Canada Lagging Behind On Climate Change

The Climate Models have failed.  Temperature has never been linked to CO2 and now its impossible to ignore.  Other countries have taken steps away from the warmist cult but Canada is lagging behind.

China, home of the lake of toxic poison and slave labour camps, has collapsed the climate talks in Poland.  In a cynical sabotage move the worlds leading polluter led the gullible poorer nations on a walkout of Climate talks.  They are all back in the Climate talks again of course.  Once they realised that "Rich" nations are actually negative rich, or rich in nothing but debt, they all came back in hopes the negative rich nations would be even more gullible.

This comes after Poland fired the chair of climate chatter fest for not being Supportive enough of Fracking.  Poland has asserted its sovereignty and independence by advocating coal and shale gas exploration.  Energy independence is political independence for Poland who is threatened by Russia.  The energy bully can force obedience from Poland by withholding gas exports.  Fracking is very good news for Poland and its heartening to see a country standing up for itself both to the former soviet masters and the creeping fingers of the UN itself.

Elsewhere in the world Australia's parliament has voted to repeal its Carbon Tax.  Tony Abbott was given a mandate by the good and sensible Australian people to abolish the punishing green tithe.  Canadian Voters did the same when they rejected the Liberal "Green Shift" during the 2008 election.  Unfortunately Justin Trudeau's Liberals quietly want to try the insanity again.

While there are two provinces who already have irrational carbon taxes in Canada, there is some good news.  Parliamentary Secretary and rising star Paul Calandra had this to say about Australia's bold move:

“Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.
“Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity. Prime Minister Abbott has said that, in Australia, the repeal of the carbon tax will reduce the average household’s cost of living by (in Australian dollars) $550 a year, take $200 off household power bills and $70 off gas bills.
“Our government has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and creating Canadians jobs – greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we’ve created 1 million net new jobs since the recession – and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax.”

The Liberal government in Ontario has lost its mind in tandem with the federal branch.  They have invited the Goreacle to help lie to Ontarians about her government's green lunacy.  Al Gore's visit will assuredly bring along the "Gore Effect."  There are as many peer reviewed papers on the Gore effect as there are linking large storms to CO2.  Rob Ford had better have the Army on speed dial because everything Gore touches turns white and fluffy.  It wasn't all bad though.  People hurt by Ontario's wind power scheme are protesting the Premier.  You can see why the Media Party only wants to talk about the Senate.

Paul Calandra's message to Australia is also one of hope for Canada.  This is an important step forward, but we need to do more on Climate Change.  Parliament should enact laws that prohibit the taxation of molecules essential to life.  Only then can we put this destructive tax ploy behind us.  Only then can Canadians breath easily that citizens and prosperity come first.

A Threat To The Species

The amount of scientific and industrial illiteracy in so-called mainstream media is staggering some times.

Take CBC for example.  Their best news program is the Lang and O'Leary Exchange.  I watch it regularly as they cover stories that are actually important and O'Leary is always entertaining. 

Not too long ago Dianne Buckner was hosting for Amanda Lang and she got into it Kevin O'Leary about climate change once again.  It was the standard argument, but at one point Buckner stated that climate change was a "threat to the species!"

Hold on.  How so?  Dianne Buckner is a very smart cookie.  How does she go and say something ridiculous on air like that and get away with it?  The Human Species survived the Ice Ages with nothing more than sticks and pelts.  Civilization flourished during the Roman Warm Period and at least the Arabs did well during the Medieval Climate Optimum. It was warmer than today in both instances.  How is climate change in either direction going to threaten our species? 

She has obviously had this idea drilled into her mind over several years.  Its not just her either.  People hear nonsense like climate change is a threat to humanity and don't think twice.  This is the product of social engineering.  People have been socially engineered to except it as dogma and call people who don't agree all sorts of names. The names hurt far less than the fact that smart people will not apply a tiny bit of logic to their accepted wisdom.

Its a dangerous thing too.  Think of the evil done in the name of national security.  How about the evil done in the name of God?  Incredible evil can be done in the name of the species.  Now here we have environmentalists training smart people to think that their destructive tax and obstruction schemes are for the good of the species.  Nuts.

People need to be challenged on these nonsense axioms.  I recommend doing so gently.  Nobody likes to find out they are being stupid.  Reserve your contempt for the people who are terminally so.

