As Canada's fave blog dominatrex , feel free to beat away .

I'm sorry to hear that woman lost three toes to frostbite. At least now she'll have a smaller carbon footprint.

"...blog dominatrix"! LMAO! :-)

...Dang! Was hoping Darwin's law/awards would come into effect.

Harris has been thumping the Kyoto drum on his afternoon show on CFRA as well; that, coupled with his ever-present Bush Derangement Syndrome means that I listen to CDs in the afternoon.

On a serious note about that article, I was struck by the last paragraph of the AP article:

"Atwood [ed.-expedition organizer]said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures. "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.."

So, temperatures hitting 100 bloody degrees below zero, not counting wind chill...and this woman STILL says this is evidence of GLOBAL WARMING!

Is this a manifestation of neurosis? An obsessive-compulsive thinking pattern completely at odds with reality?

I wouldn't call the Great Global Warming Swindle redundant. Certainly the content of it is and has been around in various forms, but this documentary is the perfect foil for An Inconvenient Truth. I for one am making sure the granolaroids in my circle get to see it. Especially those who haven't yet seen AIT(L). I believe in preventive intellectualism.

In all seriousness. Please try not to defer to ridicule or sarcasm

Kate or a Kate approved representative, I'm failing to see the correlation between the following issues.

Economic politics
Social politics
Environmental policy re: (greenhouse gasses, destruction of landscape and just plain littering separated)
Religion
Gun control (how big a gun would you like any 'ol bloke to have)
Controlled substances (cigarettes vs alcohol vs pot vs herion, etc)
Foreign policy

I can't quite sort out why people seem to all travel in a pack on these subjects.

Finally Kate, thank you. I am not normally so insistant but this is important.

Yes, Kate, I read your justification. But, given the importance of this 80 minute film, it should be pronounced from the hilltops. And your site is a hilltop to pronounce from :-)

I have sent the link to every e-mail address I have - yeah, I suck, I know, but we are engaged in a propaganda war with the pseudo-eco leftists.

Why pseudo-eco? Becuase we all know, they and us, that they don't give a tinkers d**n about the environment, we have seen the history; it is merely a hammer to bang the capitalists with.

I watched the Swindle - it was okay but didn't really offer anything new to anyone reasonably informed on the topic. Some things were over-torqued, which I suppose is okay just to deliver shock value and get noticed, but mostly it was notable only for being broadcast at all.

"anyone reasonably informed on the topic". So that's about maybe 32 non-scientists. Swindle isn't offering anything new - there isn't anything new... that's the whole point of it. What its offering is the nothing new, explained in coherent layman's terms, from the people who actually know. Not that science is going to get in the way of a good market scheme.

Whether or not Kate promotes an issue from SDA's comments to a main article is indeed entirely up to her, and it would do for folks to respect that. I have been sitting on my hands itching to post about Swindle here for four days now, yet I've said nothing before, because it's solely up to Kate as to whether or not that is to be a topic here. And now it is (thanks, Kate).

As regulars know, I am by study, degree, and day-to-day work a scientist and an engineer, although to be clear, formally I am not an accredited professional engineer. I do work on computer models of the sort that are involved in climate modeling.

In my opinion the most important points raised by Swindle (with my apologies to other important points raised therein that I am not going to comment on now) are that the CO2 concentrations record temporally follows the temperature record, and that the Solar flux record temporally leads the temperature record, and that the Solar flux record is more highly correlated to the temperature record than the CO2 record is.

At this point, a reasonable man must conclude that Solar flux is the forcing function for temperature, and that temperature is the forcing function for moles per cubic meter of CO2 concentration, at least until a better model is found.

Logically, then, the biggest problem we have to deal with is how to adapt to the changes in Solar flux (whether or not we are about to enter another colder period due to predicted declines in Solar flux over the next few decades). It is not the case that our biggest problem is reducing our output of CO2, because the human output of CO2 is responsible for only some ten-millionths of the total green-house gas effect (to the degree that the green-house gas effect is relevant in the first place).

That Swindle has some limitations when considered by students of the issues, as Kevin mentions, is to be expected, as it is a production intended principally to be of interest to non-students of this matter. Pedagogical materials are like that. The key is, in my opinion, that it does a good job of highlighting what science does know, as opposed to what politics wants us to believe.

Lastly, it is not my intent to say that we should not be diligent on the matter of not soiling our nest. It is indeed unfortunate that the current public feeding frenzy on matters carbon dioxide is hampering our efforts to actually do a better job of all things human, net net.

With respect, I believe "Climate Swindle" deserves A LOT of exposure. The world is up against a huge, fanatical cult. And as we have seen in the past, cults are VERY dangerous.

In order to correct the imbalance of the past, Patrick Moore should recieve a DAY of media attention for every minute that Suzuki gets.

Kate invites the pack to gather and howl and complains when they bring home some smelly old meat to share?
She wolf!
;)

Kate,

as a long time reader I question
1) why you didn't post The Great Global Warming Swindle earlier, and

2)faulting those from requesting you do.

