Thanks 'Cjunk' for the post. Of course science is going to win in the end but the damage has already been done and will keep on going. Look at the movement of the 'green machine' and cost of 'bs' this is costing the average person.

Good to see this getting exposure in the Financial Post. I imagine that reaches eyes that don't read blogs.

The only thing that I want to hear is whether the fraud charges are pending against every government official who is complicit in increasing taxes and utility bills 'to combat global warming'.

I like the way that when U of Guelph professor of environmental economics Ross McKitrick writes a factual opinion article it's posted in the "opinion" section, but when washed up politician Al Gore shows up with a hocus pocus slide show stating the sky is falling, it is actual "News".

The real culprit in all of this is the MSM. If they had been doing the job they were supposed to be doing everything from AGW to Obama getting elected would not have even gotten off the ground. Instead they were supportive and complicit and now look at the mess we have to clean up. Disgusting.

The only thing I disagree with in this post is "Science always wins ... always!". Scientists severely damaged their profession through corruption and cowardice. The public will forever remember the fraudulent phrases "the science is settled" and "scientific consensus".

Of course it was not all scientists. But not all of the MSM are left-leaning shysters. Not all politicians are scum-sucking weasels. Not all lawyers are unethical ambulance chasers. Yet the bad reputation stuck to those professions will never be removed.

Thanks Cjunk for posting this. NP has a great collection of articles under the heading "Meet the Deniers".

Today, we have some Greenpeace wackjobs climbing up the smokestack of the Shell refinery at Scotford (about 40 minutes NE of Edmonton).

Of course, they are protesting how carbon emissions contribute to global warming.

What they fail to appreciate is that CO2 is not a pollutant.

It's about plus-three here today. I hope they freeze their stupid asses off.

Honest, truthful science will always win in the long run.

To call political science a science is a travesty, since its primary technique is to gain political power over other human beings by understanding emotional appeals to those who have lost their moral compass.

Yet, political science has been used successfully since the perversion of what Darwin actually said.

What they fail to appreciate is that CO2 is not a pollutant.
Posted by: set you free at October 3, 2009 1:42 PM

And we now have an entire generation "educated" about this supposed pollutant. Sad. Very, very sad.

As Merle @ 12:48 stated, while the fraud may be exposed, it will take a very long time (if ever) for the damaging policies to be unwound.

That sound you hear is Lizzie May's little pinhead imploding.

Or is it David "Dr. Fruit Fly" Suzuki's ego exploding ?

Doesn't matter. We can only hope they both invested their life savings in those Carbon credits that have lost 90% of their value. Perfect retribution for the devastation these two fools have brought to our society.

Excellent read CJunk. I've lost more than a few "friends" by using Jo's method,which is really only good old fashioned common dog-f**k.
BTW....anybody know what happened to John Cross lately? He die on one of those sea-level rising flooded islands? :)
SYF....a few water hoses will help speed up the process for the eco-terrorists at Scottford.I've already suggested it to some buddies who work there.If that doesn't help,just keep the sucker running.That oughta show them some real "AGW". hehe

Actually this agenda is not political anymore than it is scientific. It is straight out of the psychological warfare manual. It was an insidious campaign of infiltration, mass media, and misinformation.
I was giving it the benefit off the doubt until "An Inconvenient Truth" emerged. It pegged the needle of my BS meter in so many ways. In my view it was over-reach and premature.....but then frequently the commies do that (Indonesia, Chile....)
Most of these "science is settled" declarations came from politicians, "journalists", and heads/directors of government agencies. The last category claimed academic authority and inferred their staff was in agreement----in reality fired or intimidated into silence----James Hansen is the stereotypical example of this.
[[[[David "Dr. Fruit Fly" Suzuki's ego exploding ?

Doesn't matter. We can only hope they both invested their life savings in those Carbon credits that have lost 90% of their value. Perfect retribution for the devastation these two fools have brought to our society.]]
Well Fred.......I can't see Tizzy May having any lucre to invest but she would if she did.
Fruit-fly we know he has at least 3 residences, meaning he has a lot in real estate. I wouldn't really be at all surprised if he had a secret stash of Kruger-Rands.

