the “science” in the IPCC report rested on the assertions of the panda-cuddlers. So instead, professor Schell bid a teary farewell to his beloved landform, even though the glaciers of the western Himalayas are, in fact, increasing.

Likewise, in the years since Syed Hasnain “speculated” about glacial melt, the BBC, the CBC, CNN and thousands of newspapers around the world have hired specialist Environmental Correspondents on lavish salaries. Yet not one of them gave any serious examination to the claims of the IPCC report, or the “science” on which they rested. And, now that the IPCC and WWF have conceded their error, the eco-correspondents are allowing NATO and other dupes to vacuum their records without having to explain why they fell for the scam.

V. K. Raina, of the Geological Survey of India, produced a special report demonstrating that the run-for-your-life-the-glaciers-are-melting IPCC scenario was utterly false. For his pains, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the self-aggrandizing old bruiser and former railroad engineer who serves as head honcho of the IPCC jet set, dismissed Mr. Raina’s research as “voodoo science.” He’s now been obliged to admit the voodoo was all on his side. But don’t worry. By 2008, Syed Hasnain’s decade-old casual chit-chat over the phone to a London journalist had become “settled science,” so Dr. Pachauri’s company TERI (The Energy & Resources Institute) approached the Carnegie Corporation for a grant to research “challenges to South Asia posed by melting Himalayan glaciers,” and was rewarded with half a million bucks. Which they promptly used to hire Syed Hasnain. In other words, professor Hasnain has landed a cushy gig researching solutions to an entirely non-existent global crisis he accidentally invented over a 15-minute phone call 10 years earlier. As they say in the glacier business, ice work if you can get it.

“Climate change” is not a story of climate change, which has been a fact of life throughout our planet’s history. It is a far more contemporary story about the corruption of science and “peer review” by hucksters, opportunists and global-government control-freaks. I can see what’s in it for Dr. Pachauri and professor Hasnain, and even for the lowly Environmental Correspondent enjoying a cozy sinecure at a time of newspaper cutbacks in everything from foreign bureaus to arts coverage.

But it’s hard to see what’s in it for Dan Gajewski of Ottawa and the millions of kindred spirits who’ve signed on to this racket and are determined to stick with it. Don’t be the last off a collapsing bandwagon. The scientific “consensus” is melting way faster than the glaciers.

Credibility is what’s really melting

  1. Since you’re standing on the hill that the global averaged temperature peaked in 1997, and thus AGW is bunk, I assume that if, say, 2010 turns out to be a new peak (which seems likely), you will admit you were wrong? The simple matter is that when it comes to climate, you can’t draw a single trendline over a 10 or 12 year period (conveniently cherry-picking the baseline year as the hottest on record) and conclude that global warming has stopped or reversed. While pillorying the intellectual sloppiness or deceitfulness of others, it is good to not engage in some of your own.

    Yes, that the glaciers of the Himalayas are melting slower than claimed is embarrassing for some of the researchers involved, it is simply a distraction from the real issue. Whether they melt by 2035 or 2055, we are staring down some significant challenges due to this melting.

    • You can't draw a line over 100 or even 300 years either. Especially when you "lose" the original 100 years of temperature data. It seems to be catching, the New Zealand climate agency now says they've lost there original temperature data, after skeptics asked for it. Seems they would like us to live with their "adjusted" temperatures.

      Oh, and the WWF error of 2035 wasn't a mistake for 2055 for the Himalayan glaciers, their number was 2350. Except even that is wrong since at least 5 ranges have had glaciers growing for a number of decades and the Indian government doesn't thing any melting is occurring. Try to keep up Andrew.

      • What about all of these horrible hurricanes that we have been having? Oh yeah…….we haven't been, but they still like to talk as if we were.

        Mike the term life rates guy

    • What happened to that "line".. That the declining temperatures are further proof that glbal warming is occuring???

      Surely us oafs must realize that colder temperatures, or NON receding glaciers are absolute proof of global warming.

      Why oh why can we just not get it????

    • Andrew – are you daft? The glaciers are NOT melting at all! They are, in fact, growing. Duh!

    • The problem about the 12 years of cooling is not that it can, or can't, be used to project longer term (say, AD 2100) temperatures. The problem is what it says about the models that were used to project high temperatures. THEY NEVER PREDICTED the trend we have seen over the past 12 years.
      If the hadn't predicted one year, two years, five years of cooling, fine. But when predictions for a century get 12% of their period wrong, it may be that the models used are worthless. That is the point.
      I didn't say 'Must be" I said "may be". I don't see how you can get away from "may be". But even saying it will get you an avalanche of hate.

    • you can't draw a single trendline over a 10 or 12 year period

      …and yet the AGW crowd does this all the damned time. Oy, it's hot here, as they might say of South Carolina's "Hell's Backyard" (as one writer placed the temps over a century ago.)

      Another issue: How much wrongness is to be found in the Wrongness of the AGW crowd with their own correctives, missteps, and false narritives alongside the wrongheaded guestimations until someone speaks up and says that lobster crunching and jetsetting to Copenhagen to enjoy the carboniferous food and whores of Denmark is not quite the proximate solution even if AGW should be real????

    • The IPCC model predicted continued increase in temperatures from 1997 to 2010. And that simply didn't happen.
      The IPCC model predicts meso-atmospheric heating in advance of the surface. And that too didn't happen.

      Thus the model IS wrong.
      And I believe you are asking the entire world to lower its standard of living and literally destroy economies (with the subsequent inadvertent deaths as seen in the rise of corn prices due in part to "green" fuel diversion) based on that model… which didn't work.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and asking that model actually predict what will happen correctly is not too much to ask.

      • BINGO

      • A-friggin-MEN.

      • Exactly!

        Why do they criticize us for not swallowing their theory when they are being proven wrong all the time? If an argument doesn`t stand up because their predictions are wrong, they simply move the goal posts and re-calibrate.

        You would always suspect an individual who won`t own up to glaring mistakes or agree to make changes to prevent same, wouldn`t you?

        Blind Zealots is what they resemble.

    • Since AGW believers are proposing legistation that will distroy lives – you better damn well get your fact straight! Its an interesting debate, but once you move to proposing policy that will distroy us economically – we have an obligation to question and demand that you provide proof. Your hypothisis and sloppy science is just not just gonna do it, buddy.

    • Certainly there has been quite a lot of fraud and opportunism that has accompanied the AGW movement. Fraud and opportunism accompanies a lot of things where much money and power are at stake. This does not necessarily mean AGW is false, however. The global temperature anomaly for January 2010 was 0.72 deg C, making it the hottest January over the 30 years for which we have UAH data. Fraud aside, the science is not settled. The important questions remaining to be answered are: Will the feedbacks to CO2 forcing be positive, negative, or close to neutral?How much warming will result? Will the warming be, on the whole, a good thing or a bad thing? Should we try to do anything about it? If so, what?

      The conclusions of the AGW crowd are clearly premature regarding #1 and #2, and from there they jumped straight to conclusions about #3 and #4 that are obviously debatable, and then to draconion answers to #5 that are absurd on even casual reflection. Rather than concluding, as Steyn does, that the whole affair is a money-grubbing, power-grabbing fraud (though there is certainly much of that in the AGW movement), what is called for is a serious approach to answering these questions.

    • Yes, that the glaciers of the Himalayas are melting slower than claimed is embarrassing for some of the researchers involved, it is simply a distraction from the real issue. Whether they melt by 2035 or 2055, we are staring down some significant challenges due to this melting.

      The Jan. 21st issue of the journal Nature (arguably the most prestigious scientific journal in the world) has an article (starting on p. 276) about the bogus 2035 Himalayan glacier melting claim, in which they note that though “many of the more than 45,000 glaciers in the Himalayan and Tibetan region are losing mass,” however “given the observed rate of decline so far, many experts doubt that even small glaciers will melt completely by the end of the century” — much less 2035, or 2055 for that matter.

    • "The simple matter is that when it comes to climate, you can't draw a single trendline over a 10 or 12 year period (conveniently cherry-picking the baseline year as the hottest on record) and conclude that global warming has stopped or reversed." This is true and no-one on either side of the debate would argue with that.

      But you and other AGW believers are thus hoist on your own petard; the ICC, East Anglia Climate Unit et al do exactly the same thing, starting and stopping their baseline years as it suits. Give us a break and end this absurd hypocrisy! The models that you present as being un-impeachably accurate are anything but, being manipulated by those who have a pecuniary interest in their results being alarming, demanding more expenditure on further scientific investigation.What a lurk!

      And you still haven`t reassured those of us with a more holistic approach to the globes weather of the accuracy of other "settled' observations and theories/claims made by the IPCC. AGW proponents are lightning fast when it comes to making claims of "big oil/coal" owning most sceptical scientists and experts. The lack of rigour in disclosing the vested interests of those pushing the doomsday scenario is unbelievable: Tim Flannery stands to make a fortune from Hot Rock energy, Al Gore is also an investor in"green" energy and Pachauri receives lovely, fat grants to study glaciers, based on such ridiculous claims as that sparking this particular debate!

      What a bunch of phonies and hypocrites! The Emperor has no clothes, King Canute can`t stop natural weather variations and the AGW crowd are the Catholic Church persecuting Galileo, not the reverse. You`re all going to look like the followers of Chicken Little in the next 10 years.

      Go sell Amway or become consultants for the Y2K bug, will yer?

    • I guess you fail to grasp the simple fact that the glaciers aren't melting at all. But, I understand. For people like you, AGW is a religion; telling you that AGW is utter nonsense is like telling Osama that Allah doesn't really exist. The only difference is Osama wants to kill me; you haven't quite reached that stage yet.

    • You are wrong: the "holocaust deniers" are not required to "Prove" that global warming is not happening – it is not logically possible to "prove" a negative. All the HDs have to do is to cast doubt on the validity of the warm-mongers data. They have done that in spades.

      Time for the warm-mongers to put up or shut up: if you have some data let's see it. Make your best case (all at once) and then watch while the HDs poke holes in it. And don't quibble or change the subject if you get caught out – man up!

      • If you actually read some reports, and there are thousand by thousands of scientists, plus tons of data, you will find that most of it is over your head. I can tell by the way you say “let’s see some data” that you are not bright enough to understand what the data means.

  2. I am always intrigued by the effort of the "science is settled" crowd to minimize the significance of the growing number of so-called "facts" that have been force fed to a gullible public. I believe the date 2035 was supposed to be 2350. A rather larger difference than the 20 years difference Andrew states.

    I am not necessarily in disagreement with the warmists generally, after all the climate is in constant motion naturally. However being a natural sceptic I like facts not propoganda. When anyone tries to overwhelm your reasoning with "undeniable truths" it is time to change the channel.

    • Well said! It won't cut any ice (or meltwater) with the panicky warmists, but nicely said nevertheless.

  3. 2010 is likely to be a new peak? You've got to be joking. So far it's looking as though 2010 will see a new record breaking trough. Haven't you been paying attention to the weather? You do know that at a certain point weather does become climate, right? Don't be Shoichi Yokoi "It is with much embarrassment that I have returned alive". Not going to be able to hide on your isolated pacific island forever. The sooner you face the fact that this was the largest scientific fraud since Piltdown man the better off you'll be.

  4. Whenever someone dismisses millions of skeptics with terms like "settled science", "settled debate", or even "settled law", be suspicious. "Settled", in this sense, means "the subject of intense debate which we'd rather end while our side holds the lead."

    • what bothers me is your missing the point, entirely. It isnt whether the glaciers are melting in two, or thirty years. The real point to take home is that the 'science' in this case was not science at all, just sloppy journalism and activism. People quote NASA all the time without realizing they are quoting a personal communication, off the cuff remark from some guy in india. There is you settled 'science'. It should make people mad to find they have been misled. Instead it seems to make the true fools dig in deeper. Recently i had a discussion with a man who told me: it doesnt matter what the definition of (insert subject here) is, it is an indisputable fact that we have too much of it. Doesnt that pretty much sum up where some climate change mavins are standing right now?

    • By that logic, Creationists should be given an open debate – there's millions of them arguing against evolution.

      When people say it's "settled science" it's either because they don't know the science themselves, or, more often, they don't want to bother with a long debate with someone who hasn't bothered to do the research and wouldn't accept the conclusions no matter how much evidence was brought before them.

      There are many legitimate criticisms to specific claims about current AGW theories, and even a few points against the overall claim that are worth addressing. But scientists are addressing them. Just a month ago, one of my professors published a paper essentially claiming that CO2 emissions had nothing to do with global warming (but that man made activity did). The field is nowhere near as insular as people believe.

      There are plenty of times when dismissing skeptics is imperfect, but valid. Again, I hope no one is suspicious when flat earthers are told they're wrong because that science is settled. What should really make people suspicious is when a bunch of non-experts tell a bunch of experts their whole field of study is wrong. Climate scientists aren't perfect, and they make mistakes, just as evolutionists did, just as those who determined the earth is round did (the earth isn't actually a sphere, for example). That doesn't mean what they're saying is all wrong though. So sure, be suspicious. Just don't turn skepticism into denial – look at the evidence, if you want to wade through it all, and keep an open mind.

      • Keep on drinking the KoolAid Craig. Your post demonstrates exactly the line of thinking that allowed the fraud to creep into the IPCC report in the first place: the view the only "experts" in the field of "Climate Science" (whatever that actually is) are qualified to even evaluate, comment on and/or challenge the accepted beliefs in their own industry.

        Flat earthers were refuted based on evidence, which can be evaluated by ANYONE – as long as they agree on a few key basic assumptions about how to collect and evaluate evidence – not just by experts on the subject. The key problem here is that the so-called experts were lying about how the evidence was collected and evaluated, so we weren't in agreement on those key basic assumptions. Now, that wouldn't have really mattered if they didn't then try to use their conclusions to force a complete reworking of the global economy – but they did.

        Your professors are obviously not just teaching you science – they are also teaching incredible arrogance.

        • I'm not a climatology student, I study physics. The professor I'm talking about taught me statistical mechanics – he seems to do climatology studies as a side venture more than anything. The only kool aid I get to drink involves subatomic particles (and frankly, it tastes terrible).

          Not only experts CAN evaluate the evidence, anyone can. But it's complicated. It's not that experts are the only ones who can figure it out, it's that they're far more likely to figure it out. If you're sick and go to either a doctor or, say, me, and ask "What's wrong with me", I might be able to tell you, but there's a far better chance the doctor will get it right – because he's an expert and I'm not.

          The evidence is out there and everyone is welcome to challenge the evidence. But just as creationists don't bother to look at it, the vast majority (note – not all) of skeptics don't bother to look at the evidence either. There are a lot of things that look like a refutation of AGW that turn out not to hold much weight, but it takes time to sort through the details. Even climategate, which on the face looks terrible, doesn't mean much when you put the e-mails in appropriate context and consider that the CRU data and conclusions match those of several other sources that are not tainted by their stink.

          I guess my point is, if you're going to be skeptical, be equally skeptical of the skeptics. Kool aid comes in many forms, from many sources.

          • Agreed – skepticism needs to be equally applied. But I want to encourage you to follow your own advice. You state that the CRU data and conclusions match those of several other sources, but that doesn't seem to make you ask the next obvious question: how reliable can those sources/conclusions be then?

            If I'm relying on a witness and it's proven that they've lied about what happened, then doesn't it call into question the testimony of all other witnesses that make the same claim, especially if they've been mingling and sharing their stories (data) with each other in a self-referential, self-fulfilling manner?

            I think that evidence is coming out that all of these supposedly "distinct" data sets that support each other are often built up out of circular references on each other – making them all suspect.

          • "If I'm relying on a witness and it's proven that they've lied about what happened, then doesn't it call into question the testimony of all other witnesses that make the same claim, especially if they've been mingling and sharing their stories (data) with each other in a self-referential, self-fulfilling manner?"

            I wouldn't say it's that simple. The falsehoods from CRU aren't that they falsified the data, there's been absolutely no evidence that they have. They've apparently deleted the hard data and used a valid statistical method in a dishonest or even inappropriate way. So they're at fault, for sure, but it's not the same as being a lying witness. Rather, it's more like they had a tape of an event that can't be verified because they threw out the negatives (or something like that, I dunno much about film).

            But just because their tape can't be verified, doesn't mean the event didn't occur. If there is no video tape of a murder, we still have a dead body. If others come forward with another tape that can be verified, I see no reason why the first unverifiable tape would factor into the conclusions, though it would certainly factor in to the reputability of those who brought it forward.

            I also favour the views of climatologists because I have some understanding, not of their science, but of mine. I know the basics of EM radiation absorption and emissions and I've seen the documentation of what CO2 does with specific EM radiation. So, if I had no data about earth's temperature and I knew, all other things being equal, that the concentration of CO2 was increasing, I would expect temperatures on the earth to rise. By how much or at what rate, I have no idea, but what climatologists are reporting in their observations matches what I believe, based on the more fundamental science, should happen.

          • there are a lot of attempts to relate the AGW debate (thats what it is finally becoming , thank god) to flat earth , or perjury or whatever. There is no need to do this. Also such analogies, by definition will at best only approxmate the situation. The fact is that much of the science that has been mindlessly (at all levels) touted as proving the case of AGW has been shown to be suspect, nonexistant or even falsified. I dont know that craig has the expertise to judge what is happening on a global scale based on the behaviour of one variable in controlled conditions. That was a lie, we both know he does not. As a student he ought to refrain from making conclusions based on what he believes. Thats what gets the graduated scientists into trouble. Craig, if you want to actually be a scientist, a good one, then learn the scientific method and practice it. Stay away from politics and scorn for peple who havent done the research (mainly because you have not done yours either ). The revelations of missing or bad science all over this issue ought to make you cringe. It does so in my case, and i gave up my career in science years ago.

          • Been shown to be suspect, has it? Prove it. And don’t use garbage from some website like watts-up. Use peer-reviewed data. Steyn is lying when he claims that peer-review is a huckster’s business.

          • "The falsehoods from CRU aren't that they falsified the data …. "

            "An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

            Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming."

            http://www.theage.com.au/world/scientist-hid-flaw

            "A London newspaper reported yesterday that the unsubstantiated Himalayan-glacier melt figures contained in a supposedly authoritative 2007 report on climate warming were used intentionally, despite the report's lead author knowing there were no data to back them up."

            http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/25

          • The Himalayan note was a tiny part of thousands of pages of findings that have not been refuted. It was the media that blew it up into a big story. You don’t even know what’s in the IPCC report because, obviously, you’ve never read it. Speaking of uninformed, why don’t you know that the East Anglia emails were examined by several scientific bodies, and the scientists were completely exonerated. And if you think there’s a world-wide conspiracy among every respected scientific association out there to defraud you, well, you’re a sad case.

          • You’re not dealing with scientists here, Craig. You’re dealing with uneducated idiots who think they understand science. These are the kind of people Steyn writes his goofy columns for. Steyn actually thinks East Anglia was a scandal. He thinks “hiding the decline” is a major cover-up, not a statistical maneuver to work with uncertainty. Steyn is a complete fraud. Pity that these people have so little grasp of what scientists do that they actually believe Steyn’s rubbish.

        • You can’t refute the data and models because in the first place you don’t understand how they work. You are just shooting your mouth off when you talk about fraud. You have no proof of it and you can’t produce it.

