If they would just give up, and realize they lost that would be great. But if you study the article, he is saying the buy-in of the whole climate change, AWG, Inconvenient Truth has taken a hit.
Now he is suggesting the Warm-mongers change their tune, and not talk about climate change as they did before.
However the end goal is still the same, get people thinking like the AWG climate change crowd does, and transfer the wealth to those that "know" what is best for us.
Same old song and dance, with new lyrics.

I agree noel, all he is saying is we lost the battle but we can win the war he is basically hide your true intentions ,back stabb ,manipulate,and twist words so badly that conservatives can't disipher . LOL.

He goes on to say instead of arguing about climate change let's talk about reducing carbon .

And my first question would be why? LOL. stumped em there yet again.lol mind games don't work on those that can think cognitivly and can think critically .

paul in calgary

This is far from over the left wing loons like Dr.Fruitfly and the entrenched, pot committed fraudsters like Gore and the UN bureaucrats have already ramped up their own rhetoric.

Guys like this Foley just want to play the typical lefty ploy of changing the subject..... while not changing anything at all.

They only seek to divert the attention away from their own malfeasance.

Look away .... nothing to see here.... say the climate activist faux scientists.

Noel has it.....this isn't a confession but rather a continuing nefarious plot.
Got an e-mail report from the GTA---seems the atmosphere today resembles Beijing.........

Energy security? That's great! Let's get our cars running on COAL!

/me watches AGWer's heads explode.

He forgot to mention climate change camps for unbelievers. This guy sounds like someone from the Middle ages who was head of the local Inquisition. Lie, warp, twist all in the name of the cause.
He is in a way. The Bishop or priest in the Church of Green.
JMO

This is going to be interesting...great post Kate.
Let's see who's so dedicated to a baseless ideology mistaken for a philosophy that they get completely lost in it.

It truly is sad that our education system can't give more people a basic understanding of the scientific method, science, an epistemology, a sense of philosophy. No one knows what to believe and things turn into a competition for who can win the hearts and minds of the gullible and ignorant.

Are there any environmentalists doing something about REAL pollution (such as one might see in China, for example)?

I am all for energy independence, yep. Drill baby drill! Nukes all around! Tar sands. There is so much energy to be had without sending money to dictatorships.

Interesting that this doofus admits to losing the scientific battle, yet still refers those who scoff at the "science" as "climate deniers".

What planet do these clowns live on? Methinks there are:

(a) Far too many Ph.Ds out there in academia, hiding from working and living in the Real World

(b) Far, far too many government grants laying in the public trough for those in (a) to wallow in

mhb23re at gmail d0t calm

Anyone who wants to "help you" or the nation or world for that matter, by asking you to accept unnecessary 2rd world austerity as a response to some nebulous enemy (fill in your favorite left wing crisis cause here) is NOT your friend and NOT trying to help you. He's trying to help himself to your wealth and freedom under some concocted apocalyptic mythos.

Oldest game in the world. Been around since the tribal medicine man asked the tribe to make him king and pay him tribute so he could stop the wolf god from eating the sun.

This "lost" business is reaction to the senate's result. This is a bit Americacentric, but interesting --

// Following the rocky path of climate legislation in the U.S. Congress these past years brought me back to the 1980s, and my time as a crime reporter in New York City. After a shooting in those days, a homicide detective named Marty Davin would go to the hospital and intercept the gunshot victim on a gurney outside the emergency room. If the victim was conscious, Davin would lean over and ask, “Who killed you?”

That usually got the victim’s attention, along with an I’m-not-dead-yet protest. Davin would reply, “You are going to die. You might as well tell me who did it.”

As I interviewed the sponsor of whichever emissions-reduction bill had just been gunned down, I often thought of Davin. [...] //

In Wreckage of Climate Bill, Some Clues for Moving Forward

Get ready for Round 378 of Anecdotal Weather Wars, July has come in warmest on record for Washington DC, New York City and Moscow. Lots of other places had anything but, of course, however ... I don't need to tell you good people what's going to be made of these records by the AGW lobby, who have been licking their wounds after the severe winter of 09-10 in many high-visibility locations.

The heat in Russia is probably on the order of a one in 200 year return event, and can be directly related to the Greenland blocking high that dominated last winter. I don't think even 1% of the anomaly in Moscow or in the eastern US is on our account, the heat in the eastern states has only marginally nudged past the records and I attribute that to the ever-increasing urban heat islands that tend to keep nights warmer than in past analogues by 2-3 degrees (even if the highs come in 1-2 lower, this can equate to a new record).

Of course, the weather is always registering new extremes, with so many weather stations there is little chance of a month going by without something record-breaking, heat or cold, wet or dry.

