Blair is a wuss and is not accepting subscribers at this time, having filled his echo chamber to capacity. But he makes a good point, and I got a laugh out of his post, to tell the truth. I hope, though, that the self-same point will be applied to the risible Oregon Petition, in which thousands of crystallographers, bird scientists, petroleum geeks and Intelligent Design theorists decry the notion of global warming. Fair's fair.

I thought that was Al Gore's title...

Dr. Dawg:

Yes, of course.  It's far better that a geneticist who studied fruit-flies thirty years ago and has been nothing more than an enviroshill ever since lectures us about climate change.

Because that's an okay mis-application of unrelated professional experience.  Not like those evil Deniers.

people ask me if I believe in "climate change"

I ask them if they believe in 'water wet"

Or The world’s leading kelptocrat on climate philanthropy.

Yes, "fair's fair" and it would be so if the media displayed the same canine devotion to the skeptics as they do to the advocates.

I guess you'd have to include Suzuki in there. He's no climatologist. Just like Michael Moorer is no documentary maker and Al Bore is no carbon neutral kind-of-guy.

...can someone please tell me when Global Warming is coming?

Wish it would hurry up.

It's snowing and -10c outside here in Calgary.

This is April right? April blizzards bring May floods, err, how does that little ditty go?

How many people have heard of the Oregon Petition (news to me) as opposed to all the kids forced to watch the (Oscar winning) movie An Inconvenient Truth?

Dawg, I know you care about real issues: malaria in Africa (caused by -- well we won't go into Rachel Carson here), other easily treatable situations in "Third World" countries. If we have to spend trillions on an issue, shouldn't it at least be to fix something real and fixible, not a one degree rise in temperature that may actually do more good than harm and that we probably can't do anything about anyway?

Not all of us "deniers" are just being stubborn. Some of us think it is a matter of twisted priorities: a fantasy Planet Earth and its "endangered" polar bears rather than actual human beings.

I'm glad you didn't raise that bit of urban folklore about a Third World DDT ban here, Kathy. I addressed that nonsense some time ago, but it's a myth that will not die.

Of course I care about malaria in Africa, but I also care about the future of the planet. Changes take longer when you're dealing with something of that scope. Moving a rudder on a supertanker needs a lot of time to overcome inertia. But does that mean we should just ignore the rudder and hope the damned thing stays on course?

The point of Kyoto is to start a very long-term process of thinking and acting differently. If the majority of climatologists are right (and so far the objections to their science appear to be primarily based upon a mixture of neo-conservative ideology and vulgar eschatology), then we can do something about global warming and we ought to start the process soon.

I still got a good chuckle out of Blair, though. Economists aren't even experts on economics.

Thanks for bring the kid part up Kathy. My daughter watched An Inconvenient Truth and The Corporation in school so I spent the better part of last evening deprogramming. Amazing how a little Adam Smith cuts through the leftist fog of BS.

Dr. Dawg I'm glad you care. That and $1.50 will get you a coffee.

Dr. Dawg:

I take issue with your comment about the "petroleum geek".

Before labelling someone as myself a "petroleum geek"from the pious sanctity of your heated/cooled and insulated, shingled domicile accessing the internet on a computer composed primarily of plastics, you would do humanity better to get your butt out into the real world to seek out options to our present petrochemical dependancy. (tip: remove head before walking).

Yes, I am a petroleum engineer, and therefore, by your logic, a shill for the oil bidness. Because I am apparently not intelligent enough to have an opinion other than my pay cheque.

I guess nobody in the global warming community, or the" were all going to die tomorrow" crowd care not a bit about this -22 here on the 3rd of April as my calves die left and right. Cattle arn't warm and cuddly to an envirowhacko, they represent the evil capitalist to these fools. Sad to see there are those in the media that are as sharp and lightweight as a beach ball telling us all about a non-existant looming crisis and sadder to think there those in positions of power that believe these charlatans.

I am a petroleum engineer, and therefore, by your logic, a shill for the oil bidness.

Only if you signed the Oregon Petition. It's not all about you, Jim.

How about:
The world leading Liberal on Ethics
The world leading Dipper on Family Values
The world leading Green Party member on leadership election tactics.

