sda2.jpg

February 16, 2007

Y2Kyoto: Antarctic Fruit Flies Likely To Remain Extinct

If current trends continue...

A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.


Nearer the end of the article, the researcher explains that while incomplete data combined with poorly understood "competing effects" of circumpolar westerlies, ozone depetion and ocean mixing may negate the predictions of computer models for specific regions - that should not lead one to discount the ability of these same models to predict outcomes on the global scale.
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations,"


In the same way that accuracy on the gun range can be expected to improve as distance from the target increases, or that small errors in interest charged disappear when the sums they are applied to go over the million dollar mark.

Yowza.


Posted by Kate at February 16, 2007 1:41 AM
Comments

Another fruit fly in the Y2Kyoto ointment.

Posted by: Bernie at February 16, 2007 1:39 AM

I have developed a unified field theory....it explains everything. But it only works in my lab....just like those Cold Fusion guys.....

DO I have a nobel prize coming?

Creationists and flat earthers indeed....

Posted by: Stephen at February 16, 2007 5:57 AM

I have developed a unified field theory....it explains everything. But it only works in my lab....just like those Cold Fusion guys.....

DO I have a nobel prize coming?

Creationists and flat earthers indeed....

Posted by: Stephen at February 16, 2007 5:59 AM

More kool-aid VIA Associated Press... "last month hottest EVER!!"

Feb 15, 5:53 PM (ET)

By SETH BORENSTEIN


WASHINGTON (AP) - It may be cold comfort during a frigid February, but last month was by far the hottest January ever.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070215/D8NAE9404.html

Alan in Africa

Posted by: Alan in Africa at February 16, 2007 6:36 AM

"the hottest January ever". 'Ever' being the 127 years since 1880.

Posted by: Nemo2 at February 16, 2007 6:55 AM

"...that should not lead one to discount the ability of these same models to predict outcomes on the global scale."

aka Do not look at what I display, listen to what I say.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations,"

A determined zealot always has an explaination for the aberations. It's simply CYAAAAAFD. (Cover Your A** Against Any And All Future Data)

What ever happened to "I (we) simply don't know"?

Posted by: Yoop at February 16, 2007 7:17 AM

If the models aren't accurate in Antarctica, then why should we believe they're accurate anywhere else? Does Antarctica have different air?

What a wonderful lesson in the power of propaganda. The Greens have learned well the lessons of the Nazis, communists and religion. It doesn't matter how far fetched the story is, as long as you believe.

Posted by: Keith at February 16, 2007 7:17 AM

Indeed, no new piece of information ever contradicts the hypothesis. As far as they're concerned global warming is completely unfalsifiable.

This divergence from their models is not minor nitpicking. According to their theories and models the effect of increased CO2 should be felt most strongly in the cold, dry air of the Antarctic, and least in the warm, moist tropics.

Not to mention almost all of the ice that is supposed to raise sea levels is in Antarctica. Yet over fifty years we see no warming in the one place where the models say it should be most pronounced.

It is absolutely astounding how they continue to proclaim faith in these models in the absence of their ability to predict any significant climatic event.

There's recently been a very pronounced cooling in the oceans recently, too, that their models did not predict. But they claim we should pay no attention to that, either. They have even tried to claim that as another indication of global warming being worse than they thought with some rationalization of increasing ice melt cooling the oceans.

Rest assured that no new information, no matter how divergent from their models, will EVER diminish their faith in their models.

Posted by: Kevin Jaeger at February 16, 2007 7:46 AM

Kevin,

But wait there is an explaination...the other man made issue (which as an aside, was real) was the lack of Ozone at the Antarctic....so its still man made and still the Wests fault.

So the virgin must be thrown in the volcano, actually go that wrong, that would be sacrificing the innocent to appease the gods....burn the witch, thats it...sacrifice the sinner so that all others can live after the gods are appeased, thus spaketh the high priests....

Posted by: Stephen at February 16, 2007 8:07 AM

The hypothesis can not be contradicted, regardless of evidence. AND the proposed remedies will have no measurable benefit, but we must adopt them anyway regardless of their cost.

Sounds like the kind of program that we should all be eager to get behind...

Posted by: Halfwise at February 16, 2007 8:11 AM

I read an article in the latest Discover magazine regarding satellite investigations of the gravity differences on earth (GRACE?). It noted that the world is not a perfect sphere and sea level varies throughout the world due to the effect of gravity (high school science) and that the amount of the gravitational force in any given area also varies...but the astonishing part (for me anyway) was HOW MUCH the sea level varies...from -390m to +300m.

