The Sound Of Settled Science

LOL, sweet.

PS... don't tell Al. (-:

Suprise, suprise, suprise, begs the question; did the "Goreites" make their "hockey stick" out of the first "12" trees? things that make you go Hmmm, 12 trees, 12 apostles, doom, da proof is da proof, this just gets more stupid as time goes on. "Goreites" will believe anything, even Millions and millions of degrees at the earths center. Fools!
Cheers Bubba

Does anyone know how to nominate someone for the Order of Canada ? Steve deserves one.

It would be sooooooo sweet to watch Steve get the medal.

And even sweeter to watch Dr. Fruit Fly and Tizzie May go ballistic on CBC.

McIntyre deserves the Order of Canada.

He isnt anti warming or pro warming. The title of his blog is the whole story, Climate AUDIT.

Like a compnay auditor, or his background in auditing core samples from mining companies, he just wants there to be good info, proper procedure etc. Only with good info can you make good decisions, or see if the decisions you made yielded the results intended.

If those additional treesconfirmed Briffa's analysis McIntyre would have published his results all the same. That the AGW crowd play fast and loose with procedures, hide data, etc only makes McIntyre look more closely, like a bank auditor would. He cares more about process than result, but bad process is usually an indicator that the result isnt what you say it is.

HE is a real treasure, and even if people dont like his results he is improving things by demanding better professional practices from those involved. Its a lonely position, but the AGW people would be better to embrace him and live up to his standards if they have any hope of making their case.

As I said, this guy deserves the Order of Canada, but coming to politically incorrect solutions isnt the way to get one.

If the GW debate were a trial, and the prosecution's (GW advocates) argument went up in smoke like Briffa's, the court would dismiss the case and award damages and court costs to the defense (GW sceptics).

But since this is all about politics, (see recent FP editorials and op-eds: Enviromentalism is the new Left) it'll never happen.

Stephen, I agree that McIntyre deserves the Order of Canada. He also deserves the Nobel Prize. They should rip it from Gore's slimy hands, disinfect it and give it to McIntyre.

I believe he is above most of the clowns that have received the order of Canada that is handed out like candy at a kids Halloween party.

McIntyre is about science while the majority of the AGW buffs are about politics and economic authoritarianism. That's what being thrown into stark relief here.

The main thing that Mcintryre and McItrick have done is prove beyond a doubt that the "peer-reviewed" science is really politically motivated junk science.
PEER REVIEW is supposed to be a careful objective, ARMS LENGTH, review----not just rubber stamping by associates = PAL REVIEW.
Meanwhile James Hansen of Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), a division of NASA is adjusting temperature records to produce the desired result for the warmists.
James Hansen, Micheal Mann and Briffa should be fired and indicted for fraud.

They are all beyond anything as pesky as truthfull details, Global warming is official in all levels of Govt,schools,museums,encyclopedias,childrens books,movies,TV shows...everywhere.

Even if you are on board with it all,if you are a thinker you must have to question its pervasivness in a only a few years,this kind of focused message doesnt come cheap.

Listen to me loud and clear lefties: You have been bamboozled.

Someone with a lot of behind the scenes power made it happen...Old commies? Big Business? Guesses anyone?

Of course any statistician worth his/her salt will tell you that a sample of 12 is statistically irrelevant.

Taking core samples from at least several hundred or a thousand trees would eliminate the 'outlier data' to statistical obscurity.

The standard deviation calculated over several hundred or thousand tree cores would eliminate the spike behaviour of the so called 'hockey stick' spike in the graph.

But then if you are trying to 'tailor the results to the theory' it's not real science. The idea is to test the falsifiability of the theory, not to fit the data to the theory.

There is science and then there is propaganda.

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

AGW bears all the hallmarks of the now thoroughly discredited Lysenko rejection of Mendelian genetics.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Australian firefighters, the new cheerleaders for global warming alarmism.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKC9GCP4BkyE

Australian firefighters, spurred on by what they say are record temperatures contributing to “catastrophic code red” fire-danger warning, urged lawmakers to pass climate change legislation under debate by Senators.

Politicians threatening to block or weaken the proposed carbon reduction scheme are putting lives and properties at risk, Peter Marshall, national secretary of the United Firefighters Union, said in a statement today. The body represents 13,500 professional firefighters.

O'green elucidation from Ireland: of green bidets, green bowel movements, & etc., and "Now disagreement can be dismissed as a form of insanity."