Perhaps the Bible has the answer to all this, Revelations 16 speaks of a great heat wave that falls upon the unrepentant, which sounds a lot like Washington, New York and Moscow to me.

Those who label the people who disagree with their beliefs as 'deniers' are only demonstrating their inadequate grasp of the science and making it obvious that they're basing their beliefs on faith.

True science is always challenged, that's an essential function of the scientific process. Real scientists don't label their colleagues as 'deniers' just because they disagree.

Of course the earth is warming. It's been gradually warming for the past 15 thousand years since the end of the last ice age. During that time it's been warmer and colder than it is now as the earth's temperature fluctuates above and below that gradually increasing average. Those natural temperature fluctuations are caused by the variations in the earth's orbit and tilt relative to the sun, and solar activity.

There is ample proof that the earth is warming, however it's a fallacy to attribute that warming solely to human activity. An analysis of the long term warming and cooling cycles shows that the earth should be heading back into a cooling cycle. If human activity has any effect it's delaying that cooling. Most would agree that a warmer climate is better than a colder climate.

The real problem is toxic pollution, and it's 99% caused by human activity. However those who profit from pollution would rather have us distracted by a meaningless 'global warming / climate change' debate so they can keep on polluting. Meanwhile the general public and governments are confused about what to do about 'global warming', and the toxic polluters are winning. The sheeple are so easily confused.

"A handful of audience members challenged the wisdom of his strategy, insisting that people must be educated about the details of climate change science..."

I guess some of them still don't realize that it's because people were educated about the details of climate science that they don't believe in AGW. But I can't see how he thinks he's going to get people on board by getting them ticked over spending mega-billions on mid-east oil. The obvious answer is drill at home, they have plenty of their own.

If they do indeed try and change it to an energy security issue then they will have moved into the political killing fields where we will make hamburger of them.

Why?

Because the best way to reduce dependence on foreign (read : non-north American energy) AND save money is to ramp-up and deregulate and remove moritoria on oil and more importantly, natural gas production in north America.

What these twits have yet to appreciate is that for about a year now the proven NG reserves in NA are for all practical intents and purposes limitless and cheap.

The world has changed in the past year - the AGW argument has - arguably - been lost, and the peak oil/ peak gas theory has been thoroughly repudiated.

"ever-increasing urban heat islands that tend to keep nights warmer"

You don't know anything about urban climatology do you? Urban heat islands get COLDER at night because concrete has a low heat capacity (gains and loses heat easily/rapidly).

"The real problem is toxic pollution, and it's 99% caused by human activity. However those who profit from pollution would rather have us distracted by a meaningless 'global warming / climate change' debate so they can keep on polluting."

Exactly, it's all the same problem with essentially the same players..the general public vs government and the elite. Are humans affecting the climate? More than likely, yes. Are humans negatively affecting the environment? Without a doubt, 100% yes.

Big business can't go on pretending like pollution isn't a problem and that they have no ill effects, so they find something that IS debatable, make sure it continues to be debated, and make sure it is the prime focus.

CO2 levels affect more than just climate, they affect the oceans, specifically the pH. Even if CO2 has no effect on the climate (highly unlikely) it still has an acidifying effect on oceans. It doesn't take much of a change to start effecting the rate at which shell fish and mollusks are able to lay down calcium carbonate.

"The obvious answer is drill at home, they have plenty of their own."

That's a myth, but believe it if it brings you comfort.

It's not a myth. The Bakken oil field alone has 41 years supply for the US. Doomsayers have been predicting the end of oil for almost as long as we've been using it. By now you'd think people would have caught on.

"Urban heat islands get COLDER at night because concrete has a low heat capacity (gains and loses heat easily/rapidly)."

Now that's funny! Having experienced how much warmer an urban heat island is than the surrounding countryside in the middle of the night, I wonder if you've ever gone for a drive out to the country on a hot summer night without the AC on.

You're taking Jonathan Foley's tactic a lot farther than he did. Abandon the global warming scam alltogether and convert it to a panic over real pollution.

"It's not a myth. The Bakken oil field alone has 41 years supply for the US"

It's also shale oil, which has a horrendously low EROI...it takes almost as much energy to get the oil out as you get from the oil itself. It's also very rate dependent, meaning that the daily rate of production will max out before total production.

"Now that's funny! Having experienced how much warmer an urban heat island is than the surrounding countryside in the middle of the night, I wonder if you've ever gone for a drive out to the country on a hot summer night without the AC on."

My bad, I was referring to surface temperatures, not air temperatures. It also depends on the city...some hold a lot more energy than others depending on surface structure and building materials.