And the AGW scientists are measuring the increase in sea levels in millimeters. Amazing.

Posted by: Eeyore at February 16, 2007 8:29 AM

Stephane Dion,Jack Layton,and Al Gore,are all singing from the same page. They do need a theme song,to carry the message. Stephen Foster,was ahead of his time,when he composed"Oh Susanna",the lyrics
are perfect.

Posted by: tertius at February 16, 2007 8:35 AM

No wonder Dr. Fruit Fly is flying off the handle these days. He and his envirowenie cohorts have overplayed their hands - putting so much wrong information out there in an attempt to politicize the enviroment issue.

Their information is now easily refutable and more and more "true" enviroment scientists (as opposed to those who had Nature programs on CBC or ran failed presidential campaigns)are coming out with actual data (as opposed to showing icebergs breaking off the glaciers)to show that we have had the proverbial wool pulled over our eyes in this climate change, global warming, acid rain, global cooling..... issue.

Watch for more angry antics as this lobby group becomes more and more like PETA - something to be laughed at.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 16, 2007 8:36 AM

Wonder if they have they considered penguin flatulence ?

Posted by: Fred at February 16, 2007 8:40 AM

They have timed this to be a two year campaign leading into the US presidential campaign...There will be British elections, Canadian elections, US elections, French elections, Japanese elections and likely an Australian elections.

Get green initiatives going in those populations and it becomes unstoppable....this is the push, hence why there is NO DEBATE, all opponents are croneys, crazy or idiots.

This is a cordinated political campaign to push a point of view, make no mistake. Very smart, very slick, very powerful and very dangerous....partially because if they are wrong (my bet) then when it becomes clear the evidence doesnt support the conclusion where does the credibility of science go. The abuse of science cuts to a fundamental value that has propelled humanity to better itself.

I dont mean to become shrill but here is the problem, the way the case has been made they had better be right. Being incorrect does 2 things, runins economies and drives us back to junk science and superstition reigning supreme.

Once again, this is a co-ordinated campaign, it is pretty clear, which in and of itself isnt bad. But it isnt being seen or reported that way.

Resistance is required for 24 to 36 months more. The campaign as a full throated yell cannot be sustained.

Posted by: Stephen at February 16, 2007 8:48 AM

"But it isnt being seen or reported that way. "

The reason is isn't being reported that way is because the MSM is most of those countries are against the ruling government, therefore anything they can do to embarrass or denigrate the government is fair game.

Unfortunately, as the populations wake up to the fact they have been hoodwinked, the backlash against the enviro-weinies will be immense.

Like I said - they will become a group that has to dress like trees and stand on street corners throwing buckets of maple syrup on SUV's.

Can't wait.

Posted by: Albertagirl at February 16, 2007 8:58 AM

Accuracy improves as distance increases on the gun range? Small errors in interest charged disappear with sums over a million?Did this schmuck go to school?If I cant hit a deer at 50 feet then he says that I cant miss it at a mile?I will live oppulently on small errors in interest rates on amounts over a million.ITS BEEN DONE!

Posted by: spike 1 at February 16, 2007 9:03 AM

Well some "real scientists" have noted that the polar ice caps have shrunk on Mars, solar flares having an effect perhaps? I don't think it's the school bus in downtown Qualicum. What a time for enviro-weenies and that little weird beard fruitfly guy, this beats um lets see acid rain, global food shortage, the imminent ice age,I know lets have a conference and jet in from all over the globe burning tons of jet-b. this old earth has been around for a long time, wrecking the economies of the successful nations will not solve anything.

Posted by: bubba brown at February 16, 2007 9:16 AM

Spike - those were my (sarcastic) comments, not his. The portions of the article being quoted are indented.

Posted by: Kate at February 16, 2007 9:17 AM

This pseudo-science-speak is an example of the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with b*llsh*t." They use all sorts of abstruse vocabulary and circular verbiage to dance around the fact that the computer models do not match the reality.

An even bigger problem is the leftist MSM and politicians who, for reasons of agenda, refuse to call these scientific poseurs on their nonsense.

Posted by: Dave at February 16, 2007 9:30 AM

When I was in High School, I remember the big environmental issue being "The Hole in the Ozone Layer". This was the cataclysmic environmental problem that would give us all cancer & destroy the planet. Whatever happened to good old Ozone fear?

Posted by: Adune at February 16, 2007 9:51 AM

"HOW MUCH the sea level varies...from -390m to +300m."