The writer has this to say: "You couldn’t get a dimmer view of humanity from a Calvinist preacher."

Let the re-write be: from a Muslim imam jihadi.

Warning: content may offend left-liberal eco-moonbats.
...-

"Mean and green: the eco campaign against everyday life

David Attenborough has joined the ranks of the bossy greens who want to save the planet – from humanity. Jason Walsh asks if the environmental movement is winning the battle but losing the war by making ever more extreme demands

Television naturalist David Attenborough recently signed-up to front a political cause. He’s not planning on replacing Declan Ganley, though. Instead, by becoming patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), Attenborough has put his sights squarely on the seething mass of humanity. The OPT opposes immigration, seeking a one-in, one-out policy it calls “balanced migration” and says “there is no unlimited right to have children.”

Attenborough is a popular figure, and rightly so: he educated and entertained us as children, sparking a sense of wonder at the natural world. He is not merely a television presenter, he is more like our collective uncle. Why, then, has he thrown his weight behind such an extreme position? The idea of an ‘optimum population’ is one very much supported by the far-right British National Party and when China introduced its one-child policy in 1979 it was widely criticised for its authoritarian nature.

Most of us celebrate the birth of a child as meaning hope for the future but some environmentalists see things rather differently. In 2007, writer Abby O’Reilly wrote a newspaper article that described babies as “screaming shit machines” and commented supportively on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a kind of Optimum Population Trust on steroids. (1) And birth control pills, though presumably not on viagra. You couldn’t get a dimmer view of humanity from a Calvinist preacher.

There is clearly a bad case of hyper-inflation working its way through green demands. Yesterday’s good coin is today’s pram-load of Weimar Republic banknotes – we have to do more and we have to have started yesterday. The One Hundred Months project now says we only have 85 months left to save the world. Even if it’s true – and it’s unlikely – do you realise whose fault it is? Yours. Yes, that’s right you. Of course, if the end really is that nigh, what’s the problem with having a few more kids? Amazingly, the University of West England’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies recently hosted a conference of so-called ‘eco-psychologists’ to explore the concept of climate change ‘denial’ as a pathology. Talk about getting personal? Now disagreement can be dismissed as a form of insanity.

The green movement can be summed-up as the logical conclusion of the old slogan, “the personal is political”. The difference is that when feminists first used that statement in the 1960s they were attacking hypocrisy and exploitation in interpersonal relations. Today it means that our private lives must be judged “ethical” in every detail – including our bowel movements. Writing recently in Britain’s Guardian newspaper Christian Wolmar, who calls himself “Britain’s leading transport commentator” (that’s a commentator on transport issues, not someone who talks loudly on the bus) demanded that toilet paper be done away with. During a trip to India Wolmar had a case of “Delhi belly” – I am not making this up – but managed to save the day with a, “spray attachment that allowed me to clean my anus”. (2) (3) Thanks Christian, we really needed to know that.

Before anyone mentions bidets it’s worth remembering, as Dublin city council told us on its submerged banner in the Liffey, “water is precious.” Precious, perhaps, but not yet scarce enough to stop flooding the council’s pointless propaganda campaigns. Bidets are hygienic devices but they never caught-on in Ireland and they’re not likely to now. After all, we are regularly told already use too much water. Apparently it’s not leaky pipes that are the problem, it’s people drinking and washing.

One environmental writer commenting on bidets wrote: “It’s difficult to understand why environmentalists are so willing to discuss their bathroom habits with perfect strangers.” Actually it’s easy to understand: once on-board, green concerns trump all other matters including freedom, privacy and, apparently manners."

http://forth.ie/index.php/content/article/mean_and_green/20091118/

I heard an interesting "green joke" the other day in the local coffee shop. We were talking aboiut electric cars. An old redneck asked, "What do you do when you have to drive past the full legnth of the extension cord??"

One tree ... thousands of trees ... the Earths' mantle is millions (or is that thousands?) of degrees -- what's the difference? It's the thought that counts!

And counts, and adds up quite handsomely for those on the inside track - assuming that you don't actually listen to the drivel that so-called modern "environmentalists" push.

After all consensus is science, and science is consensus. Society is evil, you're guilty, now stop asking questions and pay up already!

If you want to raise your blood pressure a little, take a look at the comments attached to that article; especially those written by Barrie Harrop.

What a pompous fool.

Here it is . . . Steve for OoC

http://gg.ca/pdf/Nomination_Candidature_OC_2009_06.pdf

Wonder how many applications could be submitted.