      • I see where you're coming from but when dealing with physics how many variables are you handling in your experiments? Climate science doesn't even have experiments and they are looking at a system with an almost infinite number of variables. To compare this subject with whether the world is round which is readily demonstrated is kinda silly, or a straw man argument. Climate scientists look at a subject too complicated by far for even the most brilliant people in the world and then make ridiculous predictions. This reeks of delusions of grandeur.

        The fact that they tried to bully those with opposing views should have them banned from science for life. That is like a coach betting on games his team plays. A total loss of all credibility. The fact that these guys haven't been punished means climate science has no credibility and that science in general has taken a serious hit. Real scientists like physics professors should be up in arms over this crap (and I believe some are).

        • This is why specifics should always be taken with a very large grain of salt – to say with confidence that the glaciers in any area are going to melt in X year (unless that year is, like, next year), is rather ludicrous, because there are so many conflating factors.

          But there's a difference between impreciseness and inaccuracy. Climatology is an applied science, it is imprecise, by it's very nature. But that doesn't make it inaccurate. Many fields suffer from inaccuracies but, since they are still accurate, they're still valid.

          For example, this month I've been working on studying a property of iron ions in water. With one experiment, I changed a solution of iron ions and expected that property to increase from its previous value, I was hoping by a factor of 2 or so. It didn't go up by that much, but it still went up, significantly. I was wrong in what I thought would happen specifically, mostly due to things I could not account for precisely, but I was right in thinking that the property would increase in value. The first part is important, because if I was dead-on, that would be amazing. But the fact that I still got the general trend right means that I probably understood the science and can move forward obtaining precision.

          Climatology is no different. Yes, it is harder, much harder, to get precision. But just because a climatologist can't say exactly when a glacier will melt, or how hot the earth will be in 10 years does not mean they're wrong when they say that the glaciers are melting, or that the earth is getting warmer.

          As I said, opposition is, generally speaking, welcome in the field – my professor published his paper against the general conclusions of AGW, even had it showcased on my university's website, and I don't see him getting run out of town. But the opposition has to stand on the same scientific principles, evidence and discoveries that hold up all other theories – otherwise, like creationism in biology, they don't belong in the discussion.

          • I don't think anyone denies that increasing atmospheric CO2, to first order, makes global heat retention increase. It's basic early 20th-century physics that solar radiation emitted according to Plank's Law largely passes through CO2 while infrared is largely absorbed and reemitted isodirectionally.

            What's very much in doubt however, is that anthropogenic increases in CO2 cause significant changes in temperature. This is the part that's not settled.

          • Actually, the well-understood phyics of heat absorption very much tells us that CO2 traps photons in three distinct and narrow ranges within the infrared spectrum with unsurpassable efficiency. When it is already trapping 99%+ of the heat it can, how can increased concentration trap any more? And don't forget that the second law of thermodynamics indicates, because our atmosphere is not in fact a greenhouse, that the trapped heat will radiate away from the globe.

            What should be noted is that CO2 is food for plants. Satellite imaging shows that anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 are being put to good use greening our planet.

          • The point, I think, is twofold:
            (1) Absorption depends on propagation length. The thicker the layer of CO2, the more the absorption.
            (2) CO2 reemits, but does so perpendicular to the vibrational mode in question (think of this as your standard oscillating dipole). Since the molecules are all randomly oriented, this makes reemission isodirectional. So radiated heat from the earth gets reduced as outward-propagating IR is redirected to half-outward, half inward.

            The physics of how CO2 acts with IR is solid, and the physics of how this would impact solar / terrestrial radiation is also reasonably solid. What's tenuous is the notion that manmade CO2 emissions have any significant effect. What's also assumed is that first order effects dominate second-order effects.

            So, be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. It rests on solid science, but it makes very questionable leaps from there. It's not "settled" at all.

      • Creationism should indeed be given an open debate. And if you think it and evolution are mutually opposed, you have a very narrow definition of one or the other. I doubt you'll find millions of people who oppose evolution in the broadest sense of the term.

        For a good book, from a physicist's perspective, on all this I recommend "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" by Barr.

        As to flat earthers, the fact that the debate is indeed largely over is why you find so few of them.

        AGW is a recent theory whose validity is rightly subject to skepticism for three reasons: (1) There is a huge vested interest for those who promulgate it, (2) There is an ideological component, and (3) unprofessional conduct by many of its strongest proponents, both scientific and political, has become manifest. Skepticism is the only rational reaction here.

        So again, when an issue is clearly in dispute and one side claims it's "settled", be skeptical. They may be right on the issue, but they're probably wrong on the "settled"ness.

        • I'll add also that it is utter myth concocted by modern ideologues that the early Church thought the world to be flat (they did not, as the Church fathers knew the issue had been settled for thousands of years).

          Washington Irving and other promulgated this nonsense. And the Bible does not–contrary to common belief–offer any thing remotely close to a flat earth cosmology. Indeed, the book of Job speaks of the circle of the earth and that it is hung on 'nothingness."

          Which in itself is an astonishing thing to say at that time in history.

          • Thanks guys – I was going to get back to that point – but you've beaten me to it, and handled it far better than I could have.

        • Excellent points, Gaunilon.
          It has always annoyed me how atheists and other critics are essentially given a free pass to equate Creationism with belief in a Flat Earth. The two are mutually exclusive; Creationism never argues for a Flat Earth (in fact passages in the Scriptures clearly state Earth is a sphere, long before science had ever proven it was a sphere), so why compare an apple to an orange?
          In fact, Creationism is not utterly incompatible with the Big Bang Theory, in regards to the formation of the physical universe. Some Bible scholars make arguments for Theistic Evolution – that the formation of the Universe and the Earth did indeed happen in evolutionary terms, but that the catalyst was a timeless Creator rather than a cosmic accident. Literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis do not allow for this hypothesis, but the 'Gap Theory' (in which a span of eons is seen as possible between verses 1 and 2 of the first chapter of Genesis) does no inherent harm to the theory.
          Creationism, admittedly, is not compatible with human evolution, however. It clearly states that humans were created as an overt act of God, and that man was created in the form he still inhabits today. But since it also remains a theory that man evolved from monkeys, why not include Creationism in that ongoing debate as well?

      • Apparently it's not "settled" either, if CO2 emissions are quite possibly unrelated to global warming.

      • I for one do not state that AGW theory is wrong. But it is a THEORY, and needs proof. So far, the proof is at best mediocre, and on the basis of recent behaviour, suspect.

        But to go out and shape government policy and spend trillions of non-existent dollars etc, on the basis of an unproven and possible blind theory is foolish (to put it nicely).

        A better analogy than your case about evolution is to remember how the THEORY of Eugenics swept the world in the early 20th Century. Scientists and politicians alike were rapt ( and wrapped up) in the idea that society would be improved by culling the weaker elements. Even men as insightful as Churchill and Oliver Wendell Holmes went along enthusiastically. The currently respectable science research establishment at Cold Spring Harbour was knowingly falsifying evidence to support its claims, to ensure the continuing flow of money. Does any of this sound familiar??

    • Well, good point, but I'll add that what is "settled" is the ideology and therefore the politics of higher taxation in all this.

      It won't matter for example if Bermuda shows up next month at -50C for the next 20 years.

      The AGW fix will still be seen as requisite to "solve" the anomoly that is Bermuda having a glaze of ice, and therefore showing the "climate change" as the proximate cause of this vacation disturbance.

  5. Not that it has anything to do with the price of tea in China, but I thought it was interesting that in the Maclean's poll beside this article, David Suzuki was leading with 46% of the vote as the person who readers think should light the olympic flame. Although apparently quite popular with the Maclean's readers, Mr. Suzuki is another propaganda artist, like his friends in the WWF and IPCC. Although a few writers with national exposure (Steyn and Rex Murphy) have done their best to enlighten us with a view on global warming contrary to the b.s. that popular media insists on feeding us, most people don't have a clue about the facts, and alarmists like David Suzuki are as popular as ever.

    • Suzuki got them when they were young. He started out as a sort of "science guru" for the anklebiters, and the fact that he looked like a Sesame Street puppet helped.

      Those kids, now grown up, didn't notice when he revealed himself to be an angry hypocritical leftist enviro control freak. This owner of two homes, one a vacation property, harangues those who can barely afford to rent one on their fictional enviro transgressions.

      He told McGill students not that long ago that critics of the AGW theory, I stress "theory" should be jailed. Apparently he's the reincarnation of Galileo's inquisitors.

      That commercial of him skulking around on people's porches switching light bulbs to poisonous mercury ones is just creepy. Sort of "Mr. Rogers peering into the windows in your Neighborhood"…

      • As one who also grew up watching and learning from Dr. Suzuki, I pointed this very hypocrisy out in a personal letter to him a few months ago. In response to my inquiry as to why he had 'sold out' and turned against the very knowledge and science he touted years ago, his only response was to refer me to further research. A real 'cop-out.'
        It's a shame.

        Incidentally, I wonder how he (and the others) managed to get to Copenhagen without adding to the very pollutants they are constantly wailing about.

    • As one who also grew up watching and learning from Dr. Suzuki, I pointed this very hypocrisy out in a personal letter to him a few months ago. In response to my inquiry as to why he had 'sold out' and turned against the very knowledge and science he touted years ago, his only response was to refer me to further research. A real 'cop-out.'

    • I am sorry I misread the question, I thought the idea was to light the flame – with – Suzuki! Thus adding both insult (and carbon) to the injury

  6. Andre – what on earth are you talking about?

    • Don't know why you are bothering to ask. He's thrown his toys out of the pram. Imagine investing all your intellectual energy into Global Warming and finding out that it's a scam. The end result is similar to what we see from Islamists when their beliefs clash with reality – tantrum throwing and occasional violence.

      • Which is exactly why even the crappiest of the crap will go down in flames. There's too much money invested in this. Worse, there's too much environmental "ecosopphy" and ideology invested in all this. Which means there's too much politically invested in all this. Lobster and caviar festivals are fun, as is partaking of the local Copenhagen cuties with the blue peeps and blonde hair to warm you up on those cold Denmark nights.

        A repeat performance of jetsetting is at stake also.

        It will be fought to the death.

      • Except that the Global Warming Freaks are still alive, so they have the opportunity to reexamine facts, check their reasoning and change their minds. The poor Islamists bet their life on their beliefs, expecting their 72 virgins, and then……………………………………

  7. That was a fun article Mark. Thank you.
    How long will it take before Canadian Media finally starts to feel embarrassed about using the word 'Global Warming'.
    Where are the mainstream articles attacking these scammers. Why doesn't CNN do a week long special picking these warmers apart. With some real facts and science.
    I guess that would be a lot work, besides its too damn cold out there!

  8. Last time I checked Suzuki was trolling that poll at 8%. Anyway, let's not forget the whopper that Big Al unleashed on the world about 2 years ago, at some European gabfest. He put his foot in his mouth saying the Arctic ice pack would be totally gone in five years. we only have to wait 3 years by my count to prove him a huckster and a liar. You can look it up on U-Tube if you wish to see him in all his glory. Let's not forget he was also claiming that Pacific Atolls had already been evacuated to New Zealand, a total surprise to the New Zealanders, I am told. Possibility went to fact in Gore's world, better to scare more money out of the rubes, I guess.

    • AGW = Al Gore's Wallet. (I wish I could take credit for that, but it appeared in the comment section of another blog a few days ago)

    • blah blah blah x f***g blah.

      Is that the new forumula for distilling truth from the number nixers over at CRU, or has this become more about Steyn now?

    • It's called covering different markets. Duh.

      • Geeze, Guest, you are so cool! How does it feel to be both morally AND intellectually superior to all of us rubes that dare to question AGW?

        It`s all so SIMPLE to disregard, say, the last 2000 years worth of non-AGW warming and cooling phases but preach human causes with this particular phase, isn`t it?

        Like dancing the Time Warp, isn`t it? It`s 'just a jump to the left!", buy a Prius, push down firmly on the gaiea accelerator and then suspend common sense for a few decades. Too easy.

    • Uh, you can't plagarize yourself.

      And reworking articles to fit the number of words wanted by a publisher is the norm. Do you really expect him to completely rewrite the same story?

      • You should tell my university that.

        • They nailed someone for self-plagarization? Or told prospective writers you can't cover two markets simultanesouly, or at all??

  9. Yes the cold, frozen fingers of the ice age are easing their grip. It seems that this is a process that has been going on for a considerable time. Infact a lot longer then the industrial age has been around. Its just Mother Nature's way.
    Here in Canada we have a huge land mass that has a very small proportion of it agriculturally viable because of our cold weather. What a tragedy would be visited on us if we were to see a huge increase in our food production by a northward spread of productive land due to a bit of warming.
    Great numbers of our citizens flee to southern climes for month at a time to avoid the brutally cold winters. Frightening to think that some day they might feel comfortable staying at home and spending their money locally.
    The remains of tropical forests uncovered in the Canadian arctic stand in mute testimony that much greater climate shifts have happened in the past and yet we, modern humans, managed to evolve through it all
    . Its very much premature to start jamming away at the panic button. Lets just see what exactly true, honest, untainted science tells us in the due course of time and not let the fear mongers drive us over the cliff.

    • Excellent point!

  10. Actually it was in a draft of the bill. And the amendment limiting the labeling requirements to new homes only was brought before the House Rules Committee just after 3 a.m. on the day members of the House voted on the bill. Kind of like the late hour payoffs in the Obama health bill.

    • No, Rob H, you are wrong. Read the Factcheck.org entry. An earlier draft of the Cap and Trade bill had language related to labeling (for information purposes only). It did not requiring energy audits for sales of homes. Even early drafts did not contain the provisions prohibiting sale of homes, as Steyn specifically said it did. Referring to the early language, the report says: “even that language did not amount to an explicit requirement that old homes would have to be upgraded before sale, as claimed in the e-mail and by Limbaugh. And in any case the building labeling program was limited specifically to new construction only…” And at any rate, this was known months before Steyn published the falsehood.

      And yes, it is every bit as serious when journalists use false or falsified information. When Steyn does it, and has the gall to crow about not doing so while skewering some letter writer, he should be held to the same standards he sets for others.

      • Factcheck long ago lost credibility when they decided that objective reporting means that illegal aliens will be getting no health care glop after all, or that there is no proximate issue to the CRU emails whatsoever, and dozens of other curious lines that somehow always seem to reflect the agenda of the Democratic party.

        Funny, that.

        But ya know, things are not quite that simple. The bills pending would in point of fact do what Steyn has suggested.

        • This was my `factcheck' impression as well.

          I think the most wonderous part of the `fact-checking' of the CRU emails, was the writers conclusion that Climate-gate, which doesn't exist don't you know? was `confusing' the public. then s/he cited a poll that said `only x percent believe g-w is a problem.'

          Great, all except the poll was taken before the emails were leaked.

          (by the by, i wonder if `fatcheque' has anything on the serial errors committing by the MSM, which state that `ACORN' videographer James Okeefe and others were caught `bugging' the Senator's office… which he is not charged with at all…)

          • Well said.

            I can only add at this point that whenever I hear the "fact of the matter" from some alleged "clearinghouse" of info (on whichever issue) these days, RB, I reach for my handy pouch of headache powders as force of habit, cuz it might be a long day….

            As to Mr. O'Keefe, yeah, everyone in high office now just knows that he's trouble and a budding criminal, and that ACORN is "merely" an organization helping poor people and pure as the driven snow albeit under investigation by no less than 14 state Attorneys General.

        • It is sad when the facts don't support you. One is reduced to ranting and screaming. It seems Tolbert has also claimed that Factcheck.org was a George Soros outfit – nonsense – check out how that urban legend started, it's funny. If Factcheck.org is good enough for Dick Cheney to use for verification, it should be good enough for an incoherent Steyn fan. And of course the National Realtors and Homebuilders associations are vast left wing conspiracies too…

          • It seems Tolbert has also claimed that Factcheck.org was a George Soros outfit – nonsense – check out how that urban legend started, it's funny. If Factcheck.org is good enough for Dick Cheney to use for verification, it should be good enough for an incoherent Steyn fan. And of course the National Realtors and Homebuilders associations are vast left wing conspiracies too…

            I don't recall ever claiming that FC is some kind of Soros outfit, although I've mentioned the reality that similar organizations that serve as alleged "info clearing houses" certainly are–and the domain look-ups prove this, and this is well noted elsewhere. Organizations like the oft-quoted Media Matters where much of the Steyn's-a-Bad-Boy-Racist-and-Wrong précis gets it's chief bandolier of ammo, and then of course the little known EMS–the lofty but background policywonkers at Environmental Media Services, which created in turn the blogspawn and almost equally quoted RealClimate.

          • I've readily said before that the "non-partisan" Annenberg folks are a different spawn of liberals, speaking of those "facts" of the matter, even though their policy statements end up in certain slots more often than not. Remember, it's the exception that demonstrates the rule. More on that momentarily.

            Unlike your "facts" issue with Steyn (that has utterly no bearing on his other statements on the buffoonery of ClimateGate and the scam of AGW) I'll not make quite as much of this misspeak on your part on something claimed (in this case, what I supposedly said) and we'll clear the slate from here on out.

            Deal? Good. Glad to be a forgiving chap regarding balonious statements you think I made. Because whatever "urban legend" missives are on the Net, I doubt my name is attached to them. So let's move on, shall we?

          • OK. Regarding FactCheck in general: Yes, Cheney is free and willing to occasionally quote FC the same as I have in some rare blue-moon-stars-are-lined-up circumstances for exactly the reason that we're both aware of its use as a resource by lefties. So what? If you have an opportunity to put the brats to bed for the night–take it in whatever form.

            Yeah, funny things happen, don't they? Would that the whole world broke down according to ideological lines, eh?

            That would certainly make things better, now wouldn't it? But then, so would winning to Powerball Lottery or having people use real names other than "Guest" all the time. And often the lords of reality for some reason just don't afford such fortunes, now do they? Or perhaps we shall go so far as to request the Mother of All Requests and prevent Michael Mann from getting his allotment of 500K from Obama's Stimulus Plans to continue his BS research. But it's apparently too much to ask–all of it.

          • When it came to the whole Ambassador Joe Wilson's Walter Mitty Fetish for making things up, and seeing that the Great Yellowcake Caper was important but not the made-up OR proximate issue (as Wilson claimed when he falsely fingered Cheney for ratting him out and blowing the cover of his dear fellow fantasist wife) and when it seems FC uncovered the reality of WMD being pitched as a problem by Democrats as well? Of course. T'was too obvious on the merits to ignore; to say otherwise would be the equivalent of having your toe bones crushed by a railroad worker with a sledgehammer, and then declaring that such hammers do not exist.

          • As to National Realtors and Homebuilders, again, if Steyn made an error here is was probably one of jumping the gun on this issue. I'm a real estate appraiser myself, fairly damn good at what I do, and generally do well in keeping up with the latest government fads that both hobble and annoy people in constantly "upping the ante" when it comes to such things as appliances, contradictory and false as they often are. They are hellish on earth to pour over and keep up with. And they are ever-changing, and it is far more than likely that in time reality of real estate will catch up to the notion of government NOT merely "grandfather" certain carbon specs for appliances. In all probability, government will not stand idly by and allow the oldie modlie appliances to continue belching the alleged proximate cause of AGW and belch carbon day and night across North America.

            Ain't gonna happen chief. Use the Force. Use your feelings. And common sense.

            No one is going to allow the Great Carbon Belch to go unrestricted or untaxed. Too much G***damned money at stake. And be careful next time whom you claim said what.

          • PS–it was the head of the EU, if memory serves from that article in question, who (not Steyn) suggested that Carbon Demonization would be the new methodology for "global governance."