Redford's Keystone messaging could lead to failure for Alberta

Tom Harris has a message for Alberta Premiere Allison Redford in his article: Smart messaging needed to avoid pipeline lobbying failure.  Harris laments Alberta's Keystone pipeline messaging saying "a supposedly conservative government feeds the fire that threatens to destroy the province’s, and indeed the country’s, main source of wealth, their vast hydrocarbon resources" and of Allison Redford that "her approach is doomed to failure." 

The article identifies Harris as the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, and an advisor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.  He's put together an excellent well reasoned video you can watch below.



(h/t WUWT)

What's wrong with preaching nonsense to the nonsensical?  Why not serve gobbleygook  to the gook gobblers?  Well because its a waste of time. 

Pandering to the ridiculous only reinforces it.  It's better to appeal to higher reasoning than to stoop to the level of sloganeering battles.  They sloganeer to appeal to the ignorant in the first place.  The antidote to ignorance is clarity on reality, not learning to speak the mongrel noises of the irrational eco-nut.

By trying to appease climate alarmists and using their own nonsensical and incorrect language in a vain effort to win them over Redford is conceding victory.  They don't have a rational reason to oppose Keystone.  Its pure symbolism.  Keystone is a proxy for their larger war.  They don't care if Keystone is better for the environment.  They care about scoring a victory against "big oil."  There is no circumstance where the success of the pipeline will include the symbolic victory they seek. 

Eco-nuts are the enemy. 

I make a distinction against Eco-nuts and people like us who love the environment.  You can't call yourself Canadian and not be in love with this beautiful land.  We are people who respect the land and work hard in our responsible and bountiful economy.  We are the target audience and we share these values with Americans. 

Eco-nuts are lost.  There is nothing we can say to sway them.  Perhaps losing their illogical Keystone battle is the first step to their rediscovery of reason but that is a path they have to walk themselves.  Approving Keystone will help the average person and that is who we need to be speaking to.

Allison Redford will be speaking to the anti-Keystone Brookings Institute in Washington next week.  It will be live streamed but you have to register. 

Whatever happens to Keystone will have major political and economic repercussions in Alberta, Canada and the United States.

America, your decline is showing.

You would expect that the biggest night of the year in sports would include full power to the lighting system.  A power outage 34 minutes long occured in the second half of the XLVII Superbowl yesterday. 

Superbowl XLVII

It used to be that only female clothing accidentally goes off at a Superbowl.  This however is Obama's America. 

In Obama's America they can't even keep the lights on.  Entergy is the company that provided power to the Superbowl until they didn't.  They boast about catching farts for the planet specifically for the Superbowl on thier website.

SPQR

When you dig deeper you find out that they are funding a faraway farm to literally burn bullcrap for electrcity.  Somehow this "offsets your carbon footprint" for a Superbowl free of eco-guilt.  What a steaming load of bull.  What kind of crap morality requires that a person burn poop as they burn fuel? 

What use is a power company that spends its resources providing free electricty to some farmer while paying customers sit in the dark?  This is the decline. 

So what is next for the fart catchers?  What else can they diminish besides the Superbowl?

The Eco-nuts are planning a "Blackout Rally" on February 17th in Washington.  The Sierra Club and 350.org are a few of the organizations that will be there asking for increased general poverty.  These fanatics have openly called for large scale reductions (95%) in nuclear, hydroelectric, and fossil fuel consummption with no viable replacement.

Power outages would be common place if these organizations ever succeeded.  Power outages would be the default while things like Superbowls would just fade away.  Who would buy the products in those expensive commercials?  Who could afford to run a television?  How would they even light up the Stadium?

These eco-nuts are anti-civilization, anti-life, and anti-mind.  They are anti-human.  They must be opposed.  Some fearless and intelligent people are doing just that.  Alex Epstien will be there with a counter movement.  He's calling it The Light Brigade.  Thanks to people like him, I actually look forward to these events.

Al-Gore can sell his worthless channel to whom ever he likes

Sure Al Gore is a hypocrite.  We all knew that.  He hates oil, but $100 million from Qatar is a better than fair price for his microscopic convictions.

That isn't the whole story though.  Al Gore does have convictions, they just have nothing to do with the environment or warming hysteria.

Al Gore refused to sell his station to Glenn Beck for ideological reasons.  Seriously CurrentTV said: “the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view.”