"If you want to raise your blood pressure a little, take a look at the comments attached to that article; especially those written by Barrie Harrop.

What a pompous fool."

Yeah I noticed them also. It was no surprise to find out later in the comments that he is in the "industry" himself.

oops... add this to my previous comment:

He's the executive director of Windesal Ltd.
http://www.windesal.com/

What is very disappointing in all this is that it took an 'amateur' to unearth and bring to light a lot of questionable data and pseudo-scientific practices of the 'professionals'. It makes me shudder to think where we'd be without people such as McIntyre and his tireless attention to detail that, as others have pointed out, is sorely lacking in the peer review process. Publications that are being used to influence government policy - and the global economy - should be held to the highest standards, and at a minimum to disclosure standards required of the securities trading industry.

McIntyre certainly deserves some official recognition for the great work he does, although any kind of award could brand him as a partisan, which I don't think he'd appreciate. What is truly warranted, and I think he'd agree, is for greater pressure to be applied to the scientific community and journals that would result in them to not only require but *enforce* rigorous publication standards that ensure openness, transparency and full disclosure. It is the lack of such standards and enforcement thereof that has allowed so much junk science to permeate and influence public policy.

McIntyre has stated repeatedly that a big issue is the lack of full disclosure and due diligence. He should be rewarded first by not just recognizing the problem, but fixing it. His efforts will be for naught if scientific standards are permitted to slide.

Letter just sent to Charles Adler & Roy Green:

"A Plea For Some Sanity on the Left Coast"

Dear Roy & Charles,

As you both know, the gentleman who hosts the morning show weekdays on CKNW is a journalist by the name of Bill Good . This morning I was absolutely dumfounded by what I heard on his program. He had on a fellow named Guy Dauncey [http://earthfuture.com]. Mr. Dauncey is a militant pro Man Made Climate Change advocate who is now advocating that any commercials questioning the THEORY be banned.

When a caller challenged Bill Good on why he didn't balance the segment out with a guest on the other side of the debate, Good openly admitted that he and his producers have decided that "the science is in and the debate is closed". He added that in a similar way he doesn't have guests on who assert that the Earth is flat or that smoking isn't unhealthy. When Dauncey said that Christopher Monckton was a "nut", Good seemed to concur with him.

I'm incredulous because this past year so much evidence has come out showing that the Earth's average temperature has gone down over the past 10 years and that CO2 increases are merely a fraction of what the Gore & Suzuki crowd said they would be. Yet Bill Good doesn't want to hear any of this and is quite deliberately, we learned today, keeping this information away from his many listeners.

As colleagues of his, is there any way you can - in a very friendly manner - open his mind up to some alternative views? It would provide him and Vancouverites in general a whole lot of enlightenment.

Sincerely,

Robert W.
Vancouver, BC

What's remarkable is how a sample of 12 was held out to be authoritative, by people who were supposed to...you know...know about basic statistics and stuff.

One thing that is "settled" beyond a doubt it seems, is that normal scientific rigour just doesn't exist with AGW.

It reminds me of a biased media not wanting to probe for answers they may not like.

"Sample of twelve you say? Sounds good to us. No need to further look at that issue!" Your "peers" hereby approve of its merit.

Robert W.
Vancouver, BC
Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) at November 19, 2009 1:15 PM

Robert, what time did that particular segment air. I'd like to listen to it, then write a sternly worded letter to CKNW. I recently stopped tuning into CKNW, largely due to their vanilla-bland daily shows. But, more specifically, I have long since been turned off of Bill Good due to his Kool Aid drinking on the climate change issue.

I recall a couple years ago a caller challenged him to bring on Tim Ball, an "authority on climate change." Bill then cut the caller off, and tersely spat out, "TIM BALL IS NOT AN AUTHORITY ON CLIMATE CHANGE."

To a certain extent, the Journal got it wrong. McIntyre is not an amateur; he is an expert in the field of statistics. Indeed the problem with the climatologists is that they appear to have relatively little expertise in statistics, which is a large part of the explanation why their work is so shoddy. McIntyre's credentials and depth of analysis is precisely why his criticisms have been so difficult for the culties to refute.

9-10 on CKNW.

Complaining to Bill Good is a waste of time . . . he's too stuck on stupid to know how stupid he is.

The irony of him giving air time to a non climate scientist AGW Believer and then claiming he won't give air time to a non climatologist AGW skeptic is lost on him.