            And more than one Greenie and Copenhagian has made such statements. That is fact also.

            Dig it. Cuz it's now all around.

            This is the more proximate source for the Global Governance stuff Steyn mentioned. Not the whole bruha over energy standards for new homes here and in places like Britain. Though those are certainly important considerations for ending government annoyances about what the average person can figure out without government assistance with what should be private issues like one's own damned heating bills. If I want something more efficient, and can truly point out that it'll save big bucks from SCE*G Power, I'll make the call.

            Howz that for citizen action on energy? Or is that not enough control for bureacrats?

            Which regardless of the "facts" on grandfathered allowances, is the point Steyn was making overall.

            The one you seemed to have missed.

  11. "And polygamous unions are of course illegal, which Steyn doesn't mention"

    And I'm sure the imam has been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Right? Right??

    • Right.

      "De Facto" if not De Jure recofnition in some quarters not counting at all either….

      (lol)

      Good point.

    • Gee, they're not illegal for Welfare purposes here, where all the wives and children of the deadbeat "husband" are supported.
      Muslim countries in effect limit polygamy to men who can support more than one wife. Western countries now make it possible for even destitute Muslim men to have their harem, courtesy of taxpayers.

      • Courtesy of taxpayers….
        Yes good ol Winston Blackmore in Creston, BC (Bountiful does sound more heavenly) has somewhere north of 26 wives and over a hundred children. Successive AG's in BC have been unable to counter this polygamy black eye because of our hallowed Charter.

  12. Most people can't save 5 cents but, !!!
    SAVE THE PLANET ?
    They'll have your back.

  13. Ding! A new record, only 3 posts before someone dragged the nazis out. By the way, according to the laws on web arguments you lose andre.

    • Accelerated Godwin's Law (ACL) ….

      • Brilliant!!!

        • *snort*

          You boobs need to look up what Godwin's Law actually describes so you can stop embarrassing yourselves.

          • Hmmm, they need to stop embarassing themselves, let's examine this statement…

            Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches…

            Since the word "probability" is actually in the original text, that means they are using the "Godwins Law" reference exactly as it was intended. Thus proving that the only boob here, anon, is you.

            Besides seeing as how Norm B actually used what is now considered to be a valid variation on the original Godwins Law, that depending on the subject matter, the probability of the nazi/hitler reference is greatly increased, thus the addition of "Accelerated". This only proves that not only are you the only boob here, but it also proves that the only person here who actually needs to look up Godwins Law is YOU!

          • "what is now considered to be a valid variation on the original Godwins Law"

            Bonus boobiness! A common misinterpretation of Godwins's law is declared "a valid variation" by Joe2171.

            I love you Steynettes. So stupid, so churlish, so stubborn.

  14. sorry, my bad i meant to reply to Andrew!

  15. I remember that article, i dont remember Mark suggesting polygamous unions were not illegal though. What exactly is your point though? Are you saying that because you believe mr steyn has made factual errors, it should disqualify him from pointing out the errors being made re AGW? Even if that made any sense i think we might be inclined to make an exception here, since marks mistakes were of very little importance compared to the billions of dollars at stake with global warming. I myself would like to hold the scientific community up to a higher standard on this one, thank you very much.

  16. I'm not a wealthy scientist with the means, time and expertise to independently determine the truth about global warming. I can try to educate myself on the subject by reading endless articles, books and blogs on the matter; but, how can I be sure the authors are basing their results on accurate data and proper analyses. The anecdotal evidence that I can observe first hand is less than compelling: yes last summer had a few hot days; but, it was -18C here yesterday. The best I can do is to apply a sort of Pascal's Wager argument: If global warming is false and we take action to shift from a carbon energy world to a green energy world, we may sacrifice some economic growth (although some would argue that new green industries would actually spur growth on) but we gain a cleaner, more sustainable economy. On the other hand, if global warming is true and we take no action, then we will have to live with the shame of knowing we could have done something about it, but didn't. The downside to accepting global warming that is false is minimal; but, the downside to ignoring global warming that is true could be catastrophic.

    • A "green energy world" can only be sustained by liquidating billions of people and reducing the remainder to a 12th-century lifestyle.

      • Wow DLB, what do you base that statement on? Why should I accept it any more than Gore's assertion that millions will be drown and/or displaced by rising sea levels?

        I have no doubt that humans will consume every barrel of oil and tonne of coal we can find; but, fossil fuels are going to run out at some point. We might as well start working on alternatives now, and if that makes for a cleaner world, all the better.

        • well….yeah…and in the long run death finds us all, no matter the hail and hearty health…

          The problem with fossil fuels is not them drying up anytime soon..It's that …they're THERE!

          .(OK, perhaps when my grandchildren are elderly they'll be gone even from oil shale and oil sands in Canada and elsewhere) but that the process of doing so is slow and expensive and likely will manifest itself by just increasing prices and continued political turmoil.

          But even if not, it's time to move on.

          I said elsewhere I agree we can't be Pollyannish about eternal carbon burning…

    • "The downside to accepting global warming that is false is minimal"?! Yes, worldwide carbon regulation sounds "minimal" to me?

    • That is the dumbest most simplistic answer to spending untold billions on chasing CO2. Removing CO2 from human waste will not:
      -Stop Halifax, Montreal and Victoria from dumping sewage into the oceans and rivers.
      -Remove smog from the atmosphere
      -Clean sites polluted by industrial waste
      -Clean the Great Lake of its pollution
      Chasing CO2 is a difficult process and will take reasourses away from real pollution. Since the Climate is always changing, the best option for humans is to adapt.

      • My point is that I (and perhaps many people) do not have the resources, time or expertise to conduct my own personal research into the question of climate change. I can read Mark Steyn articles and watch Al Gore movies; but, in the end the question comes down to whom do I believe?

        If I support the Gore-view and it is wrong we would have spent “untold billions” developing new cleaner energy technologies that can replace the old, dirty, 19th century technologies that we currently use. We will need these technologies anyway because eventually the supply of fossil fuels will run out.

        If I support the Steyn-view and it is wrong, we will need to spend “untold billions” developing new energy technologies to replace the old, 19th century technologies because eventually the supply of fossil fuels will run out.

        Moving from non-renewable fossil fuels (which also release carbon into the atmosphere) to renewable forms of energy (most of which release substantially fewer emissions) seems like a safe bet. If it also saves a few million people from being drowned or displace from their homes, that's a bonus.

        • You don't have to be a science sophisticate or process the ocean of information on climatology to make an informed decision.

          You just have to understand the basic scientific method (hypothesis, experiment to test the hypothesis, replication of experiment by disinterested others given complete access to original data, discarding of hypothesis when not replicable or contrary data emerges). Then you observe mounting examples that one side continually errs against all principles of science not randomly but to generate one desired result – "evidence" for AGW. You follow the money and realize labs that toe the AGW party line get the majority of the billions spent by governments whose interest is in enlarging themselves and controlling their electorate is served by climate alarmism, a conflict of interest that dwarfs private oil company funds.

          Warmists, now changeists claim non-existent consensus in a "science" in its infancy. Their theory is founded on severely flawed computer models, not physical evidence honestly gathered. They demonize skeptics by calling them "deniers" when skepticism is the very basis of science. They "lose" original data or otherwise obstruct other scientists from trying to replicate their findings. They cherry pick data. They drink each other's bath water and call it "peer review". They allow the IPCC to pass off as science in their reports contributions that would be disallowed in a high school science competition. They have a direct line from their lab to gullible science illiterate journalists they feed. They do not correct even egregious errors like Gore's misrepresentation of the CO2 and temperature graph in his Inconvenient Truth movie or Mann's hockey stick graph etc. etc.

          Ask yourself. Why the need for all this skulduggery and hard sell if the science is so clear and their results replicable outside their own labs? Are they running labs or kitchens where they cook results and are unwilling to give out the recipe, behavior that is the antithesis of science?

          Would you buy a theory as holey as Swiss cheese from such people? I do not.

          • This is what we call a "gut post", it contains truths you know in your gut, but really have very little bearing on reality. It's like the gut truth that heavier things fall faster than light things, or that the earth is the centre of the universe. Eventually people wise up, but it can be hell to get there.

          • Here's where things also fall–evenly, also, with one not lighter than the other.

            Beyond the gut we also see that this issue handily falls along ideological lines.

            Those who enjoy finding new ways to regulate and tax and redistribute using glop science as their basis, and who don't feel the whitewash bucket and hand supply of new brushes supplied by the MSM and politicians means all that much next to their goals.. The ones who love their fly-about junkets and partaking of the local Copenhagen blue-peeped cuties and the lobster dinners,

            vs…… those plain folks like me desperately trying to run a small business against the backdrop of hardheads like Obama's virtual government takeover of the American economy, and who see and can sniff out tax scams, when proposed.

          • Vision supplies this observation. Not the guts. As Stephen J. Gould say, there is not a "fact only" science, and the "facts fo the matter" do not interpret themselves for us. Like all battles of faith, against the backdrop of ideology there can be no true truth or victor in that sense. There will merely be some people getting their way when taxing the living hell out of others in order to sustain power.

        • Any formulation of Pascal's wager boils down to the worst case estimations of either side. JIG argues that no CO2 action could cause massive sea level increase, desertification, famine, etc. etc. while aggressive CO2 action could "sacrifice some economic growth for a while" with the bonus of new green technology.

          DLB posits by contrast that CO2 action could end up "liquidating billions of people and reducing the remainder to a 12th-century lifestyle".

          Pascal's wager is meaningless unless we can make a rational choice between these worst case possibilities. What this means is that JIG's original argument that he can't "independently determine the truth about global warming" does not get him off the hook in choosing appropriate facts.

          For my money DLB's worst case seems a lot more likely than JIG's. The first world nations have a per capita income that is roughly 100 times that of a subsistence level income like Haiti's. We have a LONG way to fall, and we now have ding-a-lings running the show who have NO idea how we reached our present heights. The ham fisted centrally planned economic directives and fantasies about renewable energy possibilities propounded by Global Warmists are disturbingly reminiscent of Mao Tse Tungs "Great Leap Forward".

          Mao's "Great Leap Forward" caused the death by famine of 30 million human beings. What would happen if we inflicted this sort of thing on a global scale and 6 billion people? DLB may not be too far off.

          • I don't usually hail others' posts. But you've made some good pointers here.

            The capitalist/freedom "backstory" that is liable to fall faster than the resultant rise due new energy resources is a damn hard part of this "wager."

          • "For my money DLB's worst case seems a lot more likely than [Gore's]." Really?

            Let's look at Gore's claim. Greenhouses and the function are real; we know that gases released into the atmosphere can cause a global greenhouse effect (just look at Venus); we know that CO2 is a by-product of burning hydrocarbons; ice melts when it is heated; Greenland has enough volume of ice that, if it were melted it would result in a rise in sea levels (see the CIA World Factbook and other sources for the volume of ice and surface area of the oceans). The only question is: are humans pumping enough CO2 gases into the atmosphere to have an impact?

            Now DLB's claim. Adopting alternative energy sources will reduce us "to a 12th-century lifestyle". Why the 12th-century? The industrial revolution began in the 18th century. Adopting alternative energy sources will cause the "liquidating billions of people". How? Are they going to be lined up against a wall and shot?

            DLB's claim makes no logical sense. Yet, you're willing to accept it with no critical analyses or supporting facts.

          • It's true that the atmosphere of Venus, consisting mostly of CO2, is denser than Earth's. However, according to NASA "most astronomers believe that Venus's high surface temperature can be explained by what is known as the greenhouse effect".

            If pressure was the main factor in the surface temperature of Venus, why doesn't temperature increase as we descend into the ocean? Shouldn't the temperature at an ocean depth of 3000 feet (90 atmospheres, or the equivalent pressure at the surface of Venus) be 465C?

            It's the thick, CO2 laden atmosphere which traps the solar energy at the surface. Our observations of Venus support the argument that a greenhouse effect can occur on a planetary level.

          • Mars is mostly CO2 in its atmosphere and is colder than Antarctica at night, at a balmy Greenhouse -200 F, which turns part of the carbon into a crust at the poles. Because the air is thin.

            It's the confluence of several factors that aids this, in addition to Venus being 30 million miles closer to the parent star (that…well, has some play here, as we might guess).

            The ocean is not absorbing of of much light beyond 600 ft, which is why it remains just above freezing at the lower depths. Obviously even thick layers of CO2, along with the acidity of that Venusian atmosphere which also traps heat, is the reason for the retention of heat at the surface.

            But if you could compress earth's oxygen (or add more) and give crushing pressure, you'd have the same effect on earth. The problem with this though is that unlike CO2, oxygen would long ignite, destroying the very experiment. Co2 is relatively inert compared to pure oxygen.

            Sit in a pressurized tank (and this experiment has been done) and increase the pressure and the temperature WILL be going up.

          • The Ideal Gas Law (PV=nRT) predicts a rise in the temperature in a hyperbaric chamber as the pressure is increased. Your assertion that “extreme PRESSUE more so than CARBON DIXOIDE” is the overwhelming cause of the surface temperature seems unlikely. Consider a scuba tank at a “crushing pressure” of 3000 PSI; twice the pressure of Venus, yet I can safely touch a scuba tank without fear of my hand being vaporizing.

            I agree that factors which can significantly influence the greenhouse effect are the level of solar radiation, chemical composition and thickness of the atmosphere. But “thickness” is not a synonym for “pressure”: a fire may make the air thick with smoke without increasing the pressure. Thickness acts like a blanket and traps heat.

            Mars is twice the distance from the Sun as the Earth and the solar intensity is less than half that for Earth. Although the chemical composition of the Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, it is extremely thin. Less radiation reaches the planet, and there is no thick blanket to hold heat on the surface, so the average surface temperature is only around -81F.

          • I agree that thickness is not the same as pressure. But by pressure I mean also that there is tremenous MASS in this Venusian atmosphere that in turn (as you said elsewhere) is far more efficient in trapping heat than the measly Martian CO2 atmosphere. The Earth is not going to go to some largely opaque atsmophere due to carbon release in the worst scenario.

          • There have been times in the past when human beings breathed in 1500 ppm Co2 (and there'd not be any noticeable effects unless you're training, perhaps, long-distance runners and measuring lung efficiency). There have been times when the Co2 level went DOWN to a DANGEROUS (for life) level of 180 PPM–plants don't synthesize CO2 well below such levels. Yet the earth and nature and man rebounded.

            If we can survive the phony-baloney of what pols make us do in the continuing Iroquois gauntlet, then we'll survive carbon enhancement, which in turn many think will be a net boon to the world's forests.

            Humans are tropical beings anyhow. (notice most of the fur missing to this day???) and can better handle the ailments that accompany heat than the crop failures, shorter growing seasons, and often downright pandemics and other dangers that are typically more often associated with or accompany severe cold.

            http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/stroll-thro

          • “tremenous MASS in this Venusian atmosphere that in turn (as you said elsewhere) is far more efficient in trapping heat “ – I don't think I said mass has anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

            Consider this: an actual greenhouse is not pressurized; the atmosphere inside one isn't massive.

            Mass or pressure is not the factor. It's the ability of the “greenhouse” to trap the solar energy, to prevent it from radiating away, and thus to cause heat to build up in the “greenhouse”.

          • Not in those words, but you said it is denser than Earth's.

            And indeed it is. And the more mass you have the great the heat absorption.

            People talk of space as being cold in very sloppy sci-fi movies.

            Though you'd FEEL cold if knocked suddenly out of a hatch, space actually has NO temperature, qua space per se. You'd feel cold as heat is pulled from your body rapidly due IR radiation emissions, etc. The same thing of course happens as the proximate reason for feeling cold on a windy day. But here the ambient temp can actually be measured due to atmospheric pressure (minus wind chill) and factors such as heat retention, etc.

          • Global oil consumption: 86 million bpd
            Density of oil: 720 kg per cubic meter
            Annual global oil consumption: 2.62 x 10^12 kg
            Combustion (e.g., C7H16 + 11O2 = 7CO2 + 8H2O) reveals that 1 kg of hydrocarbon results in 3 kg of CO2.
            Annual global CO2 output: 7.86 x 10^12 kg
            Avogadro's number gives us an output of 1.07 x 10^38 molecules

            Earth's atmosphere (78% N2, 21% O2) weighs 5 x 10^18 kg
            Approximately 1 x 10^44 molecules

            1.07 x 10^38 CO2 molecules added to 1 x 10^44 molecules currently in the atmosphere shows an increase of 1 part per million (1 ppm) per year.

            Annual human oil consumption adds 1 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. This ignores coal, deforestation and other activities. The build-up of CO2 is a cumulative effect. Over a 50 year period, at the current consumption levels, we will add 50 ppm of CO2 from oil consumption alone.

        • It is alarming, as always, to see big-picture thinkers about what we "should do" (read: subsidize or tax) ignore the basic economics and politics of junk science. It is not just a question of advancing the date of newer technologies to the near term by spending a few billion in public money.

          When bad science results in taxation and economic stagnation, as the foolish pursuit of lower CO2 emissions will certainly do, then people die. Yes, millions of them. Poverty induced by government causes real problems, and inefficient energy mandates cause waste of many billions. The only thing that brings humanity out of its most miserable state is growth and the innovation it fosters. Hamstringing the populace with the most expensive forms of energy to solve non-existent problems makes ANY activity using energy more expensive (like farming and transporting food) and will actually kill people, something comfortable eggheads musing about the future never seem to understand.

        • Here is the problem with your argument: the best way to help the environment is to develop more efficient use of fossil fuels.

          First, notice that this isn't an option that ever crossed your mind. We aren't doing this b/c this solution *to the environment* does not solve AGW. Your approach is destroying the envirnoment.

          Second, efficiencies can be gained by technology but the more important factor currently is spreading free-market capitalism. The former Soviet Union and current Red China were/are huge polluters. In America, pollution has dropped dramatically. Your AGW solution is international socialism (i.e. communism) so again, *AGW is destroying the environment".

          A great answer to energy needs and pollution is replacing gasoline-powered cars and trucks with natural gas. I bet you never thought of this either.

          • Legalize wrote: "the best way to help the environment is to develop more efficient use of fossil fuels". I absolutely agree. It's going to take decades for the world to move away from carbon based energy sources. But, keep in mind that combustion is a chemical reaction (e.g., C7H16 + 11O2 = 7CO2 + 8H2O) that will produce a fixed amount of CO2. You can't reduce the amount of CO2 emitted; but, you can increase the amount useful work derived from burning oil. To do this, we can drive more fuel efficient cars (less gasoline needed to drive the same distance means less CO2 per mile), or replace incandescent lights with more energy efficient types (less electricity needed, less coal and oil needed, less CO2 produced).

            As for what you believe has “[n]ever crossed [my] mind” or what I've “never thought of”; that's just you making unsupported judgments. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to present logical hypothesis that are supported by evidence, not ad hominen arguments.

    • Interesting that our alleged highbrow Greenie betters never take Pascal's Wager for what it was actually intended for: Spiritual matters.

      Hmm.

      Well, I'd agree we need a new energy policy and need not be Pollyannish about carboniferous ages even if AGW is totally off-base. True enough. But the problem here is that conservation merley delays the inevitable, and you can't conserve your way in the long run to energy independence from the Sons of Arabia any more than you can become Bill Gates by saving coins under the mattress. You have to have at some point new input for the outgo.