There you have it.  Al Gore is aligned with Arab Oil Sheikhs over a fellow countryman.  Environmentalism is only a proxy for Al Gore's true agenda: war on the right.  Finally the proof.

It has long been said that the green movement is just a repackaged front for Marxism.  Now you know it's true.

6,805,733,000 people did not participate in Earth Hour

My post yesterday advising people to ignore Earth Hour was resoundingly followed by the people of Earth.  Through common sense, ignorance, or willful disregard of WWF, the planet spoke with nearly one voice:

We don't give a damn about Natural Climate Change, Global Warming, or your stupid green religion.

Here is a screen capture of the WWF website this evening which shows a tally of all the Earth Hour Supporters.

Notice that they are still receiving supporters after Earth Day.  One wonders when they will cut off the count.  My calculation as to the opponents of Earth Hour are calculated from the US Census Bureau and the above data from WWF.

I do not have a count of the number of people participating in Human Achievement Hour.  My guess would be that there could not have been more than 10,000 people at the very most.   They do stand out though and they will continue to.

That pretty much closes the book on Earth Hour 2010.  If it was a vote, then opponents have pulled a huge upset and now have a mandate to shut down the AGW hoax and its movement.  Even the WWF did not meet its own goal of 1 billion participants and fell far far far short.   That is half of 1 percent of their stated goal.  Rarely do we see failure of this magnitude outside of Climate Activism.

Merry Christmas World!

I hope everyone is having a fantastic holiday.  I thought I'd share my favorite Christmas gift this year with you.  Its "The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming."  My environmentally conscious ex-greenpeace other half gave it to me.  She says that if I was a super hero, "The Denier" would be my super alias.  haha :)

I haven't started it yet, but I'm really excited to consume this little morsel.  The back cover lists several venerated scientists who dispute AGW in their own field of relevant expertise including Freeman Dyson.  Cool eh?  Freeman Dyson!  I have new respect for someone I already had great respect for.  He's a great thinker.  He came up with the concept of a Dyson Sphere you may have seen in an old STNG episode.  You know, the one where they find old Scotty preserved in a transporter buffer.  He also came up with the Astro-chicken, and the Dyson Tree.  We deniers are assembling a mighty flotilla here aren't we?

The second thing I've noticed already is that a contributor to the book, Dr. Edward Wegman, claims responsibility for debunking the "Hockey Stick" graph.  I thought it was Stephen McIntyre?  I love skeptics.  Everything is up for debate.  Either way, its widely known that the graph is bunk, and we even have stolen emails from the frauds proving that it was more than an honest mistake.  There is no longer any doubt that activist media, activist science, and activist politicians are colluding to disseminate this lie for their own agendas.  Why else is there blackout on the news that AGW is a hoax?  I'm even beginning to suspect that the preponderance of evidence isn't all that ponderous after all.  There needs to be a new accounting of this consensorship of opinion.  Once you strip away the bogus science and all its advocates the theory is shaky indeed. 

I'm looking forward to reading this book.  I hope the new perspectives from the various essays therein lends new ammunition to the real fight against Global Warming Hysteria.

Thanks & Merry Christmas!

Fake Climate Change Solved!

I've got it! A fake press release full of fake promises regarding the fake problem of Global Warming has a very good solution. Lets follow through on these fake promises with fake money. All nations that feel they need climate reparations can simply print this blog as many times as they like. The notes on this page are only redeemable by participating green idiots across the world. In this spirit, I also give myself the Nobel prize for climate BS and having solved Global Warming. Thank You!

Open Letter to the Honourable Jim Prentice: Candian Environment Minister. (from a constituent, volunteer, and supporter of Jim Prentice)

Dear Minister Prentice:

Climate Change has come to dominate our international policy decisions lately. I respect your opinion that Global Warming is real even when The globe begins cooling. Many Canadians share that opinion and you must represent them as well as you represent Canadians who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I only ask for a fair and unbiased exploration of the facts around general trends in average global temperature. Are the causes of Climate Change, up or down, really blamed on CO2? Can we really trust the gate keepers of the scientific community after the revelations of the Climategate scandal? I'm afraid that Climate science has been over politicized and abused to create a sense of urgency and impending doom. Skeptical scientists within the IPCC and climate science in general are muzzled or discredited if their expert opinions conflict with the status quo.