How typical of leftist elitists:

1. They are convinced the are absolutely correct.
2. They dismiss critics as idiots or ideologues.
3. When they fail to gain support for their cause through their usual propaganda, their solution is to alter the propaganda.
4. They believe the "less enlightened" people must be tricked into responding according to their wishes.

If we bought zero oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries we don't like, our energy costs would go up. Ask people if they would like that. Ask people if they think windmills and solar panels are feasible substitutes for oil and natural gas. Ask them if they'd like to see greater use of nuclear powr and greater exploitation of domestic energy resources.

Foley's argument would wither and die on the vine. Note well that his strategy engages ethnic and religious hatred as the means to an end. Osama bin Laden attempted to drive a wedge between the US and SA by selecting 15 Saudis for 9/11. His ultimate goal was to get US forces out of SA, stage a coup, and control its massive oil supplies.

Even though many Saudis hate America and support Palestinian terrorists, many others love American culture, appreciate our military support, and benefit from our trade. Their government has been a strong ally to ours. It is Saudi Arabia which has stabilized oil prices and worked to bring them down when speculators drove up futures and spot prices in 2008.

Foley is attempting to achieve what bin Laden could not.

"If we bought zero oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries we don't like, our energy costs would go up."

Why? Do you understand what is involved in US-ME policy..the extent of military involvement?

" His ultimate goal was to get US forces out of SA, stage a coup, and control its massive oil supplies."

Which is exactly what the US does...stages coups, keeps an Arab facade for government in power, and controls it's oil supply...suppressing all nationalistic endeavors.

" Palestinian terrorists"

Funny how those two words come out so easily yet you will never find the words 'US terrorists'.

"appreciate our military support, and benefit from our trade."

They're called the elite...the super rich...the VERY FEW.

"Their government has been a strong ally to ours. It is Saudi Arabia which has stabilized oil prices and worked to bring them down when speculators drove up futures and spot prices in 2008."

The US wouldn't have it any other way.

The amount of oil required to run the US military is equivalent to the amount of oil imported from the Mideast. Rather convenient isn't it? If the US wasn't so engaged in petro-imperialist 'superpower' games then they wouldn't need to spend as much on military 'defense' as the total military expenditures of all the other countries in the world.

"spend as much on military 'defense' as the total military expenditures of all the other countries in the world."

And I bet you if you included foreign military fundings/'sales' it would put it well past 50% of world expenditure.

"My bad, I was referring to surface temperatures, not air temperatures."

Uhmm, it's the warm surface temperatures (concrete, pavement) that warm up the air in a heat island at night.

"Uhmm, it's the warm surface temperatures (concrete, pavement) that warm up the air in a heat island at night."

Yes, and it's the warm rural surface that heats up the air above it too..and warm is a relative term. The reasons for why air temperatures over a heat island would stay warmer through the night is because of the lack of 'sky view' and the lack of convection, causing inversions.
If you're in a wooded area at night the air is likely warmer than a city like portland, or Vancouver (excluding right downtown). If you're on farmland the air is likely cooler than in a city like Toronto or New York.

Concrete heats up fast and cools down fast. Faster than water..(living surfaces..so rural). So the surface temperature in an urban areas is often less than rural. Of course there is no black and white in this so there are lots of different situations.

LOL.

Concrete/pavement absorbs lots of heat. At 2 in the morning it's still a lot warmer than turf.

I know it absorbs lots of heat, but it also lets go of it easily too...you're not making a logical argument, no structured explanation, just random observations. You're not comparing apples to apples.

If you were in a field with a big chunk of concrete in the middle...would you be warmer in the tall grass or on the concrete slab? That's apples to apples, it's two different surfaces in the same environment...comparing concrete in a city to laying in a field is apples to oranges, it's comparing two different surfaces in two completely different environments...it's comparing the warmest possible night time urban environment to the coldest possible night time urban environment.

It absorbs a lot of heat on a sunny day and gives it off at night. That's why the air is warm, from the concrete/pavement. That's the heat island effect. Many years of experience have taught me that it's invariably warmer at night (including the wee hours) in an urban setting than in the surrounding countryside, and that's not just by the feel, it's also (for the past decade or two) by thermometers in vehicles. Other ramifications such as convection or inversions will affect the result but they would be there anyway, even if there were no city. The urban heat island is there because of urbanization, no matter what other effects may also do.

"comparing concrete in a city to laying in a field is apples to oranges, it's comparing two different surfaces in two completely different environments"

Of course. That's the idea, to compare the two disparate environments and note the difference. It's the URBAN heat island being compared to the non-urban that demonstrates the heat island.