It is your blog and of course you can do with it what you wish, but,

I just saw that video for the first time, through your link, and it was frankly stunning, in its detail, depth, references to some of the world's top scientists in their respective feilds and the general production quality.

Note that I am a regular blogger. If I didn't see it until now, I'm sure there are many, many others who haven't. It was only through your posting that I was made aware of it (yes I saw it in passing elsewhere but with so many "you gotta see this! type of links its easy to miss - you on the other hand have a lot of credibility with Canadian internet users as evident from your sitemeter readings).

Folks who ask you to link it are merely expressing their frustration that something so powerful isn't being played anywhere in the North American mainstream. If a site like SDA doesn't play it, perhaps the cause is lost.

Yes other popular sites refer to it, but they still only represent a fraction of the public exposure.

If your faithful readers (OK Mazz2 doesn't count..just kidding there mazarioni) tell you (implicitly or otherwise) that there's a desire and or a need, chances are there's a legitimate desire and or a need.

Cheers.

I think that Kevin's note to the effect that Swindle was notable for being broadcast at all is important, in three senses. Firstly, credit to the individuals who were strong enough to swim against the tide and be involved in this production must be acknowledged. Secondly, credit is due to Channel 4 for broadcasting their argument as it deserves in our inquiry into the science of our planet's behaviour and the behaviour of our political species thereto.

And, thirdly: what do you think the chances would be that the millions of people across the planet who have now seen the reletively obscure independent Channel 4's production would have seen it without this network of networks we call the Internet, and, yea verily, Google Videos and YouTube. The big-money fear-mongers and largest organs of the traditional media are opposed to this sort of fraud-busting stuff because it marks on their supposed turf, and there were times in the past when they could have been quite successful at blocking it, yet we have now all seen it.

That's the original definition of the Internet by Cerf and Kahn: a network of networks. They were speaking of a switching protocol, not a network that included print, radio, television, and commentary networks, yet the work done by them, their colleagues, and their predecessors and successors is the new platform we stand on here as we continue to slowly learn how to better cooperate to improve our situations, while still maintaining our individuality.

Welcome to the third millenium.

Kate, I have to agree with the above - and the 'as you were' dismissal is something right out of a Kinsella comment.

Warmer weather breaking records
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/01/03/mba-weather.html

Rainfall records smashed
http://www.itv.com/news/index_8335be16a310260d310d12be5fe5be11.html

hottest February for the past 100 years.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21301401-5005961,00.html

This winter in central Europe has been the WARMEST ON RECORD.
http://www.playfuls.com/news_005050_ROUNDUP_Winter_In_Central_Europe_Warmest_On_Record.html

This February was the HOTTEST IN 50 YEARS
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01AGR280207

FIRST WINTER WITHOUT SNOW FOR 131 YEARS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/6407771.stm

BROKE ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS of rainfall
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=224851

current rain season the SECOND DRIEST ON RECORD.
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/11146145/detail.html

Canberra SET A RECORD FOR THE MOST THUNDERSTORMS IN A SINGLE MONTH
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-02-28T085012Z_01_SYD143213_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-AUSTRALIA-WEATHER.XML&WTmodLoc=SciHealth-R6-MostRead-3

The STRONGEST MARCH SNOWSTORM IN 56 YEARS hit northeast China's Liaoning province.
http://www.sabcnews.com/world/asia1pacific/0,2172,144802,00.html

FREAK SUPER STORM, ONE OF THE WORST IN THE ACT'S HISTORY
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=561581&category=General

Record breaking temperatures in Bulgaria
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n105524

The MOST POWERFUL TORNADO TO HIT FLORIDA IN NEARLY A DECADE.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/03/State/Supercells__tornadoes.shtml

Storm Death Toll Rises
http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/6444427.html

temperatures expected to approach the century mark
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5113314

tornado ripped through an Alabama school building, and two dead when a hospital was hit in Georgia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6409659.stm?lsf

Now wait just a minute. The topic here is the global warming swindle, scam, fraud, ponzi scheme, and protection racket. Why are some of you focusing on Kate's preferences for her private property? She only mentioned it in passing. Perhaps she just wasn't in the mood. It's her blog, if you don't like it, go start your own blog. Who do you think you are, exactly?

Thankyou Vitruvius.

I am not a public utility.

Skip and Kevin,

I don't know about that "nothing new" stuff. The cosmic ray flux/cloud formation link is pretty new. Leaving that aside, wouldn't you say that to the average MSM-watching citizen, the very notion that any reasonable people question anthropogenic global warming is new?

Vitruvius,

Furthermore, there's some very new work that suggests where the varying solar flux is coming from:

"A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that appears to explain many details of the paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701117

ken,

Basically, socialists believe that man is basically good, that he can be perfected, that any evil in man comes about because of a bad social environment, and that inequalities can be eliminated by correcting society. Conservatives believe that evil is in man's nature, that man's nature cannot be changed, though his behaviour can be, given proper laws and controls. From this simple difference, all those issues you listed will produce two camps. One camp's ideas have produced liberty and prosperity. The other's has produced over 100 million corpses.