Errr. 300 metres? That's kinda of a lot.

I could understand 300mm or perhaps 3 m, or even over a big ocean 30m on the outside, but 300m is a so much I have to think someone got their units wrong.

That being said, the problem with all existing climate models is they, so far as I know, can't even accurately predict the past without extensive and continuous tweaking. i.e. If you start a model in 1800 and go to 1900, or 1900 to 2000, two centuries were we have actual data from hither and yon, you don't end up more or less at the real number.

There's a technical term for a modeling exercise that can't model a known case... let's be polite and call it "Need to review our understanding"

Fred2

Posted by: Fred2 at February 16, 2007 9:58 AM

It's only a matter of time before David Suzuki, Stpahne Dion and Jack Layton dress in baby seal costumes and stage a "die-in" in front of the parliament in a limp-dicked attempt to shame the Harper government into signing on to Kyoto.

Either that or Suzuki will be charged with assult after punching a reporter who actually had the gonads to take him to task.

Nothing like witnessing a lefty in meltdown mode....."this isn't fair...you don't know what you speak about...."

heh.

Posted by: Eskimo at February 16, 2007 9:58 AM

Adune

That actually was backed by some science and that made it easier to ban CFC's. The CFC rate has fallen and despite the problems this year they announced that recovery of the hole has begun.

But governments agreed because of good science....the reason they dont agree right now is that ther isnt good science either way....it is all politics....we should all worry that if the believers ae wrong they will have trashed one of the pre eminent acheivements of humanity....the scientific method and action after analysis.....runin tat and we go back to alchemists and shaman

Posted by: Stephen at February 16, 2007 9:59 AM

Fred2: The Earth's polar radius is 6356752.3 meters, and its equatorial radius is 6378137 meters, a difference of over 21 kilometers. It is no surprise that local sea level varies about the mean sea level by +/- 300 meters.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at February 16, 2007 11:14 AM

The job of Real Scientists is to measure reality and to seek truth.

The job of "Official Scientists" is to support policy.

Posted by: ceart on cearr at February 16, 2007 11:17 AM

another OOPSIE for Dr. Fruit Fly

February 16, 2007
The "carbon sink" and global warming
James Lewis
According to this week's Science magazine, the ocean's ability to absorb carbon may be far greater than previously estimated. That means that atmospheric CO2 gets eliminated perhaps twice as much as global warming alarmists thought, before this news came out.

Why? Well, it turns out that there is a whole variety of tiny phytoplanktons --- single-celled plants --- that are called picoplanktons because they are so small. They were just shown to absorb and "sequester" huge amounts of carbon. Picoplanktons then sink to deep levels of the ocean, resulting in a "carbon sink." They take carbon out of the air, in their trillions.

That's a crucial component of any model of carbon flow on earth.

To understand greenhouse gases you need to know the amount of input, and the amount of output. But now the output is a lot bigger than current models estimated! So the atmosphere can absorb a lot more CO2 than previously thought and the oceans will remove it from the carbon cycle.

So you thought global warming was settled science? "Just basic physics," as a NASA True Believer recently said. Well, Mother Nature just drilled a hole in your "basic physics" test tube, and it's leaking carbon.

An old rule in science: Never, never make up your mind before the data are in.

Sources

RT Barber, "Picoplankton do some heavy lifting." Science, Vol. 315, Feb 9, 2007, pp. 777-778.


T.I. Richardson & G.A. Jackson, "Small phytoplankton and carbon export from the surface ocean."

James Lewis blogs at www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

Posted by: Fred at February 16, 2007 11:38 AM

Check out today`s editorial in the G&M...i can`t believe it, they are finally starting to shine some light on Dion`s stupidity. This is going to shock the hell out of their Liberal friends.

I wonder why they are not staying with the program?

Posted by: Al W at February 16, 2007 11:39 AM

Well Kate, you know you have to pay homage to the climate change hysteria gods or you lose your funding these days...or you're kicked off tenure.

This guy seems like a scientist who wnats to maintain his integrity by questioning incomplete data and extended climate modeling, but he also wants to keep his cozey tenure so he has to pay lip service to the climate change/SUV hysteria political powers taht be are currently running with.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 16, 2007 11:40 AM

Al W,

I read the intro paragraph, which looked surprisingly good. But the full article is behind a subscriber wall and I'd rather burn my money than give it to the Globe & Wail leftards.