      And the Greens do NOT like alternatives that actually work better than windmills, chicken poor, and solar–which have their limited functions but cannot sustain a modern civilization beyond a small set of cossetted poverty-striken villages.

      Unless that's the world that the Greens have projected in their interesting alliance with the far left, and have projected this frowsy and limited economic vitality on the rest of us and prepped us with tales of "ecosophy."

      Willing to be this is what's going on here.

      • Wakefield Tolbert, I know the origins of Pascal's Wager which is why I wrote: a “sort of” Pascal's Wager” and not an “actual” Pascal's Wager.

        I'm not sure where the notion that I'm against nuclear energy came from. Nuclear energy is a viable alternative if we want to stick to the model of large generation plants with extensive transmission lines. But, you also mention TRUE energy independence; maybe we should find Pons & Fleischmann and get them going on their table-top fusion again – a reactor in every home would be the ultimate energy independence!

        You wrote: “the problem here is that conservation merley delays the inevitable, and you can't conserve your way in the long run to energy independence“. I like your style: let's accelerate our consumption of fossil fuels and try to use it all up in the next decade. That should get our 2020 emissions to zero and force us to develop new energy technologies. Everyone should be happy with that.

        • That's fine. Just to be sure…covering all the bases here. That's all…..:)

          And no, I am not about accelerating consumption as an advocacy.

          But even IF the US and Western Europe get zapped in the AM by a magic meteor, Red China and others will forge ahead on carboniferous burning.

          They have NO plans to halt their visions of industrial triumph.

          Scout's honor.

          And Capntrade is a bust. Likely to cause more harm than good and even IF you have made a MORAL case for the use of force in politics to bring us to some energy independence USE-TOPIA, you still have to have something to fall back on.

          Saying that cap in tax or whatnot is this magic measure that lights a proverbial fire under us won't work if there are no choices but to merely cut back in order to halt higher fines, fees, and taxes coming our way….

          • "Red China and others will forge ahead on carboniferous burning". I agree; which means there will be even more demand for those limited resources. Isn't it in our best interest to develop alternatives energy sources to ease the impact on our economy from the rising costs of "carboniferous" based energy?

          • Aye, but this administration has decided that Nuclear Power is to have red skulls and bones next to it. The last repository for high level waste is to be shut down, and for the foreseeable future, per Slate mag's mighty liberals crowing and fist pumping on this, it is a non-starter. But wind and solar and some others have no future for mass production for an industrial civilazation.

          • sorry about breaking this into two posts. Something about this page keeps popping me out of here and says "the tab has been recovered" —more crap from Microsoft browsers, no doubt.

            Anyhow. biofuels are a bust as well, as even reported by Green ideologues who figured out the science on that one. More land must be taken from food production to get the colume of liquid fuels you needs, and the whole thing about "uptaking" more carbon in the growing process than is released–or making the situation a wash–is not shown as largely myth. And yet that was the whole point. No new net carbon. But if you have to process, clean, pick, harvest, and consider the expenditures and paychecks and vehicles and labor and fertilizerr production to grow these crops AND also pull food out of production AND also…ASLO consider the large acreage of rainforest already doing its part in carbon reduction will be stripped down?

            No sir. BAD idea…from all angles…..

            As a chemist friend told me the other day, the most efficient thing to do with soybeans is to EAT them.

    • I might be more inclined to take you seriously if you could explain what to us what a "more sustainable economy" is and how it is achieved through massive regulation and taxation of the energy sector and all the spinoff industries and activities related to the production of CO2. You know, the stuff you produce every time you let out a breath.

      Also, to highlight how asinine the "Pascal's Wager" argument is, consider this: I will, in Bond villain fashion, blow up something very very big with a giant laser of some sort if the government of Canada does not give me 1,000,000 dollars by midnight.

      That's a drop in the bucket, right? That would be 1/200,000th of what they spend in a year. Maybe the provinces could even chip in. (Is paying off super-villains a provincial or federal responsibility under the constitution? I forget…) Small cost, right? But if you call my bluff and I do come up with some giant laser device that destroys Nunavut or something, it would be a huge loss.

      Therefore, because the costs of doing something are so insignificant and the risks of doing nothing are so potentially huge, you should contact your Member of Parliament and wire me some cash, right?

      • If, for under $1 million, you could build a laser that could detroy Nunavut (otherwise your net gain would be negative), then you're the kind of guy we need working on this energy problem!

      • *LOL*

        (A laser makes its way up the middle of a table and gets nearer to the crotch of our beloved spy, James Bond.)

        BOND: "You expect me to talk?"

        GOLDFINGER: "NO Mr. Bond. I expect you to DIE!"

    • So, JIG, according to Pascal's original basis for his wager, I assume you have given your life to Jesus Christ and are very religious.

      • John, I only need to invoke Pascal's Wager if I am uncertain which of two propositions is true, and I need to make a decision. When it comes to the question of God and religion, the evidence is quite clear and no Wager is needed.

    • This is the same old "If it can save just one child then it's worth doing" argument. So, let's force all of our children to constantly wear protective helmets so that in case one of them falls, they shall not die if their head was to strike the concrete just right. I mean if it can save one life then why not incur the cost now of people buying all these helmets, worse case kids hair gets mussed up a bit, best case, we save 1 life every 19 years.

    • Check out countries that have tried to go green and you will find that going to green energy leads to fewer jobs and higher prices. What do people give up when they have to pay more for power, power that could be obtained a lot cheaper now if government would get out of the way.
      Do I want cleaner air? Yes. Do I want to be rid of dependence on the Middle East for oil? Yes.Do I want these things "at any cost"? No.
      The climate of this planet has always and will always change, regardless of what man does. We are but a gnat on the proverbial elephants rear.
      If it gets warmer…then I offer that someone will surely invent a better air conditioner and if some coastal areas get flooded/become unliveable, then I'm pretty sure those peole will move inland, or maybe build the next great city of Venice!!!

    • THATS THE BEST WAY OF LOOKING AT IT !!

  17. "la-la-la can't hear you" is all the IPCC has going for it now. Thank god.

  18. JIG, you would be more credible if you had mentioned nuclear power as an option. Without it, we have nothing. Green energy is very disruptive to nature, and the greenies only like hydro, wind and solar energy in THEORY. If you actually try to BUILD it, they have a million reasons why not. What they (you) really want is for us all to go back to a world before the industrial revolution. The problem is that nobody is going to go there voluntarily. Not even you. (Say it: "who needs dentistry anyway?". Can't do it, right?)

    • I have nothing against nuclear power, and I don't want to go back to a pre-industrial revolution world.

    • The top greenies have no intention of limiting themselves. That's for the (toothless) peasants.

      Greenies are our would-be new royalty and are swanning about now the way they mean to go on, flying to Copenhagen, renting all the limos in the EU, dining on a menu provisioned from around the world.

      • They like their lobster and caviar and rack-of-lamb dinners as well…

        • There's always going to be an elite class; but, that has nothing to do with the climate change debate.

          It's sad that the only arguments against climate change seem to be ad hominem attacks and conspircay theories.

          • "It's sad that the only arguments against climate change seem to be ad hominem attacks and conspircay theories."

            and sadly for you, even IF that were true, it would be superior to any arguments for climate change… assuming you agree that "la, la, la, la, I can't heaaaaar you!" is not an actual winning argument.

  19. In time (were probably talking decades if we are utilize our natural gas reserves and nuclear power) more esoteric forms of green energy may become cost effective and affordable. In that case they will supplant those that are presumed to contribute to "global warming." In the meantime, the earth's climate will cycle from warmer to cooler, varying a few degrees as we know it has since the time of the viking coloniization of Greenland and northeastern Canada. Eventually, and probably within a few thousand years, the 18th (give or take a few) ice age in the last 2 million years will descend on us, and that will be a real challenge.

    • Most people don't dwell on what makes green energy cost effective. It is that all other sources of energy have increased dramatically in cost, either through development of shortages (natural or government-created) or high consumption taxes levied on them (and not on renewable sources). We have a polity in today's world that believes that forced inefficiency can be offset by government subsidies. Dumb.

  20. I suspected "Global Warming" was a fraud right from the start. Not because of the science, but because of the smell. It was the smell of a cult and a scam. Like many scams it is now being exposed. The glaciers are only one part of the story that is unravelling. For the faithful, Hang in There! Go down with the ship.

  21. Now, how can I possibly show my youngest brother, the physicist elitist, that what he "believes' is real…his latest dispatch at my attempt was to call the Telegraph, UK some nasty names, tells me I should read "peer" reviewed articles. Well, this from someone who doesn't watch any television, radio and reads only scientific journals and the New York Times, leaves me just ignoring him. He has reached the age where, the Dr. in his name, changed him into someone I don't know as he aged! He is a clear indicator of what happenings to ideologues in any subject!! Blind, deaf and dumb.

    • There is a local wannbe celebrity weatherman, who fancies himself a science guru, here in NB with the same problem. He rails on endlessly on his blog and as a weekly contributor to talk radio about how science is immutable and unquestionable, and how we shouldn't beleive any opinions pertaining to science unless they come from an actual sicentist. He routinely defends the IPCC and denounces skeptics as "flat-earthers" and "denialists". He is completely impervious to counter-arguments, no matter how well reasoned or articulated, because he has already made up his mind. A scientist that has already made up his mind, especially about a subject that has never been remotely close to settled, isn't really a scientist at all.

      • Leftist ideology is strong stuff, trumping all loyalties (family, other religions) and even common sense (especially in the narrowly educated) and as AGW demonstrates, science.

      • Celebrity? Don't give him that much credit. he's a serially downsized TV weatherman, failed liberal candidate, with a few books to his credit that have been read by less than 50 people. the only reason he gets on talk radio is because the host of the show is completely innumerate.

    • dont sweat it sue, I have always found that the transition from candidate to PhD involves a transfer of intelligence and arrogance. The former exchanged for the latter.

    • As a JD I have worked with a slew of PhDs. Some are exceptional, some have no common sense. I recall one incident in which I reviewed a study by a PhD wherein he was evaluating a proposal for development. He concluded that the science wouldn't work, then recommended that we hire the guy as a consultant to study potential development of the process. Even his VP got a laugh out of that.

      My dad often said to beware of overeducated idiots.

  22. During our lives the message that "we're destroying the planet" is constantly hammered into our heads. It's no wonder that it's this basic, ungrounded assumption that has led to the groupthink that is the belief in global warming. The idea of it doesn't even pass the smell test (we're altering this large planet's temperature when we only inhabit a fraction of it? think not just of the fraction of land mass we cover, and the fact that land is only 1/3 of the planet, but the space between the land and space) so we've relied on "science" to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. Now we see that the "science" was really grounded in that groupthink assumption.

    • DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE ARE IN THE WORLD? We are having an affect. Forget all the extingtions,have you gone fishing lately?

  23. I live in Tucson, Arizona. I looked out the window noticed it was a nice day, stepped outside and proved it. I will not be giving my money to crackpots who claim that every time I pass gas I threaten the glaciers half way around the world – along the lines of a butterfly's wings causing a hurricane. You know, later on today the sun will go down and that won't be my fault, either. In Transactional Analysis, we call that magic thinking and it is the purview of an immature child. That about sums it up for me. But let there be debate – it is endlessly interesting. Well, for now anyway.

  24. The true crime is that the Global Warming BS is being used by governments world wide to justify many transfers of wealth from hard working people to lazy worthless scientists and other political hacks.

    It doesn’t seem to matter that the whole discussion totally misses the point…that warming comes and goes and we can’t do one damn thing about it! Anyone that thinks we can is an idiot.

  25. AGW was a good gig while it lasted.It gave the broken down socialists hope that they could control human activity through environmental fiction rather than economic fiction and it gave a lot of brain dead celebrities something to talk about besides their rehab.But between the CRU and Al Gore seeing his large shadow you knew that the Global Warming mush would not last more than another six weeks

    • I'm looking forward to more honesty from some quarters, and far fewer such "gigs"!

      • Don't hold your breath. The Left takes years to admit their glaring errors, like the Lancet withdrawal of the shoddy vaccination causes autism paper (12 years) and allowing perfectly safe DDT to be used again in Africa (after decades of millions dying needlessly of malaria, mostly children). Then there were the millions killed by Communists exactly as predicted after the Left snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and pulled out of Vietnam. They're still high-fiving each other over those bodies…

        • You're right. I'd be purple around the gills by now..

          ..I DO remember the Lancet issue on that AND the "Iraqi Deaths" reaching a MILLION (?!) before it's crappy and politicized work got shot out of the water by science writers like Michael Fumento.

    • When's Al Gore going to prison?

      • Not soon enough!

  26. I'm a geologist and study the history of the earth 8 hours a day 5 days a week, and an important part of my job is recognizing sea level transgressions and regressions. Some of these seal level changes were do to tectonic events and some were do to CLIMATE changes. In the ~4.6 billion years the earth has existed they're have been many warm and cool periods, some catastophic, but even the catastophic ones took thousnads of years to set in. If we were headed towards a catastropic climate shift as the gorebal warmers would have you believe we would all know it and you wouldn't have to be a scientist to see it. For example the Permian Warming, which was catastrophic, ~2/3 of the earth (land) was covered with some type of volcanic activity. One volcanoe the size of Mt. St. Helens put more CO2 into the atmosphere over several days than a refinery or coal plant could put into the atmosphere over 100 years, and that is a very conservative estimate. And No, the climate does not control volcanic/tectonic events as some of the craziest gorebal warmers would have you believe. Disclaimer: the 2/3 of the earth being cover by volcanoes may not be perfectly accurate but I can guarantee there was a heck of a lot of volcanic activity of the likes humans have never seen.

    • I have seen the dramatic pullback of glaciers as evidenced by the gouges in the rock faces left by embeded boulders as the glaciers moved down slope. Some of these ancient signatures were hundreds of feet above the surface of the glaciers. This receeding process has been going on for milleniums so why the big fuss over it now?
      Something that I've come to recognize is that we love to scare ourselves. Witness the fairytales we hear and read as children, the horror movies, sasquatch sightings, Ogo Pogos, UFOs. All of them enthrall us. So we create a threat to "life as we know it" in the form of global warming. What are the chances it won't go the way of Y2K or the Berlin Wall or the Nucliar Winter or "we'll all die from second hand smoke" or peanut butter sandwitches?

      • I agree with the "scare ourselves" comment but the difference here is gorebal warming isn't fiction to some. Gorebal Warming is an agenda driven scare tactic and that agenda is socialism on a global level. They want control of every asspect of every humans life, and gorebal warming would be a good way to gain a huge amount of control. It's a mechanism to socialism. It may also be a ploy to eventually gain CONTROL of the oil industry. The oil industry is the base of the economy for the world and the liberals know it. They fought it for a long time and did there best to demonize the oil industry, but I believe it has become obvious even to them. To sum it up, it's all about control and has nothing to do with what's best for humans and/or the environment. The best example of that is the elitist politicians that back gorebal warming have done nothing to decrease there carbon foot prints while telling us peons what we must do to save the world.

      • There are two items that "are not like the others" in your list of bogus alarmism through which the left attempts to expand government and control the population – the peanut butter sandwiches and Berlin Wall.

        The sandwiches are a real threat to the two per cent of the population with anaphylactic peanut allergy with potentially fatal effects and secondly, government and private industry are not being asked to redistribute billions behind the pretense of saving the world from peanut butter sandwiches unlike the other imaginary problems listed.

        The Berlin wall as a symbol of communist oppression eventually crumbled, but again, there was nothing fake about the human misery imposed on hundreds of millions. There are witnesses both living and dead in Gulag graves.

        Please don't conflate Leftist fictions and reality.

  27. Well, one good thing about a Caliphate (and here I'm just upholding the tradition of dragging I-slam into everything): it is not apt to show much interest in generating employment for pseudo-scientists on the make. I think the chair of Environmental Racketeering at Ottoman Tech will remain unoccupied much like the chair of Women's Studies at Saudi State U. Does Islamic imperialism even bother to keep pet intellectuals collared, brushed, and fed?

    • Didn't you hear? Osama "I've been dead for at least five years" bin Laden just released a new tape warning of the dangers of global warming!

      • Osama's leftist talking points arrived late this time in his cave since the wheels are coming off the global warming wagon just as he's clambering on.

  28. Why do scare mongers now say 'one' bit of contrary evidence. They're nuts. There isn't one bit of credible evidence supporting AGW since it was first proposed as a scam years ago. It's ALL rot.

    Worse still is the evidence that people propagating this fraud knew it was a fraud from the outset, but were benefiting from the deception at the expense of human life. These people should be charged. I will support a class action suit.

  29. Sorry for the mispelled words. I'm really not an idiot. I've become dependent on word check.

  30. it might be bad, even if the statement was not a non sequitor:

    Hitler might have had a chance, with comprehensive arguments?

    Comprehensive arguments were essential to Hiter's `chances'.

    Didn't Hitler have a whole bunch of chances?

  31. Wow. Godwin's Law on Warp Factor 8.5

    Astonishing.

    As a side note, I've never heard the corollary to this being something akin to "If only Hiter had had x-factor" also applied to Joseph Stalin, who was every bit the wanker, creep, and murderer Hitler was.

    Wonder why that is…

    • Stalin has a better publicist!

    • You don't know what Godwin's Law really means, do you?

      • For the love of Pete, please see Joe2171 above. I think this was covered, and YET, the fact that this time around it didn't take very long for the Furher's name to be invoked (this time, on opinions regarding ClimateCrappola) still means G.L. has full force and effect.

        "embarassing themselves" indeed.

        • "For the love of Pete, please see Joe2171 above"

          I did. I loved it. "Bonus stupid!"

          Just mentioning Hitler is not a manifestation of Godwin's Law. That's a misinterpretation of it. Get that through your heads.

          • Mr. Andre had it down to the very letter of the law, by way of comparison. That fits nicely with Wiki's take on this.

            And not to make too much of this, but that's the proximate reason Andre's post is now gone with the wind.

            Thick-headed indeed.

          • What- WHAT! did this evil André the Gaunt say? It's been deleted!
            Sorry- I showed up late for the party.
            Damn! I've been reading these comments ad-absurdum and everyone's raving about Andre!
            Andre, can I have your autograph?
            Godwin, can you pass me a law? Or how about some Cole's Law?

  32. The problem with sacrificing economic growth to address a problem that either doesn't exist or that we cannot influence (because the cost is too great, there is a lack of political will to take the necessary measures, or there are no measures that can reverse global warming) is that it is a waste of money. This impoverishes us all and has an especially pernicious impact on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. If there is no catastrophic global warming, or if we can't or won't do anything about it, then why deny mankind the use of inexpensive, abundant energy sources and the reduced costs of food, clothing, and other necessities (and some luxuries), which are otherwise within his grasp.

  33. Darn, the last paragraph is mine should not be in italics.

  34. Heh , India wants out of the IPCC .

  35. Who you going to believe, the experts or your own lying thermometers?

  36. "Any politician considering major public policy changes on such questionable reports is either blind or corrupt".

    Guess that covers it. It is astounding how most Western leaders have not done their independent homework on the global warming file, probably because most are lawyers or have some other non-science background and have a science phobia.

    There are probably a few who know the truth but cynically calculate their odds of turning the leftist green Leviathan of Lies around as political suicide since the electorate has been indoctrinated through leftist dominated public education and the media to demand green "solutions" to fake problems. That's where the "corrupt" comes in when politicians will do what they know is wrong simply to get themselves re-elected.