Justthinkin:

The PR guy from Shell was on and said the safety of the protesters is of the utmost concern.

Hey, if one of them happened to get to the top of the smokestack and somehow fell in ... would anybody hear him fall?

It's absolutely critical that people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick and Anthony Watts keep hammering away at the fabricated evidence and deliberately misleading "data" of the AGW promoters. Unfortunately, as Warren Z pointed out in the comments above, for the last twenty years or so propaganda and fraudulent mass-media journalism have outweighed science by many orders of magnitude, to the point of obliteration of the science. Solid scientific evidence against the existence of AGW has been piling up for years, and by all rights should be hugely significant to the public debate about the drastic actions we're supposed to be taking, but such counter-evidence as McIntyre et all provide functionally doesn't exist in, say, the major TV broadcast media.

AGW is a almost entirely a political issue and not a scientific one. To the extent that the majority of voters don't read scientific papers, and don't even necessarily read newspaper articles about subsamples and variability and statistical models, fraudulent journalism is the biggest problem by many orders of magnitude. The MSM has been so successful in burying the counter-evidence that there's functionally no public debate, in terms of party politics, about the existence of AGW, but only a public policy debate about what actions we "must" take. Those western politicians who privately know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's all a big scam - I would put Stephen Harper firmly in this camp - have their hands tied. If the pm were ever to openly scoff at the existence of AGW he'd be excoriated on every news broadcast by reporters and outraged activists; by merely stating the truth of the science of AGW he'd in effect be handing the keys to government to the Liberals, which would do nothing to prevent this globalist, anti-capitalist, redistributionist scam. With the notable exception of Vaclav Klaus, the only option for a western politician is to *pretend* on one hand that the scientific basis for AGW is an incontestable fact, while simultaneously fighting against taking the economically-damaging actions that are constantly being demanded by AGW supporters.

I consider it self-evident that if the mass media had been covering the matter of the actual scientific basis for AGW, public opinion on the existence of AGW would be more varied, and politicians could take one side or the other. As it stands, though, the endless propagandizing has left only one view acceptable to the vast majority of (duped) voters, which sadly, in turn, renders the science of AGW neither here nor there.

That's slowly changing thanks to the *heretical* scientists who actually, you know, look at the actual data, but there remains two fronts in the battle: the science side, and the propaganda side which not only mindfully ignores and elides the actual data, but vilifies those -- including politicians -- who notice it.

The National Post, by publishing McKitrick's essay, is helping to do that essential work of closing the two flanks. We need more of that, but the battle cannot possibly be won until the legacy/broadcast media are forced to stop being so fraudulent, i.e. when NBC/CBS/ABC/CBC/CTV/Global start doing their actual job and start reporting the facts. So far they don't, at all, as in *never*.

Btw, great post again, Paul.

Unfortunately it will still be many years before all this Chicken Little type BS is finally purged from the majority of the MSM & politics.

Remember who only a few months ago said, "...polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe."

ChrisinMB:

It would be easier to remember if we knew who said it.

We are not the Borg, we do not all live in your brain.

Never accept there is a problem with anything before carefully examining why the solution requires damaging only free enterprise economies and the biggest fans for new laws are found in nonproductive leftist public institutions.

In a few years, the usual NGO suspects will be agitating to shine up all the clapped out wind turbines and relocate them to some third world kleptocracy complete with barrels of money to "fight global warming".

"ChrisinMB:
It would be easier to remember if we knew who said it.
We are not the Borg, we do not all live in your brain."

Obama,(head of the collective) of course ;)

"I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again"

The evidence exposing their falsehoods is becoming more apparent and real. But why have normally rational thinkers thrown out all semblance of normal scientific methodology? The answer is quite simple: money. Lots and lots of money to be extorted from First world to be funneled to the dictators and despots of the third world. This scam is the brain child of Maurice Strong, truly the Doctor Evil of our time. It has been propagated by the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki types, all of whom stand to reap enormous rewards for destroying western society.