Kate as always, it's your call, but my two cents is: we do need to 'talk' this up much more. Even though the skeptics are on it already, and they should also be heard. Shows a real need for information other than what has been offered from the 'absolute (well almost) truth's' side.

Welcome to the third millenium.
Posted by: Vitruvius

I like that!
I found this an interesting read today.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7
Bright Sun, Warm Earth.
No kiddin?
Go figure.

Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists interviewed in the Swindle, is saying he was misrepresented.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

There will be a debate sponsored by IQ2US on March 14th moderated by Briam Lehrer http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12 on the motion "global warming is not a crisis"
For
Michael Crichton
Richard S. Lindzen
Philip Stott
Against
Brenda Ekwurzel
Gavin Schmidt
Richard C.J. Somerville
Prliminary positions are available at
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Blogs/

A little bit of criticism is a good thing I'd think. Keeps one on thier toes. No one wants an echo chamber.

Kate's a big girl Vitrivirous, I've seen her do smackdowns that'd make my grandpappy proud. But good on ya for coming valiantly to her defense.

But back on topic,

Check out this amazing picture of a solar eclipse from thousands of K's away from Earth (puts some bloody perspective into the power of the sun relative to the earth):

http://tinyurl.com/333jj9

Albatross, nobody is denying that warming is happening and that possibly leads to more weather events. However none of your links prove this is due to human CO2 emissions, which is the point of Swindle. I believe human CO2 is at most a small part of the cause, and that it's not worth destroying our prosperity over.

THE LEFT is addicted to doom. The Crisis of Capitalism, 'The Population Bomb', ‘Silent Spring’, ‘The Limits to Growth’, the Return of the Ice Age, ‘The China Syndrome’, Nuclear Winter, Killer Bees, Acid Rain, Globalization, Frankenstein foods, The Ozone Hole, are all catastrophes that didn’t happen. Some were factually wrong and the rest never became a crisis. When a doomsday theory is disproved, poof!, the MSM drops the story. The left and the MSM run on Clear and Present Danger like a fuel, and doom theories garner massive attention, with accompanying sales of newspapers and airtime. Facts seem to have nothing to do with it. The ‘Limits to Growth’ (The Club of Rome, 1972) a hugely popular book in its time, predicted logarithmic growth in population and resource consumption, with arithmetic growth in supply. This would produce overpopulation, the exhaustion of energy and other resources, the impoverishment of billions, a collapse in the food supply, and mass starvation and death. Their computer models, supported by many eminent scientists, claimed the world would run out of oil by 1992, and all their other predictions also proved wrong. Nevertheless, lefties continue to fret about imminent resource exhaustion, while the MSM issues no corrections or mea culpa. These doom theories were presented in sequence, all were promoted by the left, pumped by the MSM, and used to mobilize millions worldwide. The common idea was and is, that doom could (can) only be averted with more state control and intervention, strict economic controls, suppression of capitalism, and wealth redistribution.

...you know what the big issue is...global pollution.

How come 'no one' is howling about this matter? I find this more dangerous to mankind than a few ice cubes melting.

If Al Gore and crew spent more time showing how industries kill landscape and people, then we'd have something to talk about.

I remember driving through Sudbury in the 70's and that was one sad area, moreso NASA used it to practice moon walking and such.

I hear it is cleaned up quite a bit now.

Oh yeah remember the love canal? Or Chinese smog hitting BC?

Global Pollution is the big threat.

SATELLITES REVEAL A MYSTERY OF LARGE CHANGE IN EARTH'S GRAVITY FIELD

Satellite data since 1998 indicates the bulge in the Earth's gravity field at the equator is growing, and scientists think that the ocean may hold the answer to the mystery of how the changes in the trend of Earth's gravity are occurring.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityfield.html

Lorraine,

If that equatorial gravity keeps increasing at the present rate, the entire Earth could collapse into a black hole by 2200. And don't let any talk about the Chandrasekhar limit convince you otherwise!

Actually, Randall, the best available theory and evidential data to date suggest that if warming is happening, then there will be less major weather events. This matter is covered in Swindle, and it is a fairly basic, uncontended matter of planetary geo-climatology, except amongst those humans who are trying to deceive us in the name of illegitimate personal gain, or those who are suffering from simple honest but overwrought concern.

Albatross is, in my opion (and let's face it, my comments are never more than my opinion), not worth the time it takes to interlocute with. He has his shorts in a knot, for whatever reason, and while that's understandable per se, the history of his comments here to date indicate, at least to me, that he is not interested in pursuing this matter rationally.

Therefore, I find, it is better to allocate one's resources to the majority in the middle of the electorate, than it is to waste them on the extremists. Whenever we are considering actual science, we would do well to remember the words of Valery:

"An attitude of permanent indignation signifies great mental poverty. Politics compels its votaries to take that line and you can see their minds growing more impoverished every day, from one burst of righteous indignation to the next."