Posted by: Dave at February 16, 2007 11:46 AM

Dave

I don`t know why, but it let me get by the subscriber wall, however this is a must read, i still can`t believe they cut Citoyen Dion off at the knees...this is the end of him and his cronies.

Posted by: Al W at February 16, 2007 12:05 PM

...speaking of fruit flies...wouldn't "dung beetles" be more aptly named for these jokers?

Posted by: tomax7 at February 16, 2007 1:50 PM

If you'd email me the text, I'd like to take a look at it.

Posted by: Kate at February 16, 2007 1:51 PM

Kate

I tried to get by the G&M subscriber wall again but now it won`t let me (needless to say i am not a subscriber) however i copied the editorital in guestion earlier...if you want i could fax it to you if you have a fax machine. You would have fun with this one!

Posted by: Al W at February 16, 2007 2:23 PM

Todays G&M editorial

Globe editorial

Behind the gloss of Liberal Kyoto virtue
From Friday's Globe and Mail

The opposition parties, led by the Liberals, have pushed legislation through the House of Commons to force the government to meet Canada's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions. No responsible government could come even close to reaching those targets without bankrupting the treasury. But in an effort to score political points, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has stubbornly plodded ahead, smearing the gloss of virtue on this economic and political folly.

Global warming is a reality. Canada has a moral obligation to curb its emissions. But instead of adopting smart policies, Mr. Dion has embraced a deeply flawed treaty -- when it is no longer clear that it is in Canada's best interests to remain a party to that pact. No doubt, the Liberals are congratulating themselves on their political savvy, convinced that they have painted Prime Minister Stephen Harper into a corner by depicting him as an anti-global-warming crank.

But it is the Liberals who are in a fix, cornered by their own doctrinaire allegiance to the pledge to slash greenhouse-gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the period from 2008 to 2012. Meanwhile, Mr. Harper has cannily adopted a green approach to governing. While he has not pledged to meet the Kyoto targets, next month's budget will reportedly make substantial investments in an emission-reduction plan. The Prime Minister is recasting himself as a green politician who still cares about economic growth.

In contrast, the Liberals will be left to explain their rash scheme if, as expected, this bill passes the Liberal-dominated Senate and receives royal assent. The legislation leaves no room to manoeuvre. Within 60 days after it comes into force, and every year thereafter to 2013, the government must table a highly specific plan to meet the Kyoto targets. To limit flexibility even further, within 120 days after the act comes into force, Environment Minister John Baird must stipulate the targets that he expects to meet for each year up to 2012. Even if the Conservatives try to ignore the law, most legal experts agree that activists could ask the courts to order compliance. And the government would have to obey.

It's the impossible nightmare. Last May, after years of Liberal inaction, the Conservative government conceded that the level of emissions in 2004 was 34.6 per cent above Canada's Kyoto target of an average of 563 million tonnes annually between 2008 and 2012. Canada's emissions have since sailed even higher, probably reaching 780 million tonnes a year.

Suppose Alberta eliminated all tar-sands development. That's a saving of 30 million tonnes a year. Suppose Ontario shut down all of its coal-fired power plants. That's 24 million tonnes. To cover the shortfall, Canada would have to go abroad to buy emission credits or sponsor carbon-reduction initiatives in other countries. Most experts put the price tag for that splurge at a minimum of $10-billion. It could go far higher as the market gets tighter, squeezing federal funds for everything from health care to retraining programs.

Worse, countries that meet those targets can carry their surplus credits past 2012. Any country that fails to meet its targets must carry a deficit multiplied by 1.3 on its post-Kyoto balance sheet. If Canada does not meet its targets, if it does not buy credits from other nations after 2012, Canadian exports could face sanctions under global trade rules from countries that have met their targets. And the 27 nations of the European Union are already collectively 14 per cent below their quota.

Mr. Dion has made a grave miscalculation. Both his party and the country could pay dearly for this mistake.

Posted by: Hlyrad at February 16, 2007 3:01 PM

That's quite an astonishing editorial. It admits the truth about Kyoto - that Kyoto is a 'deeply flawed treaty'; that it may not be in Canada's best interests to remain 'a party to that pact'. And, blaming the Liberals for their years of inaction. And, blaming the Liberals and Dion, for their current bill.
And - outlining the economic disaster that would result - both in shutting down our economy and in sending billions of money overseas and thus cutting out our own social programs.

By the way, the reference to the EU is interesting, for the EU planned its Kyoto obligations such that it knew it would meet them, because it had already long planned to shut down the polluting/emitting old communist era coal plants of Eastern Europe. The Western part of the EU didn't have to change a thing about its industrial economy.