Important policy decisions should be based on the absolute truth. It is imperative that public money and encouragement be directed towards Scientists skeptical of Global Warming. The campaign to discredit skeptics who had industry funding or experience highlights the need for an unbiased approach to the study of the earths climate. Only public funds can be considered unbiased. The Canadian Government should support Climate Change Skeptics monetarily and with any other means they can provide.

Without fair and objective research into AGW theory we cannot make correct decisions. Please support skeptical scientists in their efforts. They do not take the easy road to fame and glory by making rash announcements and fixing data like other Scientists. They battle on seeking truth in the face of alarmist activism while abandoned by industry and government.

Skeptics will only help us all be sure that our investments in the future are smart and worth the high costs. I can only hope that the truth is sufficient motivation for equal investigation into causes of trends in global average temperature. With your considerable influence we can rest assured that all sides have been impartially heard before committing to the drastic measures called for by your opponents. I know you want to do the right thing, and I'm sure you'll do it right.

Sincerly,

Alexander Fernandes

Ripples in the Surf. An AGW essay I wrote 10 years ago is still relevant today

Abstract

Global Warming may be occurring at this point in history, but anthropogenic carbon dioxide is not to blame. Sudden major shifts in temperature have occurred in the recent and deep past through natural means. The present warming could be a natural shift, unaided by CO₂. The Greenhouse Effect theorizes that Global Warming will occur if there is an increase in CO₂ gas in the atmosphere. Research has shown that CO₂ has not had an influence on certain long-term paleoclimates. This questions the validity of current climate models that base their predictions on CO₂ climate forcing.

Ripples in the Surf

Alexander Fernandes

Our planet Earth has existed for roughly 4 billion years (Davidson, pp. 444). Though devoid of any life, young Earth was far from boring. A searing atmosphere blanketed seas of tumultuous molten rock (pp. 43). While Venus today resembles the early Earth, a wondrous change took place that separated the two planets ever since (Bullock, pp. 203). Our beloved Earth cooled.

For the very first time it rained. Entire oceans literally fell out of the sky (Davidson, pp. 43). During the next 500 million years, life miraculously appeared (Campbell, pp. 458). Besides some slimy pools of anaerobic bacteria the earth was still a desolate lonely place (pp. 487). It’s uncertain exactly when it happened but at about 2.5 billion years ago the atmosphere began accumulating oxygen (pp. 458). Some of the bacteria on our planet had apparently evolved the ability to feed directly off the sun. We call this ability photosynthesis and it releases oxygen as a waste product (pp. 487). These new photosynthetic bacteria are ancestors of all the plants on earth (pp. 519).

A lot has changed since photosynthesis transformed the earth (pp. 508). Billions of years have come and gone with plants and anthropods colonizing land only 500 million years ago (pp. 458). 245 million years later, Dinosaurs evolved and perished time and again spanning just 180 million years (pp. 458). Life continues to flourish for another 65 million years (pp. 458). Ice caps grow, contract, melt altogether, and overflow for millions of years at a time (Davidson, pp. 371). Humans appeared at least 1.8 million years ago during an ice age when great glaciers covered Canada and the northern U.S (pp.371).

Thankfully the ice has receded, and we have all benefited from it. In fact there is some alarming evidence that this warming trend will continue. Much debate and speculation is occurring as to what causes this global warming. Some scientists have hypothesized that the greenhouse effect is being aggravated by anthropogenic or human causes (Karl, online). Over the past 50 years temperatures have increased by 0.5° Celsius (Karl, online). Coincidentally this has been a period of major industrial growth around the world. The waste products of humanity, the bulk of which is Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) (Karl, online), have been released into the atmosphere at a rate of 5.5 Gigatons (Gt) per year (Robinson, online). This huge amount pales in comparison with the 750 Gt of CO₂ present in the atmosphere (Robinson, online), 600 Gt of which is produced naturally. Since some of the 150 Gt of carbon transferred from the atmosphere to the plants and oceans of the world include anthropogenic (human-made) CO₂, there is only a net increase of 3 Gt per year globally (Robinson, online). Yet this minuscule amount is thought to be enough to change the climate of the world.