I just don’t know enough about climate change to form an opinion and I doubt in a years time I will have enough info that I trust to form an opinion. There is climate change, but what’s causing it and what we should do about it are still unknown. But it is a problem that deserves our focused attention and more investment in scientific enquiry.

The problem is that science has become political. Now we can’t trust science, nor the MSM , nor politicians , nor our democratic institutions and so on.

This goes back to the Pope’s speech last year about Faith and Reason. I’ve read that speech several times, I know it’s important but it is frankly a bit over my head. My goal is to understand it someday.

This big story about The Swindle isn’t about which side is right. We still don’t know. The big story that we are entering is what ever happened to the notion of just being able to say “I don’t know, but I’ll try to find out”.

Therefore what we are about to see unfold, hopefully, is a return to REASON not just FAITH by our learned people in science and our institutions. Moreover we need to be able to accept it when they tell us they don’t know. We aren’t children who expect their parents to know everything. The best conversations with maturing kids are about the things we don’t know. We’re still maturing on the subject of climate change.

Posted by: randall g at March 12, 2007 11:54 PM

Randall, did you read the lead story behind this string?

I don't completely agree, Nomdenet. I think that the science is quite clear that Solar flux is the forcing function for global temperature variations on our lovely plant Earth, and that CO2 concentration variations follow temperature variations; they do not lead it.

I agree that there are many things we do not know about how exactly to continue to make our lives better and fix the mistakes caused by the last time we tried to make our lives better, yet we must not throw away the things we do know with the bathwater. And one thing it appears to me that we now do know is that man-made CO2 is the least of our problems. The numbers just aren't there.

To the degree that we remain oblivious to this evidentiary result, we are wasting our resources on a chimera just when they are most desperately needed for real problems.

Vitruvius,

That Valery Bertinelli was wise beyond her years. I detect Eddie Van Halen's influence.

albaltros,

You must be a follower of the "Day After Tomorrow" school of global warming, when you count as proof of your theory both freakishly warm and freakishly cold weather.

Thanks for the link. Although the subject has been well worked over at SDA, it’s a very memorable presentation.

- Increases in CO2 follows temperature increases, not the other way around.
- Post war increases in human produced CO2 don’t correspond with post war temperature changes.
- Changes in solar activity correlate well with changes in temperatures.
- restricting development in the undeveloped world will condemn those living their.

We need bigger bumpers:

Hi, I’m David Suzuki. Would you like to learn more about culling people in Africa?
For more information contact Dr. Fruit Fly at davidsuzuki.org.

Very droll, Surly ;-) but for the record I was of course referring to Paul Valéry. If I may crib from Wikipedia:

"He gave the keynote address at the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the death of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. This was a fitting choice, as Valéry shared Goethe's fascination with science (specifically biology and the theory of light). He never said or wrote anything giving aid or comfort to any form of totalitarianism popular (in certain quarters, at least) in his lifetime. Raymond Poincaré, Louis de Broglie, Andre Gide, Henri Bergson, and Albert Einstein all respected Valéry's thinking and became friendly correspondents."

So you can see, I hope, how my selection of Mr. Valéry's quote was particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, has recieved five(5) death threats for saying Kyoto and it's carbon credit scheme is a Hoax.

Reported Yesterday in the UK media by the 'Telegraph'.

//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

".. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change ".

More than a day later the major Canadian media have not reported it. Many, many sites, blogs and smaller media outlets (Western Standard) have carried it, but where is CBC, CTV, G&M, Star, Global, Sun, ...

If this isn't a suppression of news and outright bias, then what is.

V.,

Yeats said something similar:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are filled with passionate intensity."

I once despaired that the "recovered memory movement" would continue to ruin lives, those of both the "victims", who had false memories of childhood sexual abuse implanted by sex-obsessed therapists, and of the accused -- parents, friends, daycare workers who were being sent to prison on ridiculous charges. Yet skeptics arose, such as the indefatigable Elizabeth Loftus. Against feminist accusations of enabling child molestation, these skeptics produced study after study to show how easily false memories can be created.

So it will be with anthropogenic global warming. There must be some quotation by someone about the crazy fads and fallacies that sweep us along, time after time, but I don't know what it might be.

Perhaps, if I may, one of these might be suitable, Surly:

Everything which was not permitted was forbidden. Whatever was permitted was mandatory. Citizens were shackled in their actions by the universal passion for banning things.
-- Boris Yeltsin

Of all the human qualities, the one I admire the most is competence. A tailor who is really able to cut and fit a coat seems to me an admirable man, and by the same token a university professor who knows little or nothing of the thing he presumes to teach seems to me to be a fraud and a rascal.
-- H. L. Mencken

The man who promises everything is sure to fulfil nothing, and everyone who promises too much is in danger of using evil means in order to carry out his promises, and is already on the road to perdition.
-- Carl Jung

What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.
-- Friedrich Höderlin

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell

It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships that they give credibility to the opinions they attack.
-- Voltaire

Canada Winter Games, Whitehorse, Yukon - temps hovered around -40 to -30 below for the duration. Everyday well BELOW the normal temps - they had to postpone several events because it was too cold to be outside. This was not broadcast over the airwaves with the hi-per ventilating one would expect from the 'weather frightened' msm people.