Law suits must start to flow and the US Senate must investigate before this ridiculousness goes any further

Goreacle Report: In Praise of Winter, via Canadian poet Ned Pratt.

"The Frost

The frost moved up the window pane
Against the sun’s advance.
In line and pattern weaving there
Rich scenes of old romance;
Armies on the Russian snow,
Cockade, sword and lance."
...-

Commenter *"Fred from Canuckistan

Buy long underwear.

We are going to need all the help we can to stay warm."
...-

* "Cycle 24 spotless days keeps moving up the hill – now “competitive with the Baby Grand minimum”
3 10 2009

After an exciting encounter last week with some genuine sunspots that weren’t arguable as specks, pores, or pixels, the sun resumes its quiet state this week."

"People send me things. Here’s the latest email from Paul Stanko, who has been following the solar cycle progression in comparison to previous ones.

Hi Anthony,

Out of the numbered solar cycles, #24 is now in 7th place. Only 5, 6, and 7 of the Dalton Minimum and cycles 12, 14, and 15 of the Baby Grand Minimum had more spotless days. Since we’ve now beaten cycle #13, we are clearly now competitive with the Baby Grand minimum.

Here’s a table of how the NOAA panel’s new SC#24 prediction is doing:".
urlm.in/ddbp (WUWT?)

Justthinking: A little bird "twittered" that my name was being dropped.

Nope, sorry I am still quite alive. However I have been extremely busy at work for the past year and what little time I spend posting has not been at SDA. While I like posting at SDA, in the past I have found that it is time consuming since I get a dozen people attacking my stand and unless I counter every one then they claim victory.

In regards to the latest discussion, a couple of comments. First, great to see the data out there. I have said many times that data should be shared. However, in regards to the issue, to me it seems that Steve has taken a different set of data and got different results. If so, that is not very surprising. The key is what was the selection criteria used for those trees.

However to my mind, the bigger picture is what about the physics does this change? And to that I can answer quite definitely - nothing.

Regards,
John

Here's a little tool I have had some success with in explaing how insignificant CO2 levels actually are. When I was in public school in the 60s one of my teachers used a big sheet of graph paper with a 1,000 X 1,000 grid to demonstrate a visual representation of 1,000,000.

When the AGW crowds crows about the huge RELATIVE STATISTICAL increase in CO2 from 280 to 350ppm, get out that visual and color 280 grid squares blue, then color 70 more red to show the relative change. Then look at the field of 1,000,000 squares and notice how utterly insignificant the change is. It may not satisfy an anal PhD but for the average person it is a powerful demonstration.

Ultimately it will be common sense that overcomes the "convenient lies" and it needs to adhere to the KISS principle.

"Anthropogenic Global Warming simply doesn't exist to the extent we've been led to believe"

To the extent anyone believes in the existence of Global Warming, that is the extent to which it exists, because Global Warming is a complete anthropogenic hoax.

However to my mind, the bigger picture is what about the physics does this change? And to that I can answer quite definitely - nothing.
~John Cross

There is zero temperature data demonstrating Global Warming.
Get that, John Cross?
Z.E.R.O. data.

I know you've always argued the "physics" of CO2 forcing, but what it all comes down to is the fact that zero temperature increase of any significance have been measured.
The temperature data simply doesn't exist and never did.

Therefore, with no temperature data pointing to warming, none at all, any argument dealing in the area of CO2 forcing leading to warming is irrelevant, however comforting it is to environmental zealots.

It was always a hoax.

I'll bet it is warm inside John's house today, outside maybe not. Neither Al or Suzuki, nor his local MLA or MP can introduce any policy that will alter the outside temperature. Period.

Inside, John will pay a lot of money to keep it at a modicum of warmth after his MLA and MP impose excess costs to do what he would normally do for lot less. You will starve John, before you freeze.