How does one sign the Oregon Petition? I would love to add another signature to it.

Several weeks before the end of winter they said it was the warmest winter on record. Then it got cold. CBC tells us it is 10 to 15 degrees below normal on the prairies. Will this be the coldest spring in decades? I heard it said that an expert is simply someone who lives 150 KM away from you.
When people talk about Kyoto and CO2 emissions I tell them that CO2 is already contributing all it can to the greenhouse effect and if we reduced the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 90% there would be no reduction in it's contribution. When they say they don't believe me I tell them I didn't either until I Googled Co2 Infrared Absorption and read numberous sites such as ....www.nov55.com/ntyg.html or even www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

This brings up the obvious question;"What does Don Cherry think about Climate Change"?

Darwin vs Creation
Left vs Right
Flat vs Round
Cold vs Hot
Static vs Dynamic

Guess I'd rather have a right round hot dynamic world.

Change is the only certain thing in life. The polar bears will get it ....or die.

Dawg boy sez: "Of course I care about malaria in Africa, but I also care about the future of the planet"

I hear there are open positions for African missionary work...drop the keyboard moral superiority and get on a boat to put your ass where your mouth is...save the pamet from your evil Co2 effluent ...show us all by example turn in all your carbon producing comforts and live in a mud hit in Africa teaching them how to combat Malria...solves both problems...or is this another urban liberal cop out where a few bucks to the right "cause" salves guilt for not having the balls to act on your lofty convictions?

Sorry for the dressing down but lofty pseudo-moralist hypocrisy is such a large target.

How does one sign the Oregon Petition? I would love to add another signature to it.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Anything to help out. Get all your friends to sign it, too.

CBC had a major climate change, kool-aid drinking, fear mongering fest on The National last night. I spent some time calming down our eight year old man-cub who had heard some of the audio portion from his bedroom.

Call me an optimist, but has what Michael Crichton calls "the religion of choice for urban atheists" finally jumped the shark?

WLMR - that would be Maurice Strong, wouldn't it?

Doc Doggie:

if the majority of real, qualified climatologists are right, then the jury is completely out on human induced climate change. And they won't be back for quite a while.

BTW the signers of the Oregon petition were on average far more qualified to speak on the subject than the 2500 fawning and obsequious signers of the IPCC reports.

Whether you believe it or not, Rachel Carson is the greatest mass murderer in human history. You ever had malaria, Doggie? Ever have a buddy die of it?

Doggie - I'll show you my qualifications if you show me yours.

Dawg's colleagues in Oregon signed the petition. ...-

Rudeness mars peace message [antiwar protestor DEFECATES on burning US flag] ... What a bunch of sick, brainless idiots dwell in Portland, Oregon. ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805889/posts?page=76

I've often wondered how does one get to be one of the world's "leading" scientists? Is it like the World Cup? (ie a preliminary round-robin with the leaders then engaging in head-to-head elimination) Or is it more like American Idol where they come out on stage, do their thing and then everybody (with a phone) gets to vote for 50 cents a call?

And where do you suppose more scientists can be found performing real scientific research and application? In the world's energy industries or employed by the UN?

The real cause of global warming is all the extra heat from the fire's in hell fueled by the bodies of all the Godless Islamic homicide bombers and terrorists who have been given an early trip to meet their true God, the Devil, by having their ticket punched by a 7.62mm Nato round or a lazer guided bomb courtesy of the brave coalition troops. Imagine the looks on these terrorist's frightened faces when they meet up with that hot blue flame instead of the hot virgins they were promised and their anguished and final cries to their blasphemous Imams of "you lied to us".

suck·er(skr)n.
a. One who is easily deceived; a dupe.
b. One that is indiscriminately attracted to something specified: "Islamic terrorists are suckers for believing they will enjoy 72 virgins as a reward for committing murder."

Kathy Shaidle and Warren Kinsella, along with three other guests were on Steve Paikin's 'The Agenda' last night. A very good discussion titled "Worshipping at Secular Altars".

Kathy, could a similiar debate be held; "Worshipping Kyoto" ??

I noticed how the "cat n dog" sorta, actually got along together!! **

Perhaps the same thing would happen with a Kyoto Religion debate. So far the Dions and Suzukis and Gores of the world are hidding.