Things that make me go hummm...?

They had two big tents up to house events - I wonder how much carbon was emitted in the two weeks that they were heated? BIG foot print. Saszookey didn't show - PMSH did !!

Who is Al Gore? I mean before he ran as runner up for the most powerfull man on the planet via VP of the USA?

Actor? Lawyer? Teacher? New money? Old money?

What exactly is his background?

Just curious...

Michel de Montaigne: Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.

Luther thought that he had the truth. So he wanted nothing to do with skepticism. ... "What do I know?" Yet, Montaigne was a good Catholic. ...-

Paradox?

Lorraine's link to the old NASA article on local variations in the earth's gravitational field (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityfield.html) is a worthwhile read, both for the poor presentation of the issue and data, the woefully inadequate description of the preliminary analysis, and the neglect of any alternative explanation.

'"The three areas that can trigger large changes in the Earth's gravitational field are oceans, polar and glacial ice, and atmosphere," Cox said.'

Idiot! No mention of the types of vibrational modes of a quasi-elastic sphere, no mention that our planet is like a weirdly boiled egg - solid yolk and runny white; no mention that it's magnetic...no mention that the sun's magnetic field is highly variable and reverses every 22 years. No, of course not - the dweeb looks at a surface area effect rather than a volume effect.

Aargh!

"I am not a public utility."
Posted by: Kate at March 12, 2007 11:19 PM

If you were we would all be plugged into meters, and you would be very rich.

Just in case someone wants to read an intelligent case for AGW you can see it at realclimate dot org

Vitruvius, yes I now know that CO2 lags temperature change by 800 years. But there are many permutations and combinations to consider.

More importantly, I now know that in addition to the MSM and our universities not being on a quest for “the truth” , inconvenient or not; now I don’t trust the integrity of our scientists. Because they take too much on Faith, too many don’t use Reason.

Our institutions are failing us.. that’s the climate change that worries me the most.

However even the New York Times is today questioning Algore’s hype. So once again trial and error is kicking in and we have some hope we can dig our way out of this.

But in short, there needs to be a lot more healthy disagreement, like you and I are having right now, not only about climate change but a whole host of subjects. When disagreement and inequality are returned to their rightful place as being “normal” then we can start the process of rebuilding the institutions that have failed us. Then we take some reasonable, pragmatic action on events like climate change.

Sounds like the backlash to the politicized climate hysteria is now in full swing and coming from the scientific community in some attept to reclaim scientific legitimacy after pimping kyoto for the polis.

4.5 billion people at risk in the next 20 years and she cant give up 3 toes?

As gutless a statement as could be made.

I don't completely agree, Nomdenet. I think that the science is quite clear that Solar flux is the forcing function for global temperature variations on our lovely plant Earth, and that CO2 concentration variations follow temperature variations; they do not lead it.

The best aspect of the documentary is that it gave appropriate time to scientists in other specialties like geology and astro-physics. Certainly seeing the role of the sun in climate change being treated seriously was long overdue.

On the other hand, I thought that part was also presented with more certainty than really exists. It's still a very interesting hypothesis, but it doesn't explain everything either and shouldn't really be presented that way.

That left deadtree, aka NewYorkSlimes, is whispering to the Goreacle: "Cool it". [Irony intended.] The "it" is the hyper-flatulence-spiel re carbon offsets, etc. Why?

Is the left embarr-assed now that the CO2 hoax-swindle has been exposed? Is the Goreacle now cast as a snake-oil salesman? Is the left guilty of buying into a pig-in-a-poke? Yes, yes, and yes. Suckers.

The psychotherapist bought into the swindle; could not see the Gestalt, especially the Law of Pragnanz. She was riddled with Fear-Guilt; mesmerized by the hype, she bought into the indulgences. Notice the word "atone". A fool and his money is ...

More exposure of the GW-CC poseurs:

"Carbon confusion
Buying emission offsets is a challenge for consumers

BARNET, VT. -- Sara Demetry thought she had found a way to atone for her personal contribution to global warming.

The psychotherapist clicked on a website that helped her calculate how much heat-trapping carbon dioxide she and her fiance emitted each year, mostly by driving and heating their home. Then she paid $150 to e-BlueHorizons.com, a company that promises to offset emissions.

But Demetry's money did not make as much difference as she thought it would. ...

Moreover, the project received a "dirty dozen" award from a New England environmental group in 2004 because..." ...-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/03/13/carbon_confusion/

From the NY Times article:

He (Gore) said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”

It must have been really frustrating 30 years ago to try and communicate the dangers of global warming with up coming ice age and all.

You would think the lefties would like some of the benefits of global warming. All that beach front real estate under water and the capitalist pig owners losing a fortune. Talk about redistribution of wealth.
enough

SDC:
You are right about Harris on CFRA Ottawa, Monday to Thursday 1PM to 3PM. He really should seek psychiatric therapy for his obsessive hatred for George Bush and he also has a problem with Harper, lumps him in with Bush because of Iraq War.