    • BHO got education as a lawyer and in the madrasa. He declared that CO2 is a pollutant without having a clue about the major importance of CO2 for the growth of crops , trees and all vegetation. Although he might be right about one particular CO2 that can be considered as a pollutant and it is that comes out of his windpipe

  37. "Rajendra Pachauri" is neocon code for "black." You are a racist bigot.

    • If you had a penis it would be very small. Like your IQ.

    • Yeah watch out there's a neocon under your tofu burger. Ever tune into that show Curb your Enthusiastic Conspiracies.

  38. Step back from the individual trees and see the woods. All of this has pretty much concluded that the science 'is not settled'. What bigger win could there be? Now, back to the lab, models or, whatever and let science, real science define the problem or lack thereof.

  39. I don't think there are any other journalists who routinely engage in smacking around letter writers who dare to disagree with him. This is where Steyn shows himself to be a bully and a self-obsessed turd. With all the tough guy stuff, why can't Steyn pick on someone his own size (or word length), like Wells or Doug Saunders or some other journo? You know, smack around someone who would be able to return a punch? But no, Steyn gets his kicks out of hitting some little scno who has one hand tied behind his back – someone who gets one chance at a few words, maybe gets set up, while he can keep it going as long as he wants. It's ugly and cheap, and no other journalist would stoop that low, but then, that's Steyn and his fans.

    • Perhaps more journalists should respond to letter writers and bloggers who disagree with them. Imagine how Mr. Gajewski's stock has gone up in his Ottawa neighborhood. Free drinks at the pub. Women flocking to his cause. Colleagues at work oohing and ahhing.

    • I don't think that Steyn is a bully at all to call out someone who disagrees and chews him out. His point was to demonstrate the everyday common guy who absolutely believes emphatically in a theory but will blindly ignore all the evidence pointing to the contrary. Why not use the name of someone? If the guy in Ottawa can shoot off his mouth, then he should be called out. It is not ugly and cheap.

      (Mark, feel free to use my name!!!)

      • It is cheap, obsessive and bullyish, for all the reasons stated. Name another journalist who stoops that low.

        • I think it's very useful that Steyn defends his positions and is willing to debate people at all levels from presidents to MSM to bloggers. It's a way to convince people to change to his side. When we blog an opinion it's public and anyone has a right to refute it. Feel free to attack my post too.

          Steyn is perhaps the most interesting of writers because he engages all types of folks. Why not?

          If you say it, you own it. Be responsible for what you say because someone might just take you to the task.
          Got that?

        • Speaking of Wells, he does it all the time but usually in haikus, which of course means you think he's just writing poetry for the fluffy crowd.
          And Coyne does it too.
          And Spector does it in his own comments.
          Darden: Your glass is always half full isn't it. Precious.

        • Well, there's this guy with a Walter Mitty complex named Keith Olbermann…..

    • "Guest", what a swell name. My name is Michael H Anderson, nice to meet you – whiny pantywaist assclown.

  40. So, Guest, what caused the mile deep glaciers of N. America to recede from their southern trip to N. Calif to where they are now? I'm open to hearing your support of animal flatulation theory, a recent Green epiphane. But give me a home where the buffalo roam because now that they are gone, thank God, it's one less global warming influence on this planet. They were replaced with bunnies, but surely you're not going to suggest we run them off the cliffs too. I like your chosen comment name too– Guest. It's so temporary. Sort of like the facts you have chosen to rest your case upon.

  41. Al Gore BETRAYED US!! HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!! (well, your fears, maybe, I knew he was full of $hit when he was VP. Frank Zappa showed me AG's tru colors, Commie Red wrapped in Eco-Green)

  42. Brought up in the Catholic church, and having belatedly discovered that what the church called God's commandments was nothing more than supposition, combined with a deep-seated thirst for control of those about me, I come with a built in BS detector.
    Like Klabautermann I am a natural-prone sceptic.
    In the AGW religion, I hear nothing that I did not hear from the parish priest in my childhood. Only the names have changed.
    Rob Hall

  43. The only thing that seems to be immutable and eternal is the deceit practised by those involed in the AGW scam.

  44. This is what pisses me off: I was once a firm believer that global warming was an consequence of anthropogenic actions; however, as I read more and more details, data, and information, I become less convinced. Where the problem lies is that you cannot have an intelligent debate about it with those who have been “deniers” since the beginning; it simply turns into a game of childish name calling. I don’t call Steyn or any other a turd or bigot or any other derogoratory name; but yet, I am a liberal-lefty-communist-socialist-softy because I want to debate, and lo and behold, expand my knowledge on something….please….

    • Pat you've made an important point and I fully agree. Things can get too polarized and then its no longer a debate because people have stopped listning. Both sides have legitimate concernes on this issue and most people have no evil underlying agendas. I have grown increasingly sceptical about some of the big guns who seem overly eager to lay a huge guilt trip on those of us who see GW as primarely a natural cycle and this is all I'm expressing. If it turns out they are right then we should br prepared to take action. So far however it seems that a lot of the warming is generated by the books they are cooking.

    • This is a big time case of projection of one's own side's sins onto the other.

      Let's take just one example from your own comment. The term "deniers" evocative of Holocaust deniers was chosen purposely by the warmists to denigrate their critics in the scientific community in opposition to all scientific principles. "Skeptics" or "critics" would be better, but best of all would be "other scientists" so that what is just a theory is not cast as the gold standard and everyone else lacking in realism.

      The Left's ideas turn out to be almost always wrong but their one genius, like an "idiot savant" is propaganda and control of language.

      Either your brain chip was incompletely installed or you have massive will power to continue researching and actually believing your own findings instead of leftist talking points, so more power to you but you are a true rarity in the leftist community whereas conservatives are used to taking unpopular stands and having to generate their own evidence to support them.

      That you don't notice one side dominates the childish name calling (and keep using their favorite) and the other the respect for facts means you're still in denial about your fellow travelers. Keep coming toward the light…

  45. Do all scientists lie, or just climate scientists?

    • It's a little harder to lie in hard sciences and/or corrupt as many peers.

      Climate science is in its infancy and at this point relies very heavily on computer models that aren't much better than crystal balls were for predicting the future.

  46. Here's a perspective that you don't hear in the global warming debate and it's something you will find in reading academic (i.e., non-political) texts on paleoclimate. The Earth today is in an ice age! Twenty million years ago, there were no ice sheets anywhere on Earth. Today there are ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland. The present ice age has been punctuated by what paleoclimatologists call glacial (cold) and interglacial (less cold) periods. Today, the Earth is at the peak of an interglacial, but it is just part of the Ice Age that began about 3 million years ago. During the last interglacial about 100,000 years ago, sea level was even higher than it is today, which means there was even less ice than there is today.
    One last important point, life has done quite well on Earth when there was no ice age. In fact, life proliferates in warmer climates (think tropics and jungle) versus cooler climates (think polar regions and tundra). We have nothing to fear from a warming Earth. We just need to adjust.

    • "We just need to adjust."

      How can we adjust fast enough?! According to our learned climate scientists like Al Gore, the seas will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years! That's 2.4" per year. A veritable flood. Run for your lives! There's no time to get out of the way. We're goners, I tells 'ya.

      By the way, I've lived on and swam in the California coast for all my life. In the last 50 years, when we burned the most fossil fuels, the seas have not risen noticeably at all. They should have gone up ten feet, right? All is as it was.

  47. When the World Wildlife Federation took sole ownership of the "WWF" name from the World Wrestling Federation, it seems they somehow managed to reduce the credibility of the branding. Maybe we need Vince McMahon to set up a Texas cage match between a team of and Dr. Pachauri, Professor Mann, and Phil Jones (with Al Gore as the honorary captain) and a team of real scientists.

    • Freemarketer, I believe the WWF stands for World Wrastling Federation, not World Wrestling Federation. I can't believe nobody till now brought up the real WWF, until you. Nice job! I may date myself here, but I don't know of this Vince McMahon of which you speak, but I do know of Dusty Rhodes and Mr. Wrestling #2.

      I knew wrastling was fake even before I knew Global Warming…. oops…. Climate Change was a scam. At least in wrastling my tax money and freedom is not at stake based on the results of a match.

      Since the WWF is involved in this Global warming/cooling/pretty-much-doing-what-the-heat fluxes, – pressure gradients, – albedo, – geological effects, – earth's magnetic field, – axis precession -dictate, I would like to see a tag-team match also, but between a Giant Panda/AlGore team and a Polar Bear/Dr. Patchoulie team. No hitting above the snout, no 3rd-parties jumping into the ring, no doctoring of raw temperature data, no curry-breath (not to profile any one of the four individuals, as that would be racist!) Gentlemen and nobel-prize winners,THE FIGHT IS ON!

    • Your cage match in the rarefied circles of pseudo-intellectuals that the globull warming crowd likes to hang with would be a debate.

      The warmists have been invited to debate many times by skeptics with enough academic credentials to please the most discriminating elitist, and yet they run from all such public debate. They prefer making a one-sided case by controlling editors of scientific journals and who gets published, peer reviewing each other's dirty bath water, feeding crap to science illiterate journalists too lazy to pose any inconvenient questions, calling critics names or trotting about like Gore "Leni" Riefenstahl imposing his throughly debunked propaganda film on defenseless children and teachers with no critical reasoning capacity.

      A smart and honest person would ask himself, "Why is debate either live or in scientific journals like Krypton to these people?"

  48. If consensus was the be-all-end-all of science, we'd still be barbequing heretics for suggesting a heliocentric solar system.

    The very concept of "scientific consensus" is anti-thetical to science. The sooner we can get away from relying upon it, the less likely we are to suffer a neo-Dark Age at the hands of those who seek to pervert science for their own gain.

  49. The idea that 1997 was the wormest year on record is now also in doubt look up the new artcle on the urban heat island effect. That showes the CRU crowd was playing fast and loose with calibrating the data.

  50. if only every argument was as comprehensive as yours Steyn…

    …Mahatma Gandhi would have had a head of hair.

  51. Its really simple. Poor people die sooner. CO2 regulations will make us poorer relative to no regulation and the current poor will remain poor for longer. IT WILL KILL MORE PEOPLE.
    Remember DDT ? How many people have needlessly died because of that phony science ? 10 miilion ? 20 million ? Hitler and Stalin were pikers compared to SIlent Spring.
    How many extra dead will it take to convince you that AGW is a scam ?

    • And, as millions of American home owners have experienced, irresponsible bankers make people poorer, so I assume you support extensive banking regulations. As you're such a humanitarian, I assume you fully support foreign aid programs and no doubt would like to see them expanded. You, of course, support free trade because giving poor countries unfettered access to sell goods in our markets is the best way to help lift their people out of poverty. Bravo!

      • JIG, do the letters CRA ring a bell? How about Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? The banking crisis was caused by government meddling in the market. NOTHING ELSE!

      • As a lefty, you don't know that foreign aid except for emergency assistance in natural disasters does more harm than good to the countries you claim to be "helping" by encouraging dependence and impotence. It's made a basket case of the Palestinians and all of Africa just like indiscriminate Welfare has destroyed blacks and natives in North America.

        With its rich resources, Africa knows poverty only because of poor government. (Look at Zimbabwe, from African bread basket to basket case in nothing flat. Nothing in its situation changed except the government).

        Foreign aid, as some scholars from Africa are now making the case, keeps terrible governments in power who spend money on fleets of luxury cars for themselves and their particular tribe while their people starve. Instead of colonists, now it's the patronizing liberal white who keeps imposing his failed schemes on Africans who would build themselves up from poverty as did Asia if foreign funds didn't prevent them from turfing their dysfunctional leaders and governments.

        Being poor is not a life sentence anywhere in the world if your government doesn't make sure you stay that way.

      • of course the current crop in the W. House blames the banks. The banks are always guilty for every woe, aren't they?

        But a little itty bitty entity (and now you're in my arena of real estate, as I appraise houses even in this crappy market) called CRA and a veritable alphabet soup of other agencies had their hands in promoting these questionable funding/morgage schemes. Lawsuits were filed against the alleged practice of "redlining" of districts not likely to return a profit on mortgates (the poor areas of town) and so the funds were forced to be made more widely available. Now some of the same cronies that sued over lack of creative financing that later allowed your bubba-in-law and a pet dog to be collateral on the financing are now suing over the predictably sour results that many economists predicted would be the results of EZ-DOES-IT credit with no money down and other limited investments. Thus the lack of interest and liability for some people in these situations. So they walk away, further depressing the market with floods of foreclosures.

        • I no longer have the handy link, but Greg Manikew's economics site has the details on all this–and his prediction of the resultant ruin.

        • Banks do NOT make money on foreclosures, and in my line of work I can assure you they do NOT…NOT…NOT..want to be in the home auction business. No money in it. So these rapacious greedy lords of high commerce had no interest–or no rational one–in ripping people off LEAST likely to be able to pay back the loans.

          That kind of assumptive idiocy on the banks needs to be redirected rather at the one entity dumb enough to think in terms of magic–and that is government.

          So the clarion call for "more regulation" is of no effect if done by the same entity that "encouraged" under pain of finess and force, banks to make those risky loans. Banks don't normally laon money to people SOL in jobs or lacking any credit history or having Me-Maw as your only character reference or your kitty cat as a down payment.

    • Lefties have very high tolerance for real deaths of real people as a result of their latest hare-brained enthusiasm that is going to save hypothetical people in a future that never arrives.

      They never look at the bodies they leave behind as they run to worship their next homicidal tyrant (Lenin, Stalin, Hitler until Stalin said he wasn't his best friend any longer, Mao, Castro, Che, North Vietnam, the Sandinistas, Islamists) or their next poorly researched belief that gets people killed, usually poor non-white people as in Africa with the DDT ban.

      Leftists thanks to infiltrating and dominating public education and the media never wear the damage they do.

      • This illustrates the problem that climate change opponents have: you can't refute the science on its own merits, so the only argument left is to jump to ideological rhetoric. You can't mount a sound, logical argument against climate change, so you reach down into the mud and begin slinging names like Hilter, Stalin and Castro around.

        • That's not exactly the case, or even the chain of events. Elsewhere I posted the responses of some scientists, but I will admit the reason you're running into ideological arguments is because like other government-oriented scams that generally cause more harm than good in the end (see the CRA-bank issue above) many people suspect, most probably correctly, that this is mostly an ideological pitch.

          As CRUGate, ClimateGate, GlacierGate, and MediaComplicityGate http://tinyurl.com/yaoxz6u now have demonstrated beyond doubt, even given a kernal of truth in bucket of BS type issues here, this is mostly a political and ideological pitch.

          Many of the same people and types we thought we had tail-whipped with the fall of imperial "global governance" aspirations in 1989 have returned with new methodologies of promoting their ideas under the guise that this all goes loftily "beyond" partisan pols, or such considerations, and evertying is done for the Mamma's Milk issue of "Saving the Planet"

          And who wants to be the party downer on that???

        • Thus for example more than one lefty pundit, most notably Thomas Friedman more popularly, lionizes the autocratic habits of brutal lands like Red China for their "wisdom" and "efficiency" in getting things done.

          Indeed. Autocracies can truly MAKE things happen.

          http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTc1Y2Yx

          Amen.

          Welcome to the future.

  52. Andre Andre Andre. At long last, have you no shame?

  53. Forget it guys…..you can't change the mind of a Global Warming Convert. If you ever managed to do that they would have a meltdown trying to come to terms with the fact they are so easily duped.

    I've actually had one idiot who believes in Global warming describe the movie "Day after tomorrow" to me as if that is going to happen if we keep driving cars, or burning fossil fuels. That, unfortunately is the scope of the intellect we are dealing with. My response to him?

    I told him that I have seen "Planet of the Apes" about 5 times…….so does that mean we should go ahead and kill all the chimps…..just in case?

  54. Cameron hit it out of the park straight away, but it should be reiterated as often as possible:

    Anthropogenic climate change = Piltdown man.

    • Or is it:
      Anthropogenic Climate Change = Meltdown Man?

  55. IPCC head Pachauri lives in a 7 million dollar house near New Delhi .

    • Must be a nice place. I wonder, does it have a pool?

    • Is it nicer than Al Gore's estate, or Tom Friedman's place?

      What is the rate of the Carbon Belch Factor compared to my little hovel, I wonder?

  56. Want a greener planet? We need much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. .387% is very low by historical standards. It was much higher during past ice ages. Ideal levels would be between .400 and .425% or near what it was when Greenland supported agriculture, growing barley and grapes. CO2 levels trail cooling and warming trends by some 8 centuries. It is far too cold now to grow much of anything in Greenland. A slight warming, instead of the cooling trend of the past 40 years, would be a godsend and save millions from starvation and disease.

  57. Here is another reason to be skeptical of the global warming alarmists. They always claim things like the "economic growth sacrificed will be minor" or that "green jobs will actually advance the economy". These are allegations with no basis in fact, and in this case the vast majority of economic models are firmly against them. But they downplay the economic models of widespread financial disruption and problems, while playing up all the potential environmental disasters.

    Here is the reality. Electricity produced from fossil fuels is currently much cheaper than that produced by wind, solar, etc. Furthermore, there is no 'green' source of energy (with the exception of longer term nuclear) that we currently have technology developed for which can generate the current levels or power produced by fossil fuels.

    So here is my proposal to AGW proponents. I will believe your global warming models of environmental disaster, when you believe my financial models of economic collapse, grinding poverty, and earlier death for hundreds of millions of people if we tax/restrict fossil fuel burning. And then lets have an honest debate what/who is more worth saving.

    • The acid test for greenies is nuclear power. It's green, safe (despite ecofreak propaganda to the contrary) and we have the technology. It's expensive but for your money you actually get enough power to replace fossil fuels sources, unlike giving billions in subsidies to rinky-dink wind and solar initiatives that at this point are just expensive toys. France, a socialist country usually held up to us by lefties as a role model gets most of its power through nuclear plants.

      So, if your greenie rejects nuclear power out of hand (and most if not all do) then he's actually a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) not concerned for the environment but for his lefty World Government scheme, you know, the communist Utopia rearing its ugly head again out of a green dress this time.

      • Slate Mag is fist-pumping to this day over the closing down of the US nuke power industry. That says more than volumes.

        Alternative energy sources are a wonderful thing, unless they actually work or are Simon-pure. The latter being impossible.

        Of course, they know this.

  58. Shorter Guest:

    "Oooh, look over there, a unicorn!

  59. Saw a report years ago showing that it was not possible for any high altitude glacial melt to be caused by Anthropegenic Global Warming. The ambient temperatures at those altitudes are always below freezing. However, direct solar radiation can melt the ice, just as it can melt ice on your driveway or trees, even when temps are below zero.

    • That's not melting; it's sublimation. Very good point though.

      • It IS a good point, and it's the same process that is ACTUALLY removing ice from Mount Kilamanjaro. Not AGW.

        Ice can sublimate (the solid form of evaporation). And as the surrounding area around Mount Kil. has been deforested for decades, there is less vapor in the air. Dutch researchers nailed this one.

        Alas, Al Gore did not.

  60. Lets have an investigation of the conflict of interest created by the head of IPCC also owning a private company that seeks to profit from global warming.

    • Have Al Gore investigated the same way. He pockets money every time he can help his fellow charlatans mount enough pressure on a company to buy into the scam of carbon credits.

      He's a snake oil salesman and shake down artist combined.

  61. "Whenever I write about “climate change,” a week or two later there's a flurry of letters whose general line is: la-la-la can't hear you."