Excellent editorial. About time. Why didn't they do it a week ago?

Posted by: ET at February 16, 2007 3:42 PM

I think that soon the Igghead will be reading the bedtime story.

...then BAM!..the Dion...good night.

Posted by: clair voyant at February 16, 2007 5:51 PM

As I said last night, Dion has the canon pointed in the wrong direction. Is he ordering his legislation from ACME now? Meep meep, M. Citoyen. Ready, fire, aim!

"This is unfair!".

"Do you know how hard it is to point the canon in the right direction?"

Posted by: shaken at February 16, 2007 6:00 PM

someone mark this in their daytimer. hold the "scientists" to their timetable.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/science-glacier.html

Posted by: cal2 at February 16, 2007 6:18 PM

I'm curious, what do folks here think of PM Harper's stance on the whole climate change issue? He appears to agree with the IPCC message that global warming is a "serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians." He also appears to agree that industrial greenhouse gases must be capped and reduced, and that such regulations must be mandatory rather than voluntary. He also appears to agree that fuel efficiency regulations should be imposed within the auto sector.

In other words, on the matter of the climate change science, he appears to be in agreement with Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton, Mr. Suzuki, Mr. Gore, the IPCC, and the "enviro-weenies." The only thing he appears to disagree on is the issue of timeframes, of when all these new mandatory regulations ought to be imposed by.

Posted by: A at February 16, 2007 6:21 PM

A, despite the fact that you are attempting to denigrate, I'll respond anyway. If the world believes that the Sun rotates around the Earth, no politician is going to disagree...Harper included. It's all a matter of degree as to his beliefs, in my opinion.

To an extent, I believe he is taking a cue from Shakespeare and Marc Anthony..."I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him".

Although we ALL acknowledge that there is or has been global warming and that this will affect everyone, we (and I believe PMSH) disagree as to the cause. As for the timelines, I suspect he will drag the timelines out such that AGW will be disproved before any real damage is done.

His stance on clean air and pollution was taken before his apparent support of the Climate Change folks...he was proposing targets on the auto industry before his apparent "conversion".

He is also proposing a cap and trade within Canada, not internationally, as I understand it.

These are big differences.

Posted by: Eeyore at February 16, 2007 7:29 PM

Oh and by the way, my earlier posting about the variation in sea level WAS incorrect...the variation is 390 FEET below to 300 FEET about the average level...NOT meters. Sorry.

Still, a huge variation.

Posted by: Eeyore at February 16, 2007 7:30 PM

I wonder if Harper is playing chess again.
The MSM were in love with Kyoto and Harper was against it, so they had a stick to beat him with.
Now if he professes to be the number one Kyoto fan, suddenly the MSM loses their stick to beat him with.
Do they love Kyoto more than they hate Harper?
Maybe they start actually looking at Kyoto with a sceptical eye. Anything to disagree with Harper and oppose him and his government looks good to them.
I mean if they have actually looked at Kyoto, they should be well aware that it is bullshit.
I like the idea of Harper playing them for the fools they are.

Posted by: Stan at February 16, 2007 8:29 PM

LETS ME IN THERE I,LL EATS ALL THOSE FRUIT FLIES SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

Posted by: spurwing plover at February 16, 2007 11:41 PM

If the world believes that the Sun rotates around the Earth, no politician is going to disagree...Harper included. It's all a matter of degree as to his beliefs, in my opinion...Although we ALL acknowledge that there is or has been global warming and that this will affect everyone, we (and I believe PMSH) disagree as to the cause.

Interesting. And what of all the earlier talk about PM Harper being a man of principle, someone who places his beliefs above all else, who pays no heed to opinion polls, who -- unlike those degenerate Liberals, who care only about remaining in power -- refuses to flip-flop on important issues no matter the shift in political winds?

Personally, I agree with you that this recent Conservative policy shift is mere politically motivated posturing. Which is perfectly fine -- PM Harper is a politician, after all, and a pretty shrewd one at that. But surely it negates all that earlier stuff, no? Or are you somehow able to reconcile "refreshingly refuses to compromise his core values" with "misrepresents his beliefs to the public for the sake of voter support"?

Posted by: A at February 17, 2007 12:08 AM

As I suspected, A, you're just trolling to denigrate Harper and the Conservatives. I will point out to you, since you obviously missed it, my response was MY OPINION...I could be wrong. Also, I don't speak for all of SDA...just me.