It's rather sad, he's otherwise a very talented and
decent guy but got off the rails on this issue.
I can't listen to him any more either most days.

Liz J

I think his hatred is about SSM. He's a one issue guy just like Andrew Sullivan. Too bad , both of these guys are talented.

Climate change is a reality. It has been for thousands of years. It will happen no matter what we do. Even the IPCC report concedes ( in one of the biggest ass covering statements ever)that even if we do everything they advocate, the effects wont be seen for centuries.
So, in view of all that, lets not lose sight of those issues that we can do something about, the results of which might be realized in our lifetimes.
Heres some:
-clean water in our communities.
-City smog
-Mercury pollution
-poisonous substances
-sewage treatment
-add your own
Anyone recognize these issues?
Minister Ambrose had a good handle on them.

Gosh according to the eco-wackos like AL GORE and GREENPEACE they should have gotten heat stroke instead of frost bite too bad green nuts but there is no global warming just a over abundence of HOT AIR and as the old margerine ads used to say ITS NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE so like in the old ads she made a big snow storm and gave the eco-weenies frost bite

ken melrose: I agree, I always fail to understand how people with a certain political view should hold all views in common - why are people with conservative politics (like me) routinely branded (by the left) as "bible-thumpers", etc. I have been a fan of Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and agree with much of what he writes, however it only takes about 2 minutes on his website to realize that if you personally do not have religious outlook on life, you are also supposed to be socially liberal, and completely "buy into" the anthropogenic view of global warming. I don't understand at all - if you believe the theory of evolution, if you believe that the earth is 2,000,000,000 + years old, why must you necessarily also believe that the recent changes in climate are man-made? Can anyone explain?

albatross39a - how do stories about recent weather events, the most extreme in the 150 years or so that we have been tracking such things, lead to an unshakable belief that humans are the cause? See previous comment about the earth being over 2 billion years old

tomax 7 - I agree that the big issue is pollution - clean up our air (pollution, not CO2), clean up our water. I live in Alberta and we are developing our oil sands at break neck speed. Is there any debate that oil, and all fossil fuels, are non-renewable resources? What's the rush? I hope that we are searching out alternative energy sources, not because I think we are causing catastrophic climate change, but because I think that the future of civilized society could still be at stake (if we are caught off guard when the oil runs out, whenever that may be!)

Vitruvius - I loved your quotes, and in particular the one from Bertrand Russell - "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." I do not presume to call myself wise, but sometimes I feel that I am guilty of over-analyzing things. It seems that in the context of the topic of climate change, if you have an absolute belief in the role of humans in global warming, I personally think that you have had to ignore a lot of scientific evidence to the contrary, e.g. ice core evidence, fossil evidence, medieval warming period, the list goes on. It also seems to me that the people on this side of the argument resort to a lot more name-calling (flat-earth believers, holocaust-deniers, etc) than the people on the other side. Is this evidence of the weakness of their argument?

Jose - I have spent time reading on realclimate.org. I agree a more scientific debate than a lot of sites, and they try to keep the debate civil (less derogatory name-calling), which I like. I still think it seems they are on the whole very quick to dismiss any evidence which might disprove the point of view which they clearly possess.

Concluding, I guess I would have to say that I wish I could believe the AGW argument wholeheartedly, because then I could believe that if we caused the changes we are seeing in our climate, then of course we could do something to turn things around (even if it took a long time). We could ensure the future of the planet, and ensure our survival as a species, if we could control the climate. That has to be a powerful force motivating people who truly believe (in AGW). Humans feel a need to be in control - this subject is no different.

I have not seen the gore movie, but I would like some questions answered by those that have. When this movie is shown in schools, is there any mention that the info in it was based on facts/reason/lies that were supposed common knowledge up to and including the dates of filming. Is there any mention that some of these facts/reason/lies have been disproven in the years since this movie was made. Is there any mention that some of the experts quoted in said movie have since come out and said that they were misrepresented. Is there any mention that gore has founded carbon credit companies and is buying credits from himself, and invests the money in companies that he owns. I am sure the answers to the above questions will be a resounding NO.
I think the whole concept of this film is it was based on an inconvenient lie, trying to con the public that it is truth.
I would compare it to someone going to the Southern states and expecting to see life as it was portrayed in Gone With the Wind.

Kevin Jaeger 8:59

A well-balanced post. I'm very much of like-mind. The climate change fanatics have overstated their case, but that doesn't mean that there's not some truth to their hypotheses. IMHO, the biggest danger is as nomdenet stated, "Our institutions are failing us.. that’s the climate change that worries me the most." The fact that usually-reliable institutions are pretty obviously being politicized should concern us all. If the enviro-fanatics ever get it through their heads that the Earth's/humanity's best interests will not be served through excess alarmism, we would be making much better progress towards solving the most pressing needs of our time. I wonder how much money has been wastedly thrown at each of these enviro-fads that are dropped as soon as their shock value fades? I have a lot of hope for humans to solve the problems that face us, but only when we're not being distracted by people with other agendas (AIDS funding far out of proportion to cancer funding, for example, comes to mind).