    Really? 'Coz that's not what I write to Mark "Stain" following *any* of his columns.

  62. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/ind

    And while you can assume America is the only country on this planet, that's not so. America's warmest year on record in the 1930's? Sure. Fine. What's your point? Let's remember climate change is global and the evidence we look at should also be global (averaged even!) And the fact is, globally, the 20 warmest years (averaged) on record have happened since 1980. 3 of those since 1998.

    And yes, the thousand year cycles you're referring to are relevant. However. The rate of change we would see from these cycles would be slower than what we are currently measuring.

    Moreover, I'm extremely interested in seeing the data you're using to assert that switching to renewable energies will destroy lives/economies/the WORLD.

    Global cooling/warming trends are acknowledged by the scientific community. No one is saying climate change isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. Not one person. But the activities of humankind are most certainly helping things along.

    • If some prominent scientists (read East Anglia Institute) are in some very questionable territory, it does cast reasonable doubt on other studies. Cap and trade systems and regulations decrease the supply of (insert something here) because it increases the costs, which increases the price. hence making everyday things like food more expensive.

    • "Global cooling/warming trends are acknowledged by the scientific community. No one is saying climate change isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. Not one person. But the activities of humankind are most certainly helping things along."

      Kristen. Somehow we are reading totally different papers and watching/listening to totally different media. From where I sit, as a PAST member of WWF-Canada, the implication is that not only has global warming (later called climate change in an effort to save face) been caused by man's activities (mostly due to burning fossil fuels) but that the only means of correction is to change man's activities (underlying suggestion that we regress dozens dozens of years to a much lower standard of living, where only those flying to global 'climate change' conferences will be afforded the right to use those 'nasty jets' and things).
      In a similar manner, the politically correct version completely neglects to mention that if mankind is in anyway involved, that extreme over population would most likely be the most significant culprit.

    • So, what I'm assuming here is that you have access to the year to year data from all of these earlier warming periods to prove that a spike in the overall warming trend actually is an unusual thing…you have that data, right?

      So, as we have firmly established, neither you nor anyone else has any factual, year to year data from any of the earlier warming periods that we know for a fact to have occurred within the last 8,000 to 10,000 years or so.

      Thus, the fact that if taken as a whole over the entire process of warming, no single decade of unusually fast or slow warming means anything significant.

    • Assuming that you are correct in your opinion that "activities of humankind are most certainly helping things along", what percentage of change can be contributed to human activity and what percentage occurs naturally?

    • " the activities of humankind are most certainly helping things along."

      Prove it!

    • Switching to renewables won't destroy anything. Being forced to switch or pay penalties in the face of panicked legislation will be destructive.

      In fact people ARE saying that climate change isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon and that recent trends are entirely caused by humankind. The extent to which humans are 'helping things along' is entire point of the debate. (If it were agreed that humans are contributing only 1% to the change, I doubt if the IPCC would still exist.)

  63. Do you notice all the trends start at 1850? The reason is that for over 150 years before 1850, we were in a cooling phase, and 1850 was the beginning of a warming phase, that peaked in 1934 (the warmest year on record). There is much evidence that it was much warmer at some several centuries ago (when Greenland was much greener and could support a colony).

  64. I think our Prime Minister is on the right path vis a vis climate change, global warming etc. China, India, and other developing countries as well as those in severe economic trouble might want to see Canada and the U.S. weaken their economies by spending money to appease the scare mongers and limit the benefits of natural resources such as the tar sands. I don't think we should ignore the research and best efforts of science and believe that efforts and research aimed at developing new technologies and a less polluted environment are important. I don't see why that can't be accomplished while pursuing a measured, common sense approach ie. that of the Harper government. At present that is the best course for us to take.

  65. The reason people don't get too see info like this is because the discovery channel's, national geograpic channel, pbs, and all the scientific type channels refuse to show people the "other side". I still watch some of these channels but as soon as gorebal warming is mentioned I change the channel. The liberal science channels are as much too blame as anyone pushing this bogus, agenda driven science.

    I don't understand why people don't get it. Warm=good, Cold=bad and that is fact. We can adapt to warm but an ice age, depending on severity, would wipe out the majority of life on this planet. How can anyone be so arrogant to think that by looking at data based over the last 100 years (a very generous figure) can prove anything about the earth which has been around for ~4.6 BILLION years. The gorebal warmes claim they see it in dissolved CO2 in ice cores but what they are not telling you is obtaining CO2 from ice cores is a very trickey and difficult process, and results can't be dependable. Can you imagine how many different ways dissolved CO2 in ice cores can be interpreted? That's why the gorebal warmers like it. They can make it fit there agenda. I won't even get into tree ring interpretation.

    One more point I'd like to get out there is Polar Bears. According to the liberal organizations like green peace, peta, and the wwf they are endangerered and gorebal warming will wipe them out. The US game and fish wildlife biologists will tell you just the oposite and have factual proof that Polar Bears are thriving in most places, even becoming a nuisance in some places. Who you gonna believe here? Wildlife Biologists that actually study polar bears or liberal organizations that don't know there a@# from a hole in the ground.

  66. This Steyn is unbelieveable. Has he no faith in the scientific community? Does he require factual and accurate proof of every detail? I suppose he will even deny that the entire Yukon is melting into British Columbia and may threaten the upcoming Olympics by melting all the snow. And this isn't based on some biased eco-scientist in India. It is an irrefutable fact I overheard at a bar in Whitehorse last week.

    If he had just taken the time to look at any recent picture of Whitehorse, he could have clearly seen that we are not submerged under a glacier anymore. Explain that!

    • An irrefutable fact you overheard in a bar? If you overheard it in a bar it must be fact.

      By the way, glaciers dissaprearing, and reapearing has been repeated many times in 4.6 billion years. And don't forget glaciation is just as dependent on precipitation as it is on temperature, and guess what, the gorebal warming models don't take atmospheric water vapor into account. Glaciers can't increse in size w/o precipitation. Frozen precipitaion melts with temps below freezing from natural UV rays from the sun. If your not getting the precdpitation glaciers will recede. It's a cycle that humans have no control over.

      • Um, Guest, desdeash was doing sarcasm.

  67. Steyn is one of the worst things about MacLeans. A Fox style windbag who takes a valid point and turns it to crap by trying to extend it to areas where it doesn't apply. In this case one bad apple doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten, no matter how bad the one apple is.

    Then this: "Donna Laframboise, a colleague of mine from the glory days at the National Post…". Glory days? Plural?

    As it happens Donna is a colleague of mine from the glory days at Lively High, but I wouldn't site her use of Google in support of anything, unless Steyn was admitting that he doesn't know how to use it himself.

    • How many rotten apples should the Food Board of Opinion and Peer Review allow in that said barrel before we have to toss the thing out?

  68. the only thing powerful enough tp effect the global climate is the sun,period.

  69. So ordinary HTML characters don't work? How advanced of you, Macleans. Sorry, everybody else.

  70. rbudin said: "The global temperature anomaly for January 2010 was 0.72 deg C, making it the hottest January over the 30 years for which we have UAH data". That is tropospheric temperature, not ground temperature. It's been an unusually cold January in the Northern Hemisphere down here. And, everyone knows the high temperature tropospheric reading is the result of the temporary phenomenon of El Nino, and the portents are that it will come crashing down presently.

    • Bart, we live in the troposphere, you know. The troposphere is the lowest part of the atmosphere. UAH data measures average temperatures from the surface up to 135,000 feet. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ . The troposphere extends up to between 4 and 12 miles, depending on how close the the equator you are. Anyway, your point is well taken. What people care about is surface temps. But surface temps are hard to measure accurately, and UAH provides an accurate and comprehensive measurement of temps from the surface up to 135,000 feet. And surface temp data, for all its flaws, does track UAH data. My point is that skeptics should be as judicious in coming to conclusions as the AGW folks have been injudicious. The jury is still out.

  71. Strong article, entertainingly argued and making some excellent points.

  72. Mark, you can't reason people out of positions, they were never reasoned into in the first place. "Dan Gajewski of Ottawa and the millions of kindred spirits who've signed on to this racket and are determined to stick with it" are no different than those who have stuck with the Leafs all these years on the assumption that they were trying to win, although they're becoming a whole lot less lovable.

  73. Let the AGW crowd keep drinking the kool aid. At least it keeps Al Gore employed. Sort of.

  74. My grandad told me me about these fellows that would come around in times o f drought and claim they could make it rain(control the weather) now we are having it rammed down our throats just like the rainmaker give us your money and we can control the weather well myy granddad had aname for the people that paid they where fools you cannot control the climate you just have to make allowances for the changes

  75. This calls for an Al Gore poem to list our spirits.

    • Anything from the Goreacle would "list" (lean or droop to one side) my spirits.

  76. That date of 2035 as in

    “Fourth Assessment Report suggests 2035 as the likely arrival of Armageddon”

    is totally bogus. The real date in the original report was 2350. Its pretty well known now.

    To make it easier for those who cant even google it, the BBC has this link:

    Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

  77. Correction on Richard Lord Stern. He was not simply Chief Economist at the World Bank, he was appointed Chief Economist by his own bother who was the human resources vice president at the World Bank. This guy has CONSISTENTLY been a fraud. At least this fact is settled!

  78. Sorry Mark. You, me, we, will never change their stripes. It's like trying to reason with a drunk – impossible!

  79. I believe that it is possible that man could be having a impact on the environment that could affect the climate.
    It also seems that current research would be woefully inadequate/unreliable as far as historical data is concerned(ie: how far back can we go to obtain accurate/reliable date to make informed conclusions on a planet that has an evolving climate over millions of years).
    Be that is it may, what makes me know that the current Global Warming Craze is a Scam is that the solution to the crisis is not to stop creating creating carbon emissions, but to pay somebody else for the right to do so.
    It's the oldest flim flam known to man, we have a crisis, of course if I did not tell you the crisis existed you would be unaware of it. And, Oh yes I can solve this terrible crisis by having you give me some of your money.
    Never under estimate Mr. PT Barnum.

  80. YOU SIR ARE WORSE THAN HITLER ….SIR
    And if you don't agree with me than you are even worse than …….HITLER!!!!!!!!!!

  81. Hang on a second, the satellite data clearly shows that the decade of the '90s was the hottest decade in the last 30 years.
    What are the odds of that?!!!!

    1 in 3, isn't it?

    Somehow it doesn't seem to be worth getting particularity excited about.

  82. Mark, you've got the wrong source for the IPCC's comments about Himalayan glaciers. It's the Indian journal "Down to Earth" back in 1999. You can match most of the first two IPCC paragraphs to text in http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/319… The table also matches, right down to the erroneous 132.5 m/year that should be 23.5m/year.

    Where there's not a perfect match you may find that an earlier draft of the IPCC report was a better match but those earlier drafts were much too long and some DtE text has disappeared in the"haircut". (I have more details for you Mark, if you want it.)

  83. What does Andrew's point have to do with the article written by Mr Steyn? Does this mean, Andrew, you support scientists calling the WWF for scientific conclusions? You support scientists including political statements by political organizations in their scientific reports? Is that your position, Andrew?

  84. I have no degree in science but I can tell you that in my 77 years on this earth, living in southern Ontario, we have one hell of a lot less snow and cold than we used to.I used to play hockey in arenas with natural ice – try that now! Doesn't matter to me at my age but I thing a lot of our decendants will hate our selfish guts!! It's all about making as much money as one can today!!

  85. The best way to save the glaciers is to stop giving tax money to the funding whores. That should end the hysteria.

    All of this crap has been paid for by us and we will soon be paying a lot more when the carbon taxes hit. These lunatic fringe environmentalists have to be stopped before we all become poor and hungry.

  86. I have been writing and phoning the provincial education and environment ministers to ask them if they are going to do a recall of every textbook, eliminate all climate change alarmism from the curriculum, and in the case of Saskatchewan, abandon the carbon sequestration project.

    Our environment minister replied that while she realizes there is some conflict over the issue of climate change, there is a global scientific consensus and that there is evidence to support that mankind has been a "major" contributor to climate change. I asked her why she didn't present this evidence when she was in Copenhagen?! Surely if she knows something the rest of us don't know, she should have brought it up. She has yet to reply to that….

    Our education minister is a lifelong educator, which is to say a paid up member of the public sector union establishment, more concerned with teacher's pensions and expanding the scope of government than in presenting facts. Of course it plays well for Big Government types to get the kids when they are small; scare them about the evils of capitalism and the virtues of socialism throughout their school years, all the better to turn them into brain dead bureaucrats and activists who lobby for….Bigger Government.

    At the federal level, why hasn't Harper repealed the incandescent light bulb ban? He once was the Great White Hope, frankly labelling Canada as a Northern European welfare state; now he sends Prentice to attend the farce in Copenhagen, thus giving the conference the imprimatur of legitimacy.

    I wish everyone who is skeptical of man made climate change would write their educators and legislators, too. I have no doubt that there are many more deniers than supporters, so given the fact that this non issue has gotten so far on the voices of a few, surely the voices of the many should be able to stop any and all government action on this hoax.

  87. This is in answer to Andrew. Isn't it funny that in the mid 70s Holdren claimed we were heading for an ice age, that the temperatures were going to be so low that millions of people will die. Then, in the 80s we had record highs. In my own state, we had record highs to nearly 130 degrees F. Now, our temperatures are coming back down. This variation has occured in a 30 to 40 year period and you claim that we can't depend on global warming to be over yet? Just when did the ice age from the 70s end?
    One other thing, Andrew, The ice in the Himalayas is not melting slower. It's increasing by about a foot per year and if you don't believe me perhaps, you could watch the BBC production called, "Earth" because they claim it right there in front of the whole world. You seem quite gullible and have absolutely no education in science. As far as the glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro, the ice isn't melting, it's evaporating. You see, that mountain is actually a volcano and the surface temperature is about 78 degrees C. That information was broadcast on PBS just a couple of years ago in a NOVA episode. Global warming my @$$. Why don't you people do some real research instead of believing the hype? You've done so much damage to the trust in legitimate science it will be more difficult from now on to teach "real facts". You ALL should be ashamed for spreading this gobbledygook and creating problems for honest science. It's as if it's a religion for you people, you worship a false God, the global warming god. What a joke.

  88. All of you closed minded AGW fanatics are constantly preaching that for the "long term" good we need to radically change virtually every aspect of our lives NOW, but none of you seems to have the ability to look objectively at the "long term" data. Everything is NOW NOW NOW!

    All of the AGW religious adherents say that they don't care about what will happen to humanity as a whole when we enact all of the fundamental changes necessary to protect "Gaia".

    One of the things I think all of the AGW fanatics need to consider is that once all of these sweeping socioeconomic changes begin to take effect, how will it affect them personally?

    Once the huge taxes are assessed, and the Cap and Trade bills become law, and all of the emissions laws make almost every automobile on the road today undriveable, and all of the oh so predictable chaos ensues, what are they going to do? Go about their daily lives as if nothing has changed, continue to work and play and have the free time to consider all of the big issues that affect their lives, issues like AGW, really is that what you think?

  89. AGW or GLOBULL WARMING or ah er CLIMAX HOPEY CHANGEY is TOTAL BUNK. THE BIGGEST HOAX FOISTED on humankind EVER!!! Just follow the$$$$$$$$$$$ This is junk science. Especially when you have some such as Al Gorleone(C & D student in SCIENCE @ Haaavaard) and his Gorons and osama bin laden in complete agreement that the west is at fault. Typical blame AMERICA 1st crowd. Old washed up hippies and there god gaia blathering that we have to save the earth. Mans impact on the planet is minimal at best. Climate has always been cyclical and always will be. Due to multiple factors, ie. sunspot activity, solar flares, volcanic eruptions, etc., etc. etc. I don't think that clear cutting the rain forest in S.A. in the Amazon helps much though, but this B.S. about this subject has got to go. The science is not a forgone conclusion PERIOD. Remember in the '70's when we we're told we were heading into an another ICE AGE BWHAHAHAHa Typical hysterical chiken little the sky is falling.

  90. b4itsover said on Pascal's wager:
    "This is the same old "If it can save just one child then it's worth doing" argument. So, let's force all of our children to constantly wear protective helmets so that in case one of them falls, they shall not die if their head was to strike the concrete just right. I mean if it can save one life then why not incur the cost now of people buying all these helmets, worse case kids hair gets mussed up a bit, best case, we save 1 life every 19 years".

    No, worst case a lot of kids die because their vision and hearing was limited by helmets which are no match for cars.

    This is in fact the case with the warmies, that their "cure" will kill real people in the near future while the "disease" they're "curing" is fictional.

    However, the die off will start in marginal countries such as in Africa again and the racist lefties tolerate millions dead there as the DDT/malaria fiasco they engineered demonstrates.

    • This is why you guys don't get taken seriously; the arguments that you're making and supporting are ridiculous!

      The report "Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City 1996-2005" ( http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/… shows that in 97% of bicycle fatalities (and 100% of child fatalities) the rider was not wearing a helmet. Where's the evidence that "kids die because their vision and hearing was limited by helmets" (after all, between 1996 to 2005, 0% of children wearing helmets died)?

      Yet, you expect to be taken seriously when you try to debate the reality of climate change.

      • Um, you may not get this because your bicycle helmet is too tight but I was referring to b4itsover's hypothetical situation where ALL children including pedestrians wear helmets all the time in case they fall. No one was talking about kids on bicycles wearing helmets.

        This is typical of lefties, reading without comprehension, then running off half-cocked to "refute" what wasn't said.

        Yet, you expect to be taken seriously when you try to debate the fiction of climate change.

        • My apologies, I was thrown off by your comment: "worst case a lot of kids die because their vision and hearing was limited by helmets". It seemed like you were saying that wearing a helmet would impair a child's “vision and hearing” resulting in “a lot of kids dying”. I guess you meant something else by that statement, although I must admit I don't what it is.

      • Not sure about bikes and helmets. But I am well aware of the utter travesty of Silent Spring and the resultant millions of deaths of human beings in the Third World because sometimes (SOMETIMES) DDT, which is relatively harmless when used as directed, was falsly accused of thinning bird eggshells, we had an EPA administrator named Rucklehouse who went on a political and ideological warpath, some robins were killed by misppliacation, and the baloney science made it illegal in most of the planet. I invite people to read up on this one.

        Seeing the always ugly collision of science and politics–particularaly Greenie science–is nastier than witnessing a trainwreck.

        …and about as deadly to actually experience for the world's most vulnerable.

        The Third World for its part has had more than enough of "back to nature" ethos for some time now. Like, say, several millennia. In some very dangerous and unhygenic ways to boot.

        • So Wakefield Tolbert, as a defender of the “world's most vulnerable”, you would embrace the following policy:

          The rich countries of the world embark on a rapid move away from fossil fuels which will remove our demand from the free market for carboniferous fuels and relieve the upward pressure on the cost of those fuels. This allows the developing nations to accelerate the growth of their economies, freeing billions of people from the bonds of poverty. This would no doubt have an economic impact on rich countries; but, even if the US per capita GDP were cut in half, it would still be greater than the current per capita GDP of Portugal's; it would be 50% greater than Russia, 75% greater than Mexico, 2 times the world GDP, 3 times China's GDP and 7 times the current per capita GDP of India.

          Surely the lives of billions of people would be worth the sacrifice?

          If you're going to present a holier-than-thou argument, you should be prepared to back it up.

          • Holier than Thou ? How about more HONEST than Thou? Or more practical?

            False dichotomies (which shall we be, the hammer or the anvil!!?!) don't impress me.