And of course his favorite "Climate Scientist" is Dr. Andrew Weaver, is in fact an Oceanographer. So much for Good's hypocrisy about only letting "Climate Scientists" on his program.

Good is A Believer, drunk the AGW Kool-Aid and won't repent until he's up to his armpits in snowdrifts.

Global warming fear-mongers are a Cult - pure and simple. Treat them as such. The truth will prevail.

Der understatement from Der Spiegel: The AGW Mirror and mea culpa gulpa and the “stagnation”.

“Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal,” says Latif.

But, Goreacle says don’t worry, here is our AGW out-clause:

“Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend,”.

Wait! There’s more: “it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue.”

And: “This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.”

And: guess who is “gloating” all over the ‘net?
…-

“Stagnating Temperatures

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet’s temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

The problem is the AGW fanatics have adopted the theory as gospel and really, truly believe that catastrophic events will occur if we don't dramatically revamp our way of living and metaphorically go back to the stone age. This is why a recession is a good thing in their minds, because as economic output diminishes, so does so-called "pollution" (a quick test to see whether someone is even remotely reasonable on the issue is to ask whether they consider CO2 a pollutant or a Greenhouse Gas).

Take this article for example, by a far-left hippie out of Toronto: http://this.org/blog/2009/11/19/conservative-voters-climate-change/

"So now the tough one: what strategy should we use if we want to do a better job selling climate as a top issue to Conservative voters?"

The condescension would be humorous were it not so downright ignorant.

Almost makes you said that real environmentalism (air quality, waste disposal, etc) has more or less disappeared with the emergence of new-age (1990s-present) wave of climate change gospel activism.

For those of you that may have missed this at an earlier post maybe you'd like to add your comments:

CBC radio invites you to post a question in the comments section for Al Gore or David Suzuki. For some reason, mine didn't get added to the comments....

http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2009/11/ask_al_gore_and_david_suzuki.html#comments

Posted by: G's Friend at November 18, 2009 3:18 PM

Great article in the WSJ. I spent considerable time reading through the comments and found it quite intersesting, inteligent debate except for one pompous clown, with a AGW $$$ horse in the race, failing to reason. Good link Kate with h/t to Maz2.

http://www.climateaudit.org/data/salzer/Sheep_Mt.pdf

If one runs through all the graphs McIntyre has laboriously put together, you can see the statistical variation from 1500 through to the present is not particulary remarkable in strip or whole data sets.

There is no pronounced "hockey stick" at the near time data sets but rather a normal variability in year to year growth rings consistent with what one would expect over longer time periods. IE some years are colder, some years are hotter.

There is no 'trend line' that indicates forest growth rings are fattening with each passing year, which is what you would expect with increased CO2 levels and increasing temperatures.

The tree ring data sets, decidedly do not support the AGW theory.

Even if one conceded, a BIG IF, that CO2 is a problem, the solution would be to plant more trees that absorb CO2 to produce O2.

Such however is not the case as the data sets, falsify the AGW theory, in that no expected tree ring thickening is occuring beyond normal statistical variation.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Almost makes you said that real environmentalism (air quality, waste disposal, etc) has more or less disappeared with the emergence of new-age (1990s-present) wave of climate change gospel activism

By accident or design? maybe AGW is a strawman?

The Glengarrian, it took a day, but mine is up.

There are more against Gore/Jacuzi than fore. Any bets on which ones will make it to the floor ??

Robert W.: I heard the same segment and couldn't believe it. As with Colin from M., I finally reached my breaking point with Bully Bill and sent CKNW a little note:

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:59 AM
To: 'comments@cknw.com'
Cc: 'good@cknw.com'
Subject: signing off good

I have long held suspicions of Mr. Good's integrity as a journalist since on many subjects discussed on his show it seems readily apparent to me that I have more knowledge on the topic than he does. I could chalk that up to the amount and variety of publications that I read but it still made me wonder how the highest profile newsman in BC couldn't be as informed as a layman.

Then, on this morning's show it became so clear. During a discussion on climate change, Mr. Good's pro-manmade global warmist guest claimed that he would use government censors to shut down opposing viewpoints. Imagine that, rather than debate a subject or present your facts and supporting evidence, well - we'll just shut them up! Any reasonable journalist would have asked if it's really necessary to censor one side of the debate in order to validate your point of view, but that seemed to slip by the host. Probably because he isn't a journalist, he's merely a celebrity.