What is popularly called “Global Warming” or the “Greenhouse Effect” actually denotes Anthropogenic Climate Change. The Greenhouse effect explains why the earth has warmth and space does not. The atmosphere acts as a blanket around the earth, allowing the sun’s heat in, and spreading it around relatively evenly (Karl, online). This seems very simple but it can be very complex. The earth follows the basic laws of physics like everything else in the universe, but we know that meteorologists have a very tough time deciphering exactly how those laws work together to give us the weather we will have tomorrow or next week. There are too many variables to count. The weather is in fact a disorganized jumble of overlapping systems whose properties change in relation to each other (Davidson, pp. 148). Climatologists attempt to make sense of the jumble by feeding models of these weather systems into supercomputers (Karl, online). The predictions of these models vary greatly, but some models give rise to the notion of anthropogenic global warming (Karl, online).

The most troubling models predict that the slight increase in CO₂ from human sources will effectively increase the heat intake from the sun (Barron, pp. 189-190). It is believed and virtually proven that CO₂ re-emits radiation back into space less than normal air does, causing a slight rise in heating (pp. 189-190). This increase in heating is supposed to create a feedback loop in which more heat in turn releases more and more greenhouse gas again causing further heating (Lindzen, online). Through evaporation heat releases more greenhouse gases because H₂O is a very effective greenhouse agent (Lindzen, online). Water vapor is far worse than CO₂ gas, causing over 98% of all the greenhouse effect (Lindzen, online). CO₂ after all only comprises 0.037 % of the atmosphere (Davidson, pp. 370). If every bit of CO₂ were removed from the atmosphere, anthropogenic or natural, there would be less than a 2% loss in the total greenhouse effect. Of this 2%, just 0.6% is the total human contribution since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

In this model of the runaway greenhouse effect, any form of heat increase should have the exact same effects as a slight increase in CO₂ (Lindzen, online). If for instance the sun were to get brighter just slightly, we would see Global Warming and all the catastrophic consequences that are foretold by the same models. This is because greenhouse theory is dependent on the idea that H₂O will do most of the heating after the initial kick (Lindzen, online).

This may seem like an extraneous hypothetical situation but parts of the Phanerezoic Eon are known to have experienced a brighter sun (Davidson, pp. 405). In fact minor fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic cycle length are in keeping with observations of other stars of similar age and size (Robinson, online). Yellow Dwarfs like our star have random fluctuations in their brightness (Robinson, online). We can’t tell by eye or memory of course, but measurements of the magnetic cycle length (brightness) in recent history have shown some very interesting results. When a graph of temperature versus time is imposed on a graph of solar magnetic cycle length verses time as depicted in Graph 1 of Appendix B, an astounding correlation can be drawn from the two (Davidson, pp. 405). It logically follows that a brighter sun would increase temperature and here we have the expected results (pp. 405).

The same style of evidence can also be applied to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Graph 2 in Appendix B depicts a plot of CO₂ and temperature versus time (pp. 404). It can also be inferred that as CO₂ has gone up, so has temperature (pp. 404). This statement is the core evidence of the entire anthropogenic global warming theory. It should be pointed out that while the two plots follow each other closely, ruling out coincidence, it is equally correct to infer that temperature drives CO₂ levels. In fact it has been shown that the CO₂ concentrations seem to follow temperature change, while solar activity tends to lead it (Robinson, online). Furthermore, temperature changes in history have not required an industrial revolution.

About 1000 years ago a temperature fluctuation called the Medieval Climate Optimum saw average temperatures as high as 1° C above the 3000 year mean (Robinson, online). The Little Ice Age 300 years ago was at least 1° C colder than the mean (Robinson, online). Today we are still below the 3000-year mean, but temperatures are expected to rise steadily (Robinson, online). It is important to note that there are no records of any sort of weather disasters or extinctions during the medieval climate optimum (Robinson, online). The cause of these fluctuations strongly points solar activity, since it couldn’t have been anthropogenic (Robinson, online).

Besides astronomical forces that shape climate such as orbital eccentricity, axial procession, and solar activity, there are also geological climate factors (Davidson, pp. 371). The positions of the continents affect how ocean currents transport water and therefore heat around the globe (pp. 148). Mountain ranges have a similar effect on air circulation and the patterns of the Hydrological cycle (pp. 5-7). The Glaciers themselves exert a cooling influence over the air around them (pp. 371). In fact an Ice Age can be thought of as a period of overgrown glaciers, where the rate of melting is smaller that the rate of growth for a prolonged period of time (pp. 371). We are in fact in an Ice Age right now (pp. 371). Many Ice Ages and Warm Ages have punctuated history (pp. 371). The Eocene Epoch is one notable Warm Age where Global temperatures were so warm that not a single place on earth averaged below 0° C (pp 404). I for one would welcome a return to these balmy conditions, but unfortunately, substantial geologic change must occur before this can happen. That is unless the sun or CO₂ forcing changes the climate.