            But just in case your post is not 98% snark factor 10:

            I support the HONEST application of science. NOT faux moral/poseur positions from our prospective "global Governors" in places that range from IPCC-type outlets, to the UN itself, and similar plastic phony-bull from the EU, etc.

            Granted, stateside, the travesty of DDT was mostly our doing. In that case the others latched onto OUR poseur positioning.

            but, even if the US per capita GDP were cut in half, it would still be greater than the current per capita GDP of Portugal's

            ????

            There is no such thing as Cosmic Justice and other perennial Leftist fantasies that resurface when they come to power with yet another scheme to pull money from one pocket and place it in another under the assumption that wealth is less produced than being merely a static asset to shove around the board like some Vegas chips.

          • But the health of the rest of the world rests on the health of US doing what we do best in our highest modes of production and having the knowledge passed on to industry, not pols and fussy egalitarians worried about modes, means, and medians. I have a family to feed while watching my appraisal business crash due to government meddling in the markets. That's MY world at the moment. I was simply making the observation elsewhere about the Greens do-gooding and the practical meaning of that old catchphrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

            For me on the practical level, Portugal can wait. On the more theoretical level, I WILL say that they can make like Greece is desiring, and say to the EU's global governance to nick off.
            That will help more than we can. If we are to help, it will be to have a "fallback" position for alternative power. The kind involving the "N-Word" that is unspeakable in polite Green Netiquette.

          • I certainly have no problem allowing others to burn the carboniferous fuels, if that is the easiest path to wealth. But having us transplant our mode and then having them turn totally carboniferous, while agreeable to me, poses some grand problems for the Greens, who've framed this debate as some damned emergency in the demonization of carbon to the effect that even world population needs reduction to 1/6 current levels to save Gaia.

            So, I doubt that Carbon burning by the Third World (EVEN IF we've moved on to something else) is what the Greens really have in mind here. That sounds highly dubious. Even though they're the ones who came up with that kind of notion, and it is far from likely they'd abide by it when the smokestacks fill the skies and regulations that nip and tuck and fuss at the First World don't apply across the board, so to speak. Call me Mr. Skepty.

          • Or, perhaps you mean pull for a Global version of "spread the wealth" (just as likely)–and YET there are some dour things even stateside in those income averages. Averages being what they are, there can still be hell on earth for those of us, with, say, even an AMERICAN small business suffering under Cap-n-Tax schemes that elsewhere in the experience of others along with numerous studies are not working out all that well.

            http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.c

            http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-was-wonde

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12365559060906602

            I have no problem with moving to another energy source if that's where you're going with this. But even if Cap-n-Tax had a real future in providing and "incentive" for such, you can only do such if you have a fallback position to transition from fossil fuels to nuclear (the current OTHER N-word, it seems).

          • The Greens have no such desire. Nuclear is dead for now, and everyone damn well knows it. The Greens do not mean to use Cap-n-Trade for the purpose of incentives, but rather revenue generation as a means of transfer of power to local, state, municipal, and Federal government agencies, unions and government workers, along with international bodies that now have great interest in this sandbox when it comes to management of the same.

          • Lot's of theoretical fun, yeah. The international Jet-Set crowd always defends itself, true. Just ask Nancy Pelosi and requisition her travel vouchers. It's one hell of a show. And somehow no one raises eyebrows at the carbon belch of military transport for her darling grandkids.

            But for small businessmen like myself who don't have "pension plans" and other sumptuous goodies on the line, it is for naught. It's the ongoing screw, my friend.

            And lest you think that EVEN IF (far from likely, and I'd be better off pining for the Powerball Lotto) "Green Jobs" shall be salvation to replace the workings of the "old school" stuff from Days Carbonari?

            Think again: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchiv

          • I guess I hit a nerve!

          • Well, it's just my little corner of the Galaxy here, JIG. But it seems when it comes to the lobster and creamsauce doleouts, I guess my chip on the shoulder (if we call it that) is that there is no ****damned "bailout" for those of us who have to piddle with reams of paperwork and other actual things to do in real work and real job creation–the small businessman—are not elibible for the glop.

            Obama's economic czars in any case (yeah, we need more of those "czar" types, now don't we) have made it patently clear that small business is not the proximate cause of job creation some claim.

            Nay, they say, it's all about the unions and state and local employees gettin' the goodies, and even there they were already outearning the private sector by a wide margin.

            Government work is one hell of a boon once you slide into the door.

            I should have considered that.

            http://volokh.com/2009/12/11/average-federal-sale

            Working for a living is getting to be a damned drag right about now.

          • I hear ya. It's hard to think that, maybe for the first time in generations, our kids could be economically worse off than we are.

          • Yep. It's possible. Whether for the crushing taxes and liability to come, or just a lousy set economic. Or both.

            It does weigh the head heavy.
            :)

  91. I can remember an article in the Telegraph around 10years ago reporting something similar ; the imminent demise of the Himalayan glaciers. It looked immediately fishy to me then for reasons I won't bore you with. My point is this. If a worker drone like me who at the time believed in global warming could spot the gaping holes in this report within about 60 seconds why couldn't the Minds at the IPCC do the same.

  92. I used to get despondent watching the ice melt right before more eyes in my scotch on the rocks. I then made an adjustment, I drank it faster. After listening to the climate debate I have made another adjustment…..straight from the bottle.
    Since 1895 the warm vs cold hysteria debate is deadlocked 2-2. Is this best of 5 or best of 7?

  93. I know I'm a bit late to this party but feel compelled to weigh in on the small issue of the Himalayan glaciers and how their melting would mean those Asian rivers would dry up.

    Rubbish! Glaciers grow when annual snowfall exceeds seasonal melting; glaciers shrink when seasonal melting exceeds the snowfall.

    Think of the California's Sierra Nevada range . . . lots of snow . . . no glaciers . . . lots of water to feed rivers and fill reservoirs.

    In other words, global cooling could be a bigger risk . . . reduced snow melt would be that the glaciers grow and less water feeds the rivers.

    Anyway, that's what I think.

  94. Those who insist on continuing to defend the politically manufactured issue of "Global Warming," (climate change,) miss the greater point. That which serves as the basis for this pending holocaust is based on fraudulent, manipulated data and intentional deception. Save the planet if you must (or if you can) but for Pete's sake, stop defending what has been exposed as a hoax.

  95. Well in the USA, RFK Jr. told us just a few years ago, DC will never have snow by the end of 2010. AH Robert. 30 inches. Well, with all the fraud and the socialist agenda, for that is what all this global warming, climate baloney is about, perhaps a change in Congress and in many state legislatures, will finally stop the eniviro whack jobs from forcing us to not use America's huge domestic energy resources. We could drill for oil, gas, coal, build nuclear plants and help not only America out, but our allies. No more blackmail from the ME or Chavez. Time to stop listening to these socialist pacifists and go forward as a clean, yes, clean energy useage for oil, gas, nuclear, coal useage. It can be done and one more thing. No modern military will ever, ever run on Green power. None.

  96. Wikipedia is a primary player in the ClimateGate scam, led by William Connoley, cofounder of Mikey Mann's RealClimate.org:

    One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team "U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley" would take on particularly crucial duties.

    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known " Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003 … he rewrote Wikipedia?s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world?s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn?t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it " more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred " over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions…

    The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomm

    AGW is a massive international scam designed to enrich AlGore and other corrupt politicians and their cronies.

  97. There is no human being on this earth that knows whether climate change is even a small problem. We are absolutely positive that we have been lied to, or have been the victims of vast incompetences. People, who were paid handsomely for a long time, to prevent this disaster, must be held to account. The US EPA has sought, and been given authority to severely regulate every aspect of our society, based on falsehoods, which they, NASA, and our NSF partially funded, and over viewed. Before CO2 curtailment moves forward, credibly must be restored, and that will require a thorough house cleaning, from Al Gore down to the office boy. The US must reform its scientific organizations. Currently we have Democratic science and Republican science, which by definition, is fraudulently absurd.

  98. A few centuries ago, scientists observing the sun concluded that the sun orbited the earth. Why, because they could think of no other way the sun could rise in the east and set in the west. Fast forward to the eighties. Scientists observing both atmospheric temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations concluded that CO2 must have been causing the earth's atmosphere to warm. Why, because they could not think of any other way that the temperature could rise as it did from 1980 to 1998.

    They concluded that the rate of change was abnormal and therefore it had to be due to man's activities. The problem is, they ignored similar periods of time in the past where there were abrupt changes in temperature, both up and down. They say it either did not happen or could not happen naturally.

    And now for 30 years we have been subjected to a constant bombardment of doomsday prophecies and proclamations of the highest temperature ever recorded, the fastest rate of melting ever recorded and on and on. They deny or ignore the magnitude of the impact of the sun, oceans and clouds on climate. They dismiss water vapor as a ‘greenhouse' gas and try to tell us that CO2 is the predominate ‘greenhouse' gas.

    What they cannot deny is that climate change is natural. That we have, at best, just a few decades, of actual world wide temperature measurements, that temperatures in the past, at times, were far warmer (and colder) than today and that CO2 concentrations have been far higher in the past than today, sometimes coinciding with warm periods and other times with cold periods. Finally, they refuse to admit that overall, both plants and animals, including man, fare far better with a warmer climate with higher CO2 levels than a colder one.

  99. Does this mean I should dump my EU carbon credits come monday? I think I should get out before it all comes down and I can still make some money.

    Thanks for the ride fools, until the next apocolapse scenario we can sell to the willing, I will sit back with my pals and count our money from this one.

  100. Global Warming is being implemented in my rural California county already…Our new General Plan is full of fees, fines and mandates that uphold the fraudulent science! Our Supervisors are deaf to listening to the possibility of having to redress the General Plan's basic premises…
    If a private sector 'think tank' would have come up with such an obviously diabolically bogus plan, those in charge would become international criminals.
    Can our local governments just impose those mandates onto its citizens even if there is no basis in fact?

  101. This message is for both the proponents and opponents of AGW and global-warming.

    Science is always too small a story and can never answer the bigger questions of life. When you put your trust in something that is not big enough to answer those questions, it will fail you. Some call these idols — as it says in Psalm 16: "The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods…" When you idolize science, as some of AGW proponents and opponents have, and place your ultimate trust in its "settled conclusions" or lack thereof, it will let you down every time. Look to the Creator, place your trust in Him, and He will help re-order your priorities. Worship Him alone and you will not need to worship science. Then you will be freed to see science in its proper role — as a window from which to wonder at the beauty and complexity of the Creator.

  102. I don't believe anything these dopes say now.

  103. Is Exxon-Mobil paying you well, Steyn?

    • Time to stop flogging this poor dead horse. It ain't going anywhere.

      From 1989-2007 US Government budgets include a total of
      $30 billion for pure scientific climate research (over 20 yrs)
      vs Exxon: $23 million, at last count
      http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

      Um. That's over a 1000 to 1. Yeah, I know it's shocking. Read the whole Skeptic's Handbook if you go to the site above. You'll learn a lot.

      When you add on the fact that Exon has figured out how to make money from the greenie scam and is now spending money on their side of the debate as well…

    • Time to stop flogging this poor dead horse. It ain't going anywhere.

      From 1989-2007 US Government budgets include a total of
      $30 billion for pure scientific climate research (over 20 yrs)
      vs Exxon: $23 million, at last count
      http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

      Um. That's over a 1000 to 1. Yeah, I know it's shocking. Read the whole Skeptic's Handbook if you go to the site above. You'll learn a lot.

      When you add on the fact that Exon has figured out how to make money from the greenie scam and is now spending money on their side of the debate as well…

      • Exxon-Mobil is determined to kill any legislation to reduce carbon emissions. Period. Their generous donations to groups like American Enterprise, Heritage Foundations, and countless other "non-partisan think tanks,"which are the only groups who will publish the work of these hacks, make that pretty clear. Two years ago, they offered $ 1 million dollars to anyone who could counter the findings of the IPCC. Do you really think EM can profit more easily from green technology, which would require massive new investments and restructuring of their operations, than they can from continuing the status quo as the largest oil company and most profitable corporation in the world? Seriously? And do you really think universities and the IPCC are where the money is? Scientists can far more profitably shill for big business than work for universities or government agencies. Show me a sceptic who doesn't have ties to the oil industry, and has had is work published in a scientific journal, then we'll talk.

        • If I was Exxon-Mobil I would spend lots of money to kill legislation regarding carbon emissions too, because anthropogenic CO2 is harmless and has nothing to do with climate change. I'm not saying EM is a great company by any means, but they've picked the right side in this argument. If someone was using fraudulent data and scaremongering to undermine my core business I would do the same thing. There are literally hundreds of skeptical scientists, many of them climatologists, who have never bought into the CO2=armageddon BS. If you ever took the time to even considering visiting some of the skeptical websites, rather than pulling the "la-la-la- I can't hear you" routine that Steyn mentioned, you would know this. I used to believe it all too, but having AN OPEN MIND and coming to the not-so-revolutionary conclusion that most governments don't have the best interests of the average citizen in mind, I did some research. Check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for a good start.

          • Don't flatter yourself, JimD. You're not as OPEN MINDED as you portray yourself. You wear your standard, boilerplate, right wing prejudices on your sleeve: government = evil, free enterprise = good. I can bet that if it was a large corporation arguing AGW was a serious problem, and government arguing the opposite, you would have a very different take on the matter.

            If you choose to believe a few industry-funded sceptics instead of the world's scientific community, and if you believe everything you read on the Internet (the refuge of wack jobs who argue things like that Obama was born in Kenya, and who can't get their work published in any reputable scientific journal), I suppose that is your right. It doesn't make you open minded, though, just foolish.

          • Apparently you missed the part where I said "I'm not saying EM is a great company by any means,"

            FWIW, I have little faith in governments or corporations. The majority of both are corrupt and run sociopaths, and are extremely top-heavy, reactive, and out of touch. I have even less faith in the mainstream media that jumps from one bandwagon to another. I do have a very good grasp of physics, and have taken university courses in hydrology, meteorology and systems modeling. That experience tells me that models are inherently faulty, especially when they are being used for something as astronomically complex as a planet's climate. They are predicated on many unreasonable assumptions, and can easily be manipulated to produce whatever outcome is desired. The AGW argument is BASED ENTIRELY ON MODELS, and the reliability of those models over the short time they have been tested against real-world outcomes is equivalent to a roll of the dice. Models are only used to predict the behaviour of a closed system, in which you can eliminate all, or at least the majority, of variables.

          • You never did address minaka's original point, which illustrated the fact that government funding of climate research and propaganada (the IPCC has shown itself to be nothing more than a propaganda machine) is magnitudes of order larger than that of EM (which ironcially was named "Green Company of the Year" by Forbes in 2009). If you were a grant-seeking climatologist, to which side would you ally yourself?

          • Peekaboo, Itchyboo

            So Big Oil funding screws the pooch and messes thing up, eh??

            Some of the funders for CRU

            British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
            Central Electricity Generating Board
            Eastern Electricity
            KFA Germany (Nuclear)
            Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
            National Power
            Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
            Shell (Oil, LNG)
            Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
            UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)

      • minaka, the interesting thing about the $30 billion spent by the US government from 1989 to 2007 is that the first 4 years were under G.W.H Bush and the last 6 were under G.W. Bush. "W" didn't publically accept the facts of climate change until sometime in 2006. The two Presidents Bush had control of that much money over that long a time and they could refute the reality!

    • Oh…and um…indeed it does seem that government and other expenditures on AGW propogation outpaces Exxon's donations to "Skeptics" by a factor of 1000-1.

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SohkUXlTJqI

      Let me guess, corporations that are not bedded down with government have no right to defend themselves when the attack mode of the same based on Carbon Demonization will place them as outcasts and pariahs and raise their costs for nothing??

      How MUCH MORE fraud must we endure before we get to say enough is enough?? Some of us work in small business and don't get the sumptious lobster festivals and handouts and jetsetting that government workers get. Dig? We actually have a dog in the fight along with Exxon and some others.

      And as to the "Birther" movement, that has no connection to CRU's hideous fraud, squelching of dissent, numbers-fudging, and dissing of the Skeptics.

      For Birtherism, you need to originally look at the remnants of the Hillary campaign where it started.

    • Don't be pathetic. If you have some facts put them out with references. Here's one; governments around the world have spent over $1Billion on climate studies that looked for human caused global warming. So far they haven't found anything that stands up to critical examination. It's over itchybo.

  104. These man made climate change "believers" are of the same mold as the Obama "believers". No evidence needed, simply believe and it's true.

    These same "believers" would have you and I pay for their scam and satisfy their greed.

  105. Just wondering how one can have a greehouse effect with a huge hole in the ceiling of the greenhouse (huge ozone layer hole above Antartica) seems to me with a hole that large any and all gases could easily escape – I know – common sense is not to popular with AGW scientists.

    • I'm not a warmist, so I don't want to rain on your parade, but there's a little thing called gravity that keeps us and the atmosphere from flying off into space.

  106. Why should I pay a CO2 tax, or anyone or country for that matter, when it has been established by the global earth warmers themselves that there is a huge hole in the atmospher above Antartica for which all man made CO2 can and does escape – simply a money grabbing scam through and through built on fear and lies.

  107. HITLER……FASCIST……RACIST, what every small minded person shouts when losing an argument. You're clearly a deep thinker Andre, so deep I bet, you have politically themed bumper stickers on your car with catchy slogans. Problem with people like you is, as soon as you get past that catchy slogan, you have nothing of substance to say, you can only resort to shouting – HITLER……FASCIST……RACIST. Stupid fkr.

  108. This matter should be looked at on two levels, first on a spiritual level the environmental thing is the closest thing to a religion many of these progressives have. A revelation like Climategate threatens their very belief system. They don't want to hear the polar bear population has increased. These are the people the true ring leaders of this hoax have been counting on to perpetuate this swindle on the planet.

  109. By their actions, you shall know them. All these AGW proponents went on a conference to Bali a few years back. Despite the fact that air travel uses more CO2, despite the fact that common sense would tell you that most of the supplies for this conference had to be imported, i.e., flown in and despite the fact that almost everyone had to fly in to attend. But they're special people. If it there truly a devastating event coming and people's lives were at risk — would these people (who can afford it) be making changes in their life styles. But no they can buy off reality, and it somehow would make a difference ("perhaps in their pockets?") and the rest of us are supposed to quit living our livestyles and use 2 pieces of toilet paper while they fly everywhere, etc.? Makes one wonder when the next shoe drops — after all everyone of us produces CO2 – when will they decide that our actual breathing is too much for the earth? These ideas can only be put on the rest of us by gun point. Not good times to be in.

  110. Biggest scam in the history of the world. We are mere ants on this planet, we cannot control the climate, such hubrus. Is the conclusion these "scientists" offer is that if there were no humans on the earth, the climate would not change? The earth would be static and nothing would change? Such BS!………..this is the socialists way to gain more control of people and the way they live……..long live liberty….say no to tyranny!

  111. .

    Global Warming is a fraud and crime against humanity. What we've heard so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

    For example, in 1990 they inexplicably decided to use data from only 1000 global thermometers instead of the data from the existing 6000 — and you guessed it — they removed data from Northern latitudes and mountain tops — the cooler ones. Viola — global warming. And it gets worse than that!

    You'd think the Global Warmers would be happy Doomsday has been called off !! What a bunch of Eco-Nazis.