Good bye and Good riddance.

Barrie Harrop . . . . 'splains a lot

http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/user-profile/1248-barrie-harrop.html

Ron in Kelowna at 2:54

I've been blowing off steam at the CBC website for nearly a day now.
Somehow me thinks my comments won't be heard (or seen) for some reason.
Some koolaid drinking nutcase there wants to know when they are going to start colonizing the north as people flee the heat.

Colin et al, as Fred alluded to, it's in the 9-10am hour today. You can listen to it here, beginning at 7:45.

I only caught it in the 2nd half hour. I'm now listening to the opening rant from Bill Good. What an absolute hack! The only thing I'm wondering about is if his mind is closed shut because he's an ideologue or because he's an ignoramus.

Here is a fabulous Finnish documentry highlighting Steve McItyre's work.

http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

Now, listening to the entire disgraceful segment of Bill Good this morning, I had to post this. I wish that Tim Ball and Christopher Monckton and Ian Plimer would charge both Bill Good and Guy Dauncey with slander in a Canadian court.

Following Colin's suggestion, I just wrote the following e-mail to the management at CKNW:

To Whom It May Concern:

I was appalled by the complete lack of journalistic integrity that your host, Bill Good, exhibited this morning on his show concerning the issue of Climate Change. People are, of course, entitled to their opinions but to equate those who have serious questions about the Climate Change scaremongering going on with those "who believe the Earth is flat" and those "who believe that smoking isn't unhealthy" is truly beyond the pale. Furthermore I have little doubt that both Bill Good and his guest, Guy Dauncey slandered Tim Ball, Christopher Monckton, and Ian Plimer, accusing them of expressing the opinions they do because they're in the pay of "right wing think tanks" and "the oil industry".

What on earth has happened to your once fine radio station?!?

Please know that I have contacted multiple sources to get word to the 3 gentleman whose reputations have been slandered by your host and his guest, so that their lawyers may listen to the segment in question.

Deeply disappointed,

Robert W.
Vancouver, BC

Fred at November 19, 2009 10:57 AM ...

http://www.gg.ca/pdf/OCnomination2009.pdf

Why did Al Gore get a Nobel Peace prize? What did he do? Where does peace fit in on the GW front or anything else that can be attributed to anything he did?

Steve McIntyre shared in the same Nobel Peace prize, except for the money, as one of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC. He could put a peace prize bug on his website legitimately, if he wished.

More fraudulent scientists. Real disgraces. There is no obligation on McIntyre to provide an alternative to the Michael Mann et al. doctrine.
Indeed he very likely can't. Indeed, given the number of chaotic systems that run in climate, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that climate can be predicted.

My e-mail to CKNW. Others may feel free to copy, paste, or amend for their own use, if so desired.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Sirs,

I write today for two reasons. The first reason is to let you know that you have lost me as a listener -- I largely stopped listening to CKNW in September (excepting Chuck Adler and Roy Greene -- although their time slots are not conducive to me listening very often, or usually for very long periods of time). The second reason is to lodge a complaint, over an incident today, which exemplifies the reason for my departure from your once fine radio station.

1. Signing Off. Let me preface this by stating that I am 38 years of age, and have been actively listening to CKNW since approximately 1991, essentially during my post secondary education years (B.A. Hons., UBC, 1993). I cut my talk radio teeth on the likes of Rafe Mair, Phillip Till, and many other fine hosts, and became a loyal listener of your station. I am the kind of listener I would think a radio station would want to keep. Over the past couple of years, however, I have been listening less, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I found the flavour of the daily weekday shows to have turned into vanilla bland events, which I can specifically trace back to the sacking of Rafe Mare a few years back. I didn't always agree with Mr. Mair, but he was a fair-minded host who did not shy away from honest debate. However, currently I simply can not be engaged by either Bill Good, or Christy Clark for any length of time. I loved Adler in the afternoons, but he was inexplicably moved out of the afternoon slot after only a brief period.

The second reason for my departure ties specifically into your host, Bill Good.

2. Lack of integrity and hypocrisy. For the most part, I have found Bill Good to be a plain vanilla, inoffensive, and generally uninteresting program host. The exception to this is his coverage of the theory of man made global warming (hereafter referred to as AGW), which is biased, hypocritical and often beyond the pale. My first experience with this was perhaps two or three years ago, when a caller was talking to Mr. Good and, quite politely I might add, suggested that Bill might want to invite Tim Ball on his program to discuss the skeptics' view of AGW. Before the caller could finish his point, Mr. Good cut him off, and tersely spat out, "TIM BALL IS NOT A CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT!" Mr. Good's vitriolic response came out of left field and was completely unwarranted by the caller's tone or suggestion.