Albatros - do you have a blog/e-mail such that we could continue some of our earlier discussion on our own? You could stop by mine, and/or drop me an e-mail through my site (I think it's listed there). I started reading realclimate.org, as per your request.

On a related note, I read how realclimate discussed the temperature/CO2 lag. First of all, they recognize that it is real. Second of all, they accept that 'something else' causes the first 800 years of warming, before CO2 rises, and then attribute subsequent warming to the risen CO2 levels. I haven't read all the details, but it seems foolish to me to say that something else causes a temp rise for 800 years, at which point that 'something else' stops causing warming, and then CO2 takes over (I realize I'm oversimplifying it, but is it really that far off from what they're saying?).

The worst part of the whole debate about GW is that it distracts us from a much more imminent and critical global problem, that is the depletion of fish stocks in the ocean. Not only is this happening much faster and is more widespread than most people are aware of (eg the east coast cod industry was virtually wiped out in less than a decade), but we can actually do something about it (such as creating preservation areas in which no fishing takes place to allow stocks to replenish). Unfortunately, the world's politicians are focusing on the wrong crisis!

These ice deniers, were probably rescued by ice fishermen.

Ancedotal evidence (whoa spelling) for sure, but, I've stood outside on two frozen lakes a week since ice up in Ontario, and it's extra cold out there this season.
Global warming has tucked it's tail, and is cowering under the porch this winter.
Cochrane was minus 38 without the wind chill one day, and we fished outside all day.

These ladies were one more equipment malfunction away from death.

They must have done all their research via AL Gore's documentary and Suzuki's dreams.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Are these people idiots? If I was planning an arctic hike i think i would have done some homework ahead of time....nah, pack your swimsuits kids we're goin to the beach!!

Tim Ball never met a microphone or camera he didn't like.

http://www.themeliorist.com/?q=lawsuit_filed_against_professor_board_of_governors_and_n

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/tim_ball_update.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/tim_ball_sues_for_325000.php

Point being, this guy does anything for attention, (especially when it leads to cash) which leaves me sceptical about any death threats that he has recieved.

When the whole global warming hysteria was getting really wound up, I decided for myself that this was apparently a sufficiently serious issue that it was worth investing some time and energy in trying to get as much reliable information as possible on the subject in order to make up my own mind. Having been educated in science I didn't feel at all intimidated in going back to the original scientific articles used as the basis for the IPCC reports which in turn are the basis for the Kyoto treaty. The articles aren't particularly difficult to understand. What I read left me absolutely astounded -- not by the supposed proof of man-made global warming, but by the utter lack of it. It's not that I'm against controlling pollution, (we recycle at our house), or that I'm insensitive to environmental concerns (I used to work as a Park Ranger and Outward Bound Instructor), it's that I'd rather see billions of tax payers' dollars spent on environmental/development issues that are real and may actually make a difference to the well-being of the planet and human beings less fortunate than ourselves. "Swindle" is a valuable resource, not for introducing anything new, but for recapitulating in layman's terms what is known and which appears consistent with my reading of the scientific literature. It's a much needed sober reflection on what has been an unrelieved drumbeat of hysteria from the bureaucratic and special interests advocating the squandering of billions of dollars on utter nonsense.

Ban AL GORE from the north pole his HOT AIR will surly thaw it out and ruin it

These proponents that claim carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate warming, and that humans are a huge factor in causing this increase, should not be called liars and idiots, but we should pity them because they are only people ignorant of the truth and the facts.

There are only so many hours in a day, and more importantly, there are only so many posts readers have time for.
Fine...

If you've seen something mentioned two or three times in the comments, and nothing on the main page from me about it - consider it a hint.
What if the commenter "didn't have time" to read the comments? Why are commenters being scolded for commenting anyway???

I either don't have the interest, I think it's redundant or its already been beaten to death
O.K, we get how you feel about the lame comments.

and I have nothing more to add.
I wish you felt the same way about the last part of this post.

So, Albatross, what exactly is your point? Humans have only been keeping climate records for about 150 years. The earth is millions of years old. Only a fool would use climate records to back up climate change. BTW, how do you explain the warming that appears to be occurring on Mars? Ah, of course, it's being caused by the human race!

It appears that the recent Channel 4 and More4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has left many viewers doubting that today's climate change is largely humanly caused. In this email, anyone so affected by the programme is urged to view the following information:

1. An introduction to the flaws of the programme. http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/ (or Google "climate denial", go to 9 Mar post.)

2. How a similar docu on Channel 4 by the same director Martin Durkin in 1997 was rapped by the ITC, in particular for misleading four featured interviewees and distorting their views. See Parags. 8-11 of http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html

3. Prof. Carl Wunsch says: I was misled and misrepresented in the 'swindle' documentary http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414 (or Google "Realclimate", go to 9 Mar post.) Climate scientists' view of some of the key flawed or discredited claims made by the programme (some of which you may have seen elsewhere). A site praised by Scientific American, with explanations for the medieval grapes, why Thames stopped freezing, and loads more.

5. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3268874#post3268874 - with THAT graph clearly explained, plus a clear guide to the links of some of the interviewees.

6. Royal Society and science academies around the world joint statement on climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226 (or via Google "Royal Society").

7. A blog discussion on the programme, including details of apparent breaches of the Broadcasting Code, and how to complain. http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820 (or Google "Climate Campaign Portal".)

I've been told by two people that the Swindle video is no longer available on Google viddeo.

tranio...
Swindle is still on Google Video. How do I know? I went and looked. See how that works?

(Via free republic):

Vanity on Frostbitten Global Warming Trek

The moonbats that got frostbite searching for global warming have gotten such a deluge of global warming deniers on their blog that they've closed it down to new posts. And they've censored several posts that gave specific scientific information and links for the kids to read. Frostbitten Moonbat Blog

This is apparently being followed by a large number of school children, so its an excellent place to post the truth. Suggest you all bookmark this site and revisit it in a few days, weeks, months.

http://www.bancroftarnesen.com/explore/ArcticOcean2007/msgBoardClient.jsp?a=show

Sample message:

Borge Ousland from Norway:
Leit å høre Liv, fort gjordt i minus 50. Velkommen hjem igjen. Hilsen Børge

KP
>Humans have only been keeping climate records for about 150 years.
There is more to climate records than is found in the weather office filing cabinets. Climate records are found in caves walls, lake/ocean bottoms, ice cores, tree rings, paintings hanging on museum walls, coral and a whole host of other places.

>how do you explain the warming that appears to be occurring on Mars?
Mars? Hmm I should imagine that it's because Mars might be getting hotter.

And in other news..

9th coldest February in 137 years; 4th snowiest since 1929: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0702270141feb27,1,5871706.column?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

February was coldest in 28 years
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/188324

I just tried Kate's link to the google video, and can't access it. Anybody have an alternate?

I suggest that you watch this - it has both nothing and everything to do with climate change ... think Mann.

http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=p_donnelly

Shane O,

Go to video.google.com and do a search for Global Warming Swindle ... pick the one thats about one hour 15 in length.

The Exposure of the Charlatans, The big Lie, can hardly wait for the headlines.
We need more balance with information from people on both sides.

The truth lies buried in all this over the top hype by people like Gore who maybe needed something to do and became the spokesperson for this political activist movement called Global Warming.
His refusal to appear on talk shows with people of
opposing views tells us he may not know his stuff.

Ural - thanks.

MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECUASE ENVIROMENTALISTS HAVE LIED

Spurwing - I expect, as you do, that some environmentalists know that what they're pushing is pseudoscience, at best. However, the vast majority of people pushing the latest enviro-fad, I suspect, are well-intentioned, concerned citizens. I had my coming of age in the 70's, after the global cooling scare/ice age scare (as a young teen, I was terrified). I now approach every enviro-fad with a skeptical eye. There are many people who want to believe that anyone pushing an environmental message are being completely honest, even as they froth at the mouth about how bad things are. I think it should be pretty clear to anyone with a non-biased approach that human history shows that when people first enter an area/exploit a resource, we tend to degrade the environment (at first). After our economy gets going, we use some of our (now superfluous) resources to then improve the environment. This is what has happened pretty much across the board in the developed countries. We have the opportunity to help some of the developing countries leap-frog some of the environmental degradation phase. That would be a far more useful environmental expense (if it can be done in a way that doesn't just hand money to corrupt governments to spend as they please) than even upgrading our own environments. Barring that, pollution control is probably our best local expense.

FYI:

There is good reason why atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by increasing (oceanic) temperature and not the other way around -- it is quite soluble in water, and that solubility is very dependent on temperature and pressure -- increasing with lower temperature and/or higher pressure. Here is a table, I copied from a website on CO2 properties:
Temperature (oC) 0 10 20 30 40 50 80 100
Solubility(cm3 CO2/g water) 1.8 1.3 0.88 0.65 0.52 0.43 0.29 0.26

Old Chemist, the ocean is but one source of CO2 and is lessened when ice covering. The result is a lag in atmospheric CO2 levels during a natural warming. However, as I've said before, past climate changes were missing one thing, man's influence.

CO2 causes global warming, on planets like Venus and Mars where the atmosphere is mostly CO2 and without a planetary mass of hungry photosynthetic life.

Who can ever get sick of watching leftists impale themselves on this issue?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/14/video-edwards-says-global-warming-will-make-world-war-look-like-heaven/

The ocean is the largest source of CO2, when its waters FIRST heat up - through other mechanisms than CO2 increase (realclimate admits as much).

You seem rather certain of man's influence on climate - I don't see what you base your confidence on, even after having perused realclimate.org.

By the way, have you watched the GGWS yet? I'm just watching it right now.