What those policies will do is what the greenies want - generate a lot of dead humans, except them. If they can achieve that end by wrecking the economies of the world, starving people or injecting them with a bogus H1N1 "vacine" during some fabricated pandemic "crisis", they will do so. The green movement is genocidal. They want you and your kids to jump off a cliff and die, pushed by them.

Study geology, John, the planet is in an interglacial warming trend, our natural "climate" during a glacial period is a mile of ice covering North America and other parts of the world. The science is settled on that fact.

Oz: I don't think Steve used his work to argue that there is no increase in recent temperatures. As far as I can tell, his work looks at the statistical basis for reconstructions of past temperatures. I kind of which he did use that argument since it is a ridiculously easy argument to refute. In fact, I just helped John Cook look at that topic over here.

Jt: I don't really find much science in your post to argue with. No one doubts that we are in an interglacial period and we are expected to be in one for another 10,000 years or so.

Regards,
John

Just found a link to this in my mailbox so I thought I would post it here. I do not know if this is really Steve posting, but it is consistent with his style. From this site. I note that his position here is actually much closer to mine than to what the people on this thread seem to think.

Regards,
John

Stephen McIntyre
October 3rd, 2009 3:26pm

While there is much to criticize in the handling of this data by the authors and the journals, the results do not in any way show that "AGW is a fraud" nor that this particular study was a "fraud".

There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary here is unfair to them.

In retrospect, the "hockey stick" studies that I've criticized have been used by climate scientists, journals and IPCC to promote concern, but the most important outstanding scientific issue appears to me to be the amount of "water cycle" feedback, including clouds as well as water vapor. This controls the "climate sensitivity" to increased CO2.

In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues.

"CO2 is not a pollutant" ?
Too much of anything likely could be considered a pollutant.
Question really is or should be, how much is too much?
They know that Global warming is not "anthropogenic" and anyone that says that it is is likely very misinformed.
The question being asked by the informed is how much influence does man have on global warming? Is human activity adding to this so-called "problem"? Most would say yes but really doesn't matter.
cuzz 'there ain't a damn thing you are going to do about it'.If anyone says they are, then they are full of shit, Dr. Suzuki. There's way too much hype.
They say GreenLand was named that because it was green and apparently it's going back to that colour.
Why aren't we celebrating, eh.

"They say Greenland was named that because it was green"
So i read somewhere and actually think I learned that in school but I don't think that really matters for the sake of whether global warming is man caused or natural. Science should know but they're probably too busy playing politics.

Oz: I don't think Steve used his work to argue that there is no increase in recent temperatures.
~John Cross

There isn't any increase in recent temperatures.
Quite the opposite.
There has been a decrease in recent temperatures.

I shovelled snow off of my deck today.

The weather balloon and satellite data shows stasis in the temperature record.

Apparently there is no longer any surface station data record.
When it was claimed that there was a surface station data record, the raw data was kept concealed and it didn't agree with measurements taken in the lower troposphere.

There is no global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise.

Global warming = gun control. Same methodology, same list of suspects. One more scam to control the rubes.

That would be -us- btw, just so we are all clear on who's getting scammed by whom.

John Cross: I think you miss the point; that being that the hockey stick has been used by the IPCC to club the public and policy makers with. Another plank, whether rhetorical or actually scientific, has fallen.

Having said that, whether the hockey stick is based on fact or fantasy is irrelevant ... it does nothing to prove or disprove AGW. In fact, that "physics" you so fondly like to talk about has yet to manifest itself outside the models ... so far, nature isn't cooperating with the "physics".

John Cross: As far as Steve insinuating fraud ... he does no such thing and that quote you give is right from his site.

The insinuations of fraud come from those of us who are more interested in the geopolitical realities of the debate ... the IPCC is fast becoming the "acorn" of science ... the smell is there, all that is needed now is a Hannah Giles. After all, the IPCC is almost exclusively made up of bureaucrats and trans-national politicians ... not scientists.