  112. JohnR22 told Andrew (not Potter or Coyne): "For people like you, AGW is a religion; telling you that AGW is utter nonsense is like telling Osama that Allah doesn't really exist. The only difference is Osama wants to kill me; you haven't quite reached that stage yet".

    Not true. Greenies are perfectly willing to kill you for their Utopia. They don't admit it of course, maybe even to themselves. They just look the other way when their stupidity gets millions of people killed as predicted by those wiser e.g. snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam and letting communists do their worst including on the Killing Fields of Cambodia or outlawing perfectly safe DDT for years causing millions of unnecessary deaths in Africa of malaria, mostly children.

    Of course, these are just foreign poor people far away from greenies' white liberal haunts so one can wonder whether greenies are racists. I give them the benefit of a doubt here, because I'm pretty sure they're perfectly willing to let millions of whites die as well for one of their crack-brained schemes as long as the victims are conservative.

    • This type of post illustrates the difficulties that opponents to the theory of climate change face. They are unable to present any significant, logical arguments to refute the science; as a result, they're reduced to using slurs and smear campaigns to try to confuse the issue. How does a statement like “Greenies are perfectly willing to kill you for their Utopia” refute climate change? All it seems to show is an obtuse paranoia: grab your gun, the “greenies”, whoever they are, are out to get us!

      • ..and it's not a "whomever they are."

        Yes, Virginia, there REALLY are people who hate capitalism even long after Marx's grave should no longer be visited.

        • I don't doubt that there are people who oppose capitalism. My concern is the attempt to turn a scientific debate into an American-style, partisan issue. It's like the McCarthy Era all over again. “Look, that guy replaced his incandescent light bulbs! He's a traitor and wants to see the poor suffer!”

          It's ridiculous.

          • The Greens did that. The old style of taxation has no failed and led to bankruptcy and national ruin. More than one person has been glad to testify that what was Red is now Green, like a melon rind on the outside only.

            The EU says it best, so this is NOT just an "American" partisan issue.

            And what was that minister's little phrase that packed so much juice?

            Global Governance.

            That's the ridiculous moment. Not those concerned about yet again seeing a failed "progressive" move, this time international more than local–that hinges on more than a few muck-ups and questionable notes.

  113. It still awes me that so many true believers are so utterly ignorant of the developments around Climategate, unquestionably the greatest scam in human history. This was a very simple matter of two of the oldest motivators known to humanity: money and power. The working poor will be made to pay for the guilt inherent in the grotesque excesses of the mega-rich like Gore, and scientisst were onboarded by the very simple process of promises of sustained notoriety, fame, glory, cash, publication – long-term career relevance.

    Now the air is beingt let of the climate change balloon; every prediction Michael Crichton (who incidentally possessed an MD from Harvard and did his post-grad work at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, compared to Gore's BA in "Government") made has come glaringly, obviously true, but the real "denialists" – the green hive-mind zombies and the politicians who benefit from their credulity – are still cleaving to these tired old lies as if their lives depended on it. Well, we're sorry you're so deservedly embarassed, but it's time torovie you're really thinking adults moved by something more than irrational prejudices and admit how deeply wrong you all are. Time to, as we say on the Net, STFU.

    • I find it interesting how many opponents of climate change are such champions of the poor. According to the CIA Word Factbook, the average per capita GDP of the US is $46,400; that's more than 4 times the world average, and a whopping 15 times that of India. I sure that, to help raise the standard of living of the “working poor” of the world, you support free trade to allow Mexico, China, India and many other poor countries unfettered access to the markets of rich western countries such as the US.

      • We won't be helping them by limiting their freedoms and latching onto the same glop that failied us up to 1989 as now going global with "global governance."

        They desire production. Not words and promises. You cannot conserve and redistribute your way to wealth any more than you can become Gordon Geko by putting a dime a month under the pillow at night.

        You have to outearn the problem. And large scale industrialization, ergo jobs, is where the compass needs to point.

        Greens hate nuclear, so their fallback position at the moment is mostly those sources like wind and chicken poop that have very limited applications and suffer from bad cases of NIMBY. Over on Slate, writers are fist-pumping the extinction of nuclear as the dawn of "rationality." And the scare-stories abound to this day even though far more human death has occured in standard energy production.

        I'm sure.

        Green is a scam, providing solutions to problems that don't actually exist–like all other Leftist promotions–coupled with answers that have no wordly application. The warm feeling of church. Only, the secular church has no heaven.

        And poverty.

        • "Greens hate nuclear with a passion" – I support nuclear power (and have said so several times on the thread). Does that make me "Green" or not?

  114. The anthropogenic global warming scam is at root a simple analysis. It is a religion for the supernaturally challenged. One has to do something with the universal experience of guilt.

  115. I'm proud to say I never fell for the AGW scam, not for a second. And I've been around long enough to remember the Earth Summit in Rio, which led to the Kyoto Conference, and so on, and so on up until the Copenhagen Conference. This entire episode, from its beginnings in 1992, was based on a lie — one of the Biggest Lies ever told, with potentially trillions of dollars in loot for the perpetrators.

  116. Although not at current levels, we've been using oil for more than 100 years and coal for over 200 years.

    According to NASA, over the past 400,000 years CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 285 ppm; we are now at over 350 ppm; it's not unreasonable to believe that we have, and continue to contribute to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • I appreciate the math but unfortunately you've carpet-bombed a portion of the issue that was not in large doubt. The question is whether what is still an overall minute part of the atmosphere as turned carboniferous by human action is the proximate reason for global warming.

    • The overall line on this is ideological in nature and as you might have seen in the CRU fraudery and now glacier gate and the lobster gobblers partaking of local blue eyed cuties at Copenhagen, and now we see relying on much input from high schoolers and pop-mags, is very much in doubt. I could mention also that most of the proximate rise in global temps was before major industrialization had gone into the highest gear, and that now we're in cooling mode, but I'm imagining that when it comes to the relatively new moniker of "Climate Change", anything within certain parameters will be, as the old line Marxists used to say "Exactly as predicted. WOW!" And so that argument will go in regards to the new methodology for controlling the human populace's habits. IE–bitter cold on some days in Canada means that AGW is right on schedule. Hot days in Atlanta mean hell on earth for the "Denialist" crowd, no doubt._

  117. 2009 was the second hottest year on record globally, second only to 2005. The polar ice cap is vanishing at a rate far faster than the worst IPCC predictions. Agriculture is suffering due to changes in climatological patterns, seen most profoundly at first in grain farming in Australia, precisely where predicted. 2009 saw the driest spring that Canadian agriculture has seen in the 70 years we've kept records of:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/canadas-p

    Low lying island nations such as Tuvalu are already being forced to begin relocating due to rising sea levels. An overwhelming majority of scientists globally concur on the basic facts. The so-called 'climategate' is climate change denial's last gasp. Hackers stole ten years worth of emails, and they were scoured for anything that might appear damning, finding only two that have been endlessly paraphrased since. The term 'trick' is commonly used in science journals as an accepted clever methodology rather than an intent to deceive, and the study mentioned in the email that includes the word 'trick' plays no part in official IPCC findings. The 'can't explain the decline' email refers to a study of tree ring formation, and rather than being a secret, the scientist who wrote the email also wrote a public article about his inability to explain his findings. Clearly we don't know everything we might about tree ring formation, but AGW is happening. The science is unassailable, so now taking a couple of private emails out of context is the worst that denialism has left in its arsenal.

    And thank fate for that, because the longer we linger in the first of five stages of grief, the deeper the knife will cut when we realize we have no other choice. Even if climate change were not real (it is) and we didn't have anything to do with it (we do), the shift to more sustainable methodologies would be infinitely valuable in human health improvements and long term resource availability.

    • Well put Michael.

      It's interesting that Steyn clings to his "no global warming since 1997" mantra even though a January 23, 2010 NASA report (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction… finds that “January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record” and that “global warming is continuing unabated.”

      • I think you mean January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade of the last three for which we have comprehensive global data. It also hinges on the unjustified downward "correction" of temperatures from the first few decades of the 20th century, the elimination of data collection at high latitudes and elevations, and propensity of urban temperature records.

        • No, I believe I quoted the NASA article (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction… correctly. It does mention that "throughout the last three decades, the GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies] surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.4°F) per decade." And also, "Since 1880 — the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely — a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s."

          • Can't refute the message, so you have to attack the messenger.

    • "The science is unassailable"

      Michael, would that be the "science" (since refuted) that told us Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035? Or was it the "science" (since refuted) that told us 40% of the Amazon rainforest was in danger of disappearing? Or was it the science (since refuted) that told us 55% of Holland's land area was below sea level? Or maybe it was the science (since refuted) that said climate change produced a statistically significant increase in property losses resulting from natural disasters?

      This is as assailable as so-called "science" can be. But I don't expect someone like yourself, whose mind is obviously already made up, to even acknowledge my arguments, because that's what your side does. You ramp up the name-calling, keep your eyes and ears closed, and delude yourself into thinking we "deniers" will go away. I'm here to tell you that we won't, because in actuality the science is on OUR SIDE.

    • Yeah– I've heard that one before somewhere as well on Tuvalu.

      Granted, they get much press these days, but there are other reasons why the measuring devices are not reliable, such as land deformation due to construction. It seems however that the thiny atoll is not going anywhere, even if the people think they need to flee after chopping down trees and changing the land hydrology of some parts of the island and now have a voice in the IPCC's continuing parade of fraud of the public mind's eye. Which as Steyn noted elsewhere so there's no need of a rehash–covers the rest.

      http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_

    • Every thing you said is not true. Hottest years? What year did you start at? Polar ice caps (both of them) are growing and have been for three years. Australia had its largest grain harvest in 2008. Driest spring in Canada in 70 years? That takes you back to 1940. Don't go into the 1930s' Michael you will really find out about hot years and drought. Tuvalu, sorry rising sea levels aren't the problem. Look it up.

  118. Global warming is nothing but a monetary grab for governments and such people as Al Gore and David Suzuki. I just don't understand why some people follow these types. Maybe they just haven't learned how to think and research the facts for themselves.

  119. Och, the puir wee Steynettes have worked themselves into a lather, haven' they?

  120. Sort of a Cosmic Justice where the "sides" are to be equal. If not morally, at least "counterblanced" of one to the other.

    Agreed. That seems to be the tactic. Settling of scores and chips on the shoulder. Soviets as the Counterbalance of evil capitalism as manifested in supposed imperial US ambition. Failing that, now we have the Counterbalance of Mother Gaia against the Greed and Carbon Lords of North America.

    Well placed.

  121. Hmmm…

    Mark this down as red-letter. I can't top what you've written, sir.

  122. ..but then, this post had the "demonic demotic" (as Jonathan Hari placed it) of another writer with similar inititials.

    Hmmm.

  123. I posted Michael's Unassailables over at a site that is frequented by real scientists of every mode and stripe, and made no hint of my own predilections, just to see how they'd assail the unassailable.

    Indeed it was an interesting encounter.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/another-eas

    And if it turns out that the IPCC and NASA's take on things regarding Climate and other noted high-jinx is no more dependable than asking my wife's hairdresser for how useful the info is, then YES, you can slam the messenger. It seems that things are not quite what we're led to believe.

    I'd post more on this, but this site is beginning to do too much click-banging with it's compatibility issues and "tab has been recovered" crap, and other annoyances. And, being slower than a turtle pulling a Sherman tank, with no directional links when I get notifications of others' missives, I give up posting any further. I've had it with Macleans until they beef up their servers or get a new format.

    Thanks for understanding.

  124. PS–I have posted some responses, thus for example on that darling little island paradise of Tuvalu., and the horsemess of it sinking into the crashing waves……

    It ain't, brother.

  125. http://volokh.com/2009/12/11/average-federal-sale

    Show me an arena that is widespread in the private sector where one can make 75K a year for putting pieces of paper in a mailbox. My nephew almost clears that much working for the Postal Service.

    Free medical and dental and overtime and vacation pay included. Oh yeah, and a pension plan. Sounds like a damned good gig to me. I on the other hand actually have to work for a living, Itchyman.

    Many public sector workers understandably think private work is for suckers. And who can blame them for this attitude? Small business is the ongoing screw. Where is our ****damned bailout, bruthu?

    (seeing that we create most of our jobs, but at the moment are trying merely to hold on to what we have while others are getting the cream sauce glopped on)

  126. The notion that all of us small businessmen sit around with martinis in hand like Gordon Geko on Wall Street and gobble down lobster with the mistress every night is balonious.

    Looking back on things when the pantry is rather thin and the mortgage payments are due and I'm wondering where retirement will come into play, I think the largess of the state–though you think it's measly–looks mighty good right about now.

    159K a year for opening and closing bus doors ain't a bad gig either, come to think of it.

    Working for a living is getting to be a damned drag right about now.

  127. Humans are tropical beings in any case, and for whatever problems are alleged (about 600 different issues are alleged from global warming per one web source who collects such) due to the putative .7 degree of warming over the last century, it seems the world would be a better off place with more carbon and more heat than without. In everything from disease management to agriculture, a warmer and more carboniferous world is a more productive one. Famine and disease are happening to Africa mostly because of frowsy African politics and a primitive medical and industrial infrastructure that allows such vectors to spread. Greenies worried about West Nile. Stop demonizing DDT. Warming would occur in other areas of the world as well, and yet the First World decided long ago it was not going to go the full monty on "back to nature." The Third World has had plenty of that, in some rather unhygenic ways, for some time now. They're getting tired of it. Disease is a medical management issue, not primarily a climatic one. And a warmer world would have the tradeoff of a world less plagued by the cold weather killers like the seasonal flu.

    http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/stroll-thro

  128. Humans are tropical beings in any case, and for whatever problems are alleged (about 600 different issues are alleged from global warming per one web source who collects such) due to the putative .7 degree of warming over the last century, it seems the world would be a better off place with more carbon and more heat than without. In everything from disease management to agriculture, a warmer and more carboniferous world is a more productive one. Famine and disease are happening to Africa mostly because of frowsy African politics and a primitive medical and industrial infrastructure that allows such vectors to spread. Greenies worried about West Nile. Stop demonizing DDT. Warming would occur in other areas of the world as well, and yet the First World decided long ago it was not going to go the full monty on "back to nature." The Third World has had plenty of that, in some rather unhygenic ways, for some time now. They're getting tired of it. Disease is a medical management issue, not primarily a climatic one. And a warmer world would have the tradeoff of a world less plagued by the cold weather killers like the seasonal flu.

    http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/stroll-thro

  129. Minneapolis is on the same planet, since that was your only funny goad here.

    Not bad for driving a bus, eh?

    Let me guess, the mean streets of the Big M are hard to navigate!?

    And putting pieces of paper into boxes just taxes the soul beyond the range of mere mortal men, eh?

  130. Course, you could have a very DENSE atmosphere that is "thicker" than the one we have currently, only you'd have to compress it. But if Venus' atmosphere is denser and about the same distance from ionesphere to surface as Earth's, then obviously you have more mass as well. With that size of an atmosphere by volume being such a long travel time to the surface, it's not just a matter of extreme compression. You have more STUFF to work with.

    • I repeat: greenhouses are not pressurized. Pressure is not a requirement for a greenhouse effect.

      Of course you need an “object” (i.e., a planet and an atmosphere) to be heated.

      • I see now where you were going.

        OK. Agreed on it's more the component affected and how it reacts, than pressue.

        OK.

        I should have used the term "MASS" to indicate the amount of material that is so much more than earth's comparitively thin atmosphere…

        Truly C02 traps heat, but then do does oxygen, so the issue is that it does this somewhat more efficiently, and water vapor due to H20's specific heat beats them both, etc. As do some other gases.

        I was merely pointing out that CO2 alone is not the core reason Venus is more of a hellhole than it's distance from the Sun would indicate.

        That's all.

  131. I have one problem with all of this warming debate; how on earth is it possible that the entire highly complex climate system on earth can be controlled and leveraged by a change of a few hundred parts per million of one molecule?

    It is absurd to say the least that such a phenomena is possible.

    Cheers,

    Bloefeld

  132. Sorry, notwithstanding the risk of provoking more troll vitriole … but I agree absolutely with Steyn and Laframboise. (by the way, I used to work with Paul Godwin – will have to ask him if he’s related …)

  133. "In other words, professor Hasnain has landed a cushy gig researching solutions to an entirely non-existent global crisis he accidentally invented over a 15-minute phone call 10 years earlier".

    God I love your wit.

    One world government. Demolish free market capitalism (to let the rest of the world catch up) because it is the destructor of all life on the planet (despite the fact that it created the greatest wealth, highest quality of life, longest life expectancy and in the history of the world and is constantly improving its environment) . Lower the population of the globe to a few hundred million, we're running out of resources (Paul Ehrlich). Live off renewables. Live with the land. Running out of oil.(club of rome) Population growing faster than growth in food production (malthus). Up to 2 billion dead by 2020 due to climate change (Obama science "czar" John Holdren).

    Sheeple. That's all. There's no other way to describe those who've bought into the "climate change" scam and stayed in the tank in the wake of the science having no credibility left.

  134. Between 700-1400 ad there was a warming trend that caused corn crops to fail for the native culture. In time this was replaced with a different weather pattern. Perhaps the sky is not really falling at all, Henny Penny. Perhaps we are observing natural climate patterns. We once had an ice age that changed the face of the earth. Once there was a sea in the desert. The earth constantly changes.

    We are balanced on a cooled crust of a ball of molten rock hurling through space held in place by invisible forces. Bottom line we are not in control.

  135. Have you ever heard of anyone in this world–able 2 change the climate??? It's a natural thing- looks after it'self– & no m atter what mankind does– mothing changes it!!!!

  136. A recent study by Dr. Susan Solomon, former co-chair of the IPCC's working group on Climate Change has made some startling conclusions. No one would ever confuse Dr. Solomon and her team as being in the "denier" camp, or in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. She concludes that the science on climate change is missing a critial element, namely the ability to measure the influence of waper vapour in the upper atmosphere. She has concluded that this one factor alone accounts for roughly 30% of the warming the planet experiences. She goes on to conclude that when a drying trend occured at the end of the 1990's, global warming stopped and we have seen no increase in temperatures since then. Given that I live in Ottawa, Canada and we haven't had a decent summer in about 5 years, I would say she's on the mark. Real science from the climate change people left the building about 10 years ago. In the absence of anything substantive, they just make it up and feed it to a fawning media who love to tell the public at large that the sky is indeed falling.

  137. Poor American minds. Why, look out the windows. Remember, we don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I think you forgot in your Fox-love crazyness

  138. Global warming such an amazing fact. There is no prediction that what will happen again.

    I strongly believe that "Changes are the constant thing in global warming".

  139. Climate change” is not a story of climate change, which has been a fact
    >of life throughout our planet's history. It is a far more contemporary
    >story about the corruption of science and “peer review” by hucksters,
    >opportunists and global-government control-freaks….

  140. Beautiful views. This is a very good article. I am very curious about the article with the title like this. I am very curious about other news about this. thank you for sharing this information.

  141. Perhaps we could ease the tensions around the AGW debate by setting up a database. AGW-skeptics could register their lineages with the database,

  142. Its very nice article.I really appreciate you.You done a great job.Thanks for sharing with us.Keep it up.Don't stop your bloging…
    corded phonesA

  143. la-la-la can't hear you" is all the IPCC has going for it now. Thank god..

  144. By Matt Butcher Nowadays, weather's predictions can't be trust. Because of the strange weather condition, maybe they got some affliction to make a prediction.

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