A similar event occurred today. I would not have heard it, but for its a mention on a prominent Canadian blog. I listened to the segment on your audio vault, and was dumbfounded by the bias and hypocrisy exhibited by Mr. Good. The hypocrisy was such that he maintains a standard for AGW skeptics he is prepared to have on his show that he does not maintain for AGW believers. Mr. Good stated, and I paraphrase, that he will only consider for his show AGW skeptics who are bona fide climatologists. Yet, his guest this morning, Guy Dauncey, himself is not a climatologist, but was provided the whole hour to present his case in support of AGW theory (one wonders if the irony is lost on Mr. Good). And, while not stated, Mr. Good implied that finding such an animal (both climatologist, and AGW skeptic) was nigh impossible. Indeed, a two minute Google search yielded the name Dr. John Christy, AGW skeptic, and holder of a PhD in atmospheric sciences (of which climatology is an aspect). In fact, there are hundreds of experts in the field who do not support the current alarmist view of AGW.

As for bias, Mr. Good has the right to maintain editorial content over his program. This I do not dispute. But to completely, and deliberately exclude the other side of the debate is beyond the pale. And, accepting a few calls, limited to a minute or two at most, from AGW skeptics is not providing acceptable balance. Furthermore, Mr. Good likened skepticism of AGW with believers of a flat Earth. How insulting. Insulting people like me, who are at least as informed as Mr. Good on the subject, is simply icing on the cake. Mr. Good could take some lessons from other radio hosts, for example, Roy Green and Chuck Adler, who are AGW skeptics. Neither shuns AGW believers, who are welcomed on their show. Sure, the guests may get a rough ride, but it's always respectful, and the audience can make up their own mind. Mr. Good, on the other hand, is content to simply shut out the other side, and dismiss them as "Flat Earthers." I personally find it offensive that Mr. Good takes it upon himself to (attempt to) make up my mind for me. Contrary to the alarmist dogma, the science is not settled. Shutting down debate has only shut me down as a listener, and I would hope, most other fair minded people would respond the same way.

So, today's foray into CKNW's audio vault has re-confirmed my decision to leave CKNW, made about two months ago. This is on the heals of my tuning out of Canadian television news media (CTV, CBC, et. al.) about 18 months ago. I now tune into your competition out of Bellingham, Washington (AM 790).

Signed,

A disappointed former listener,
Colin Gartner
Mission, BC

Absolutely brilliant, Colin! I have reposted your letter on my blog. I was not aware of AM 790 out of Bellingham. I'll see if I can get it on my home radios. Though the fact is that 99% of radio listening I already do through the Internet.

Hey, if you're ever in downtown Vancouver, let's meet up for a coffee. You can contact me directly through my blog.

Robert, I only recently discovered AM 790 out of Bellingham. I really wish I'd found it sooner. Rush in the morning. Beck and Hannity in the afternoon. Good stuff.

Next time I'm planning a trip downtown, It'd be my pleasure to hook up for a cup of coffee! :)

Cheers!

I would nominate Kate here at sda for any prize that has not been tarnished by former recipients (eg Gorebullcrapper, Mongrolantoller etc). I have watched as our magnificent hostess day by day tore down and ripped to shreds the lies and agendas of the climate alarmist bed-wetters. This was done systematically using the real scientific method with all the steps - I never saw a scientific fact based rebuttal by a bed-wetter or anyone else...I took this for a general supplication to a superior mind.

Ron in Kelowna - you gave the Conclusion from the unquestioned Conclusion reached here at sda :

'Global warming fear-mongers are a Cult - pure and simple. Treat them as such. The truth will prevail'.

Well done Kate and crew!

The moron that Good had one today was blathering on about who the Hockey Sticks were still valid . . . so why have they all been removed from the IPCC reports ?

You are wasting your time with Good/CKNW . . he/it are True Blue Believers, Global Warmongers of teh first order who enjoy using their radio license bully pulpit to push their agenda.

Send your letters to Good's advertisers and to:

CKNW Sales Manager, John Saboe.
Email: John.Saboe@Corusent.com
Phone: (604) 331-2705

FYI guys . . I'm a Yaletowner . . .

Oh you need to read this one!

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/