I submit, that arguing the physics of CO2 forcings effect on global warming, in the absence of any data even demonstrating warming at all, and there is a marked absence, is the equivalent of arguing the brightness of the eye, or the hue of the ink, on the portrait of Colonel Harlen Saunders on the 3 Dollar bill.

Straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.

Oz, Paul: I take it your point is that there is no observed warming. I would tend to disagree and (and I take it from the comments that Steve makes, he doesn't agree with you either).

You both ignored my link (at 1:14 above) and since I helped write the article let me promote it again. In fact, why don't you drop over to Skeptical Science and we can discuss it in detail.

Regards,
John

No John, that's not my point. A warming world is not proof of AGW, it's just proof that the world is getting warmer. There is no definitive proof that humans are causing it.

Paul: OK, but now it sounds like you are saying that a warmer world is proof that the physics are not cooperating with nature.

My point is that the world is warming, the physics predict warming. We can quibble about the details but that seems like a good first step.

Regards,
John

It doesn't make any difference whether Steve is taking that line of argument or not, John Cross.

Steve, and others who have access to the non-surface data, have stated in the past that the balloon and satellite data shows stasis or even cooling.

With the surface data gone, there simply isn't any data to show warming, period.

Many people have allowed the global warming zealots to steal a march but conceding the possibility that the globe is warming, based purely on good faith and hoping that the release of the raw surface data would show that AGW supporters were proceeding on good faith too instead of being hucksters.

Well, it turns out that the AGW are hucksters and haven't been arguing from good faith all along.

There is no global warming, it is a hoax.
Forget anthropogenic global warming.

"Jt: I don't really find much science in your post to argue with. No one doubts that we are in an interglacial period and we are expected to be in one for another 10,000 years or so."

Well then, you could almost state that man had nothing to do with that scientific fact, could't you. Then you could also state that warming is "good" for the planet, good for food production and population growth. Good for humans.

The "bad" is that our warmists (that includes you as well) wish to perpetrate a genocide with AGW policies on the human population of this planet. You seem to have bought into the One World Government/collapse the world's economy to "save the planet" mantra of the Maurice Strong faction at the UN. You are like those individuals who stood on the railway platform once and said: "links, reghts" to those emptied out of boxcars.

Lets' face it John Cross, you are a genocidalist. You endorse everything the green movement wants, the detruction of the human race, except for a few "caretakers". There aren't many good words to say about people that think like you.

John: How do you get that from what I said? A warming world simply proves that the world is warming ... but it doesn't prove that it's due to CO2 increases. A warming planet due to CO2 increases must demonstrate itself as the models predict ... and so far, that's not happened.

Furthermore, the degree to which the planet has warmed or cooled over the past 1000 or more years is not settled ... even this basic fact can't be nailed down. Steve has successful cast great doubt on what was being pushed as "fact" by the IPCC.

The whole premise of the IPCC calling for economic action was that the science is settled, yet it's not. Even your beloved "physics" isn't settled ... beause there is increased debate over "how" iincreases in CO2 interact with a multitude of other forces within the dynamic atmosphere.

In the end, I categorize your side as demonstrating incredible hubris despite knowing so little.

Oz: OK, here is a quick question for you. How do the satellite methodologies account for stratospheric cooling?

Jt: your points do not follow from your argument. Fact A is true but the rest of your statements do not depend on fact A being true.

Paul: I got it from this post of yours; In fact, that "physics" you so fondly like to talk about has yet to manifest itself outside the models ... so far, nature isn't cooperating with the "physics". Now, I agree that correlation is not causation, but I disagree that correlation is anti-causation. In regards to whether things are happening as predicted, Deep Climate has a good post.

However I do commend you three for nailing me down so well. Yup, that's me - a hubtitic, genocidal, huckster! I am thinking of getting it put on a T-shirt!

Regards,
John

Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting records not friendly to their position. In fact, when Briffa’s hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant trend in the 20th century whatsoever!
FROM:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html#

There is no global warming.

No significant trend = stasis