When WK said he works with some environmentalists and they are not all 'Kooks', I wish you would have asked him; "which one is NOT a Kook ? Patrick Moore OR David Suzuki ??"

Dr. Dawg:

"Only if you signed the Oregon Petition. It's not all about you, Jim."

Thank you. I understand my limited input into the debate probably better than you understand your own.

My point was, that everyone is very quick to point to the Kyoto protocol as having been hijacked by the shills, petroleum geeks, the crystallographers, etc., when in reality the protocol was hijacked by poor science and a thinly disguised socialist equalization agenda. There just seems to be no acceptance of that fact among the talking heads who sit in their comfortable homes, yelling at everyone else to cut back and buy carbon credits.

I only wish I had signed the Oregon Petition. Of course, there would be the shrill cry of "shill!" or worse yet "bird scientist!".

Global warming is cuased by the HOT AIR from such wussietard hypotcrits like AL GORE,DAVID SUZUKI,TED TURNER,JAMES LOVELOCK, and the rest of the new age gaia worshipping eco-freaks

Jim:

I see that an apology is due. "Petroleum geeks" was cheeky. I withdraw it. I was expressing general irritation that this petition was signed by a huge majority of individuals who place "PhD" after their names, but have no immediate expertise in climatology and related disciplines. Ornithologists are no more experts in global (non-)warming than are, say, economists. In addition, it is no secret that outfits like the Heartland Institute have their own axes to grind.

No matter. To the meat of the thing: the protocol was hijacked by poor science and a thinly disguised socialist equalization agenda That's just assertion. Are the scientists who actually do have expertise and who have put their names to the UN petition just a bunch of fawning socialist shills themselves, with some secret, conspiratorial agenda? That stretches belief past the breaking-point, I'm afraid, and moves us right into kerosene-and-rabbit-wire territory.

Maurice Strong, of One World Governance fame, and the UN's IPCC Kyoto commitee, pinned ALL their man-made-global warming hope on

MANN'S HOCKEY STICK GRAPH.

Was the reason for being.

The graph is a hoax. That has been demonstrated many times. Even the CBC has given up. It is no longer used by the GW crowd as a promo for their cause.

If Kyoto isn't a conspiracy to bring on socialistic engineering, what the hell is ??

Dawg,

Can you direct us to relevant climatologists who support the final UN report? As I understand it, scientists get to do the leg-work, offering various studies, etc - at the end of the thing, some UN bureaucratic committee takes whichever science they deem 'useful', and write a report that may or may not reflect all the science, but which is overtly political. Are we sure that the scientists who did the work have actually signed on to the prescriptions (ie, Kyoto) offered by the UN report authors?

It seems to me that this is all about politics, and very little about science.

I was hoping for more worlds leading expert funnies! How about Immam (insert name here) worlds leading expert on peacekeeping.

Oops this is better. How about Immam (insert name here) worlds leading Islamic cleric expert on peacekeeping.

These are the contributors to the Third Report--the Fourth one is coming out shortly (May, I believe).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm

Dr. Dawg;

Fair enough. My initial comment was snarky, and I also owe you an apology as well. Not a good way to start an honest debate!

I thought of the thrust of your assertion and I came to understand your perspective on the Oregon Petition. Admittedly, it does seem to be a "any degree is valid" type of petition without due regard for type of study and is thus questionable in its applicability.

I tend to look to our politicians in the hopes that they can attend a policy that will balance fiscal growth and be sustainable. What is frustrating is the lack of professionalism shown by the core scientists that our politicians are dependant upon. As a society, we have marginalized science resulting in a simplistic, polarized view of "what's neat this week". The media picks this up, and the cycle of shrieking is perpetuated.

I don't know what your perspective is on the Kyoto Protocol although I suspect it is in the "for" category. You are correct in your statement that the socialism comment was an assertion. I have read enough of the Protocol (although not the Protocol directly - alas) to know that I am very uncomfortable with aspects of it. To the point that I would fight it with every joule of energy that I have. To this end, I would respectfully disagree with you on the value of the Kyoto Protocol.