I'm sure that you will draw sweeping generalizations regardless because you need something / anything to grasp desperately to help your beloved Liberal empire as it crumbles before your eyes.

I, for one, have never said Harper is a perfect human or a saint...he's a politician...they're all politicians...therefore we should expect SOME minor malfeasance just as we do from any politician and, by the way, EVERY HUMAN BEING. HOWEVER, I believe that he IS a man of principle and, compared to previous Liberal governments, practically a saint.

So, I have no problem at all professing that Harper "refreshingly refuses to compromise his core values" and that he does NOT "misrepresents his beliefs to the public for the sake of voter support"...as he has presented his beliefs in the first place:

- He has said that global warming is a problem and it is;
- He has said that it will affect the health and welfare of Canadians and it will (particularly when we start trying to reduce greenhouse gases);
- He has said that Kyoto is a money-grubbing socialist scheme and it is.

So, you're quite wrong in every aspect, A.

By the way, I have no intention of continuing this "debate" since you have no intention of debating...you're simply out for "points". Bugger off.

Posted by: Eeyore at February 17, 2007 6:57 AM

The entire BellGlobal Media empire is nothing more than a mouthpiece for popular liberal policy, shrouding the policies such that the uninformed masses actually believe this tripe and pass or make judgements based upon it.

This being said... anything mouthed by this and other quasi news organisations can not by itself be believed. The advent of the internet must require all of us to investigate multiple sources and form our own opionions. The time for the trusted printed or televised word being truth is long past...

Posted by: NorthernLight at February 17, 2007 9:38 AM

nothing like the dispersement of knowledge and the dispersement of the control of that knowledge to free the masses. The MSM is finding the internet is the equivalent of the church finding out about the printing press. What was they thought was a great asset to them has become the biggest stick. The arts trained journalists , bureau chiefs, and "experts" find a road block of real knowledge at every lie.

Posted by: cal2 at February 17, 2007 10:58 AM

Wouldn't be surprised if Harper "leaked" that letter calling Kyoto a socialist scheme. He never retracted the comments and it's true.

I think if it wasn't for the Quebec election, Harper might have made that Kyoto vote a confidence vote. Run an election on how horrible Kyoto is, and how crazy it's supporters are.

Posted by: johnn at February 17, 2007 11:20 AM

There is a very good critique of the IPCC 2007 executive summary which also goes through the many fundamental flaws in the calculations used to make the various claims of warmest month, year, etc in the past decade, century, etc. It is by Dr. Vincent Gray at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

Posted by: John Balsevich at February 17, 2007 12:37 PM

"LETS ME IN THERE..."

***Newfie Alert***

;-)

Posted by: tomax7 at February 17, 2007 2:53 PM

The fraud behind Kyoto is finally coming out and the Climate Change Liars are being exposed. Diane Francis pointed out the history about the agreement last week in her Finical Post article. She also cited a certain Maurice Strong - "Uncle Moe" to Buffalo Bob Rae and a good friend of the Chretiens – in scandals and corruption at the UN and how he is doing extensive work in China (as is Chretien who signed the deal with little to no public input).

The tactic of labelling those who question the "pseudo science" behind the accord as "deniers" shows the fear of being exposed. Now we find that the Bug Doctor (who has done no real science in 25 years) and other such Climate Change Liars are refusing to meet and discuss openly with those who question the "Kyoto science". This display of fear by the moochers and takers of our society shows that the accord cannot stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

There has only been one party that has consistently refused to adhere to the Kyoto fraud – the Conservatives. Their green policies are attacking pollution issues and not the global warming fraud. It is the pollution that is killing us and not the clouds. The Bloc – in the usual Quebec fashion - goes along with Kyoto but expects others to pay for it. The NDP are fighting for relevance and fear about loosing out to the Green party. The Liberals are itching to get back to their graft and rewards mentality.

I suspect that the next fear mongering will center around what the USA had been working on for years at their expense and the UN sees as another opportunity to steal money from the developed countries. The next fear will be – KIILLER ASTEROIDS. Follow the “science” closely that comes from the bureaucrats at the UN and which country will be responsible for implementing the killing of these asteroids and thus protecting the world from extinction. We know it will not be the USA.

Posted by: Fiumara at February 17, 2007 3:59 PM

Wow. What G&M editor was asleep at the switch when THAT editorial got past the goalie? It usually takes the Sun Media chain to cobble together an editorial that coherent (and critical of the Liberals)

Posted by: john g at February 18, 2007 10:31 AM
Site
Meter