There are a lot of scientists on both sides - studying true science and being true to good science. I have chosen the "non-anthropogenic sources" side. Partially it is due to my career, however it is more to do with my readings. I am unconvinced humanity is having as great an impact as I have heard or read. It would be wrong for me to say that we are not having ANY impact. However, what energy source do we have access to that is as cost effective, and easy to access as petroleum? Our standard of living is a directly proportional to the ease with which we draw the oil out of the dirt. I am at odds also with what appears to be a mechanism to negatively impact our standard of living.

"Thinly disguised socialist agenda"(sic) may have been a bit harsh. I re-iterate that Kyoto to me is not a middle ground. It is well meaning, but I continue to believe it is fundamentally flawed in its intent, and its methodology.

Well, why not? Here in the US, we have five bleeding -- er, leading -- jurists who have just officially pronounced CO2 to be a pollutant. We are now well and truly hosed (or is that Josed?) But at least my senator is happy: "This decision puts the wind at our back," says Barbara Boxer. (Insert joke here.)
Expect a flood of absurd legislation and regulation to begin soon.
Perhaps all animals should made to wear gas masks, not to filter the air that is inhaled, but to scrub the CO2 from the exhaled miasma.
Does any one of the High Five realize that water vapor could also be considered a pollutant, since it is responsible for the lion's share of the greenhouse effect? Maybe now the old dihydrogen monoxide anecdote can be recycled.

Fred: of course the phrase "climate change" means as much as much as "water wet". it was coined by an advisor to george bush so he wouldn't have to say "global warming". also, it is my impression that most readers of this blog embrace global warming because it could mean that we will all meet christ sooner. is this correct?otherwise, why is there such fervent dislike for science when related to climate issues?

Dr.Dawg - thanks for the link.

I just stuck the list into a spreadsheet to see who the 2500+ consensus scientists were ... there were only 792 check the link below.

http://www.zubc.com/hoax/hoax.html

See what happens when I sort the names:

http://www.zubc.com/hoax/hoax2.html

Dory,

I dare say we have no problems with science. We have problems with those who use science to push their politics. Alas, the urgency of those pushing for Kyoto or its like display mass hysteria often (mis)attributed to religious fundamentalism. As a matter of fact, I teach high school science - and lament the simplistic answers our government gives us to teach kids about science, particularly in this area (often it effectively amounts to showing movies like "Day after tomorrow" or AIT). It seems to me that there are many pushing pseudo-scientific truths as divinely inspired. These politicized messages have absolutely nothing to do with real science. When I, an undergraduate-trained science teacher can see holes in the dominant enviro-fad of the day, it's telling me that something beyond science is at work. I'm not buying the larger agenda. The unfortunate thing, is that the backlash against Kyoto et al (which I expect to see in my lifetime) is likely to obscure any meaningful points that should have been made if those pushing the agenda were genuinely concerned about science or the environment.

Thanks for the snarky comment about faith. As one who celebrates Easter for reasons other than the Easter bunny, I can tell that you don't really know this site if you think it's Christian-based in any way. Unless there's been an unannounced conversion, I believe our kind host is an atheist (and I know many commenters are such as well). Or does the idea of non-religious arguments against your own beliefs make you uncomfortable?

Ural - that was fabulous. How many names are repeated in that list of 792? Can't these guys even count to 2500 without getting messed up?

Shane O,

We're down to 605 consensus scientists:

http://www.zubc.com/hoax/hoax3.html

And MAURICE STRONG is a big time earth worshipping eco-freak retards a wacko basket case and all around idiot

Apurwing: But he's getting rich on vacuum headed frat-tards who rush to pay his global taxation on climate fantasy.

Can anyone tell me how to get a copy of the BBC4 Documentary called "The Great Global Warming Scandal". I know it is on YOUTUBE but you can't download it to a DVD.

I emailed the BBC annd asked if it is for sale with no response. Also it is not available on Amazon.

RL

RL - there is a file conversion program (maybe several?) that can turn youtube files into usable media files. I have one on my machine at home, but it's shareware (usable for 14 days) from when you install it, so I'm saving up files before I install it. The address, I believe, is found at www.videodl.org. You have to paste the youtube address into the field at that site. When prompted to save the file, you need to give it an .flv extension. The program that converts these files can then convert the .flv into usable media.