Renowned geologist Jan Veizner has increased the doubt that CO₂ levels in the atmosphere can actually force climate change (pp. 698-701). During two major Ice Ages, the Ordivician/Sulurian and the Jurassic/Cretaceous ice ages, CO₂ levels were 10 times higher than they are now (pp. 698-701). This discovery does not agree with today’s climate models specifically the energy-balanced climate model (pp. 698-701). Even when this model is corrected for paleogeography and given a 5 % increase for enhanced solar radiation, the models still predict temperatures from 4° C to 6° C hotter than today’s climate (pp. 698-701). The actually temperature at those times was 2.5° C colder than the Phanerozoic standard (pp. 698-701). This means that the models are incorrect, especially concerning CO₂’s influence on the greenhouse effect (pp. 698-701).

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies heavily on the results of climate models to predict future weather and their consequences (Lindzen, online). As mentioned earlier, a climate model is basically a model of the earth and all those overlapping systems that control the weather. Equations are derived that approximate these systems and then tuned (Lindzen, online). Models that give results outside the expectations of the researchers are discarded while models that confirm theory are kept (Lindzen, online). This is not so strange since a model is just a moving expression of a theory. Models are not proof.

Since the 1990’s these climate models have constantly been adjusted to fit reality. Initially the IPCC predicted 4.5° to 6° C warming by 2050 (Burnett, online). The prediction has changed however to 0.8° to 3.5° C (Burnett, online). These very same models do not agree with recent history or ancient history. This situation is made much worse when the most serious and catastrophic of these predictions are presented to the public as truth (Lindzen, online). There are reports that all the coastal cities in the world will be flooded, there will be increased precipitation, droughts, the gulf stream will stop and hurricanes will increase (Karl, online). These predictions are completely unfounded and in some cases contradictory to each other. The truth is that unfortunately these disasters are bound to happen no matter what temperature it is. No amount of CO₂ is going to prevent or cause these terrible incidents. Meteorologists can’t even predict with any accuracy what the temperature will be next week, yet climatologists presume to know what the weather will be like in 2050.

Greenpeace calls Global Warming the number one threat to the planet (Greenpeace, online). They have decreed that a 1° C rise in temperature is an acceptable limit (Greenpeace, online). Any more would lead to extinctions, as most species will not evolve quickly enough to cope with anthropogenic climate change (Greenpeace, online). This makes a certain amount of sense. Many Ice Ages, and Warm ages, are caused and perpetuated by geologic factors (Davidson, pp. 148). Geologic factors, like mountain ranges and continents, take millions of years to change (pp.148). There would then be plenty of time for evolution to generate new adaptations.

A salient point missing here is that the process of evolution is not clean and pretty. This process is constant and brutally uncaring (Campbell, pp. 392-569). Unfit species will in fact die out no matter what the rate of change is (pp. 392-569). We don’t even know what a good rate of change is supposed to be. Past glaciation transitions have come very suddenly, the most dramatic of which are recorded at less than 10 years (Davidson, pp. 371)! Most of the transitions from mild climates to cold have occurred in less than 100 years (pp. 371). Rapid climate change is not limited to cooling events either. A relatively recent global warming episode, 12,500 years ago, experienced a warming of about 10° C in approximately 50 years (Burnette, online). These major climactic changes happened completely naturally and must have been deadly to the life of that age.

Though it is reasonable to surmise that geography is a major influence on the global average climate, changes in the climate itself need not follow a gradual rate of change. Weather patterns, once established, may have a tendency to perpetuate themselves until a critical point is reached. The patterns may then shift suddenly to newer patterns with greater stability. Combined with external climate factors like the sun, climate change could be a very random and swift event.

The Earth has had a relatively stable climate for the past 11,000 years, which can be described as a milder period of and Ice Age (Burnette, online). It is only a matter of time before a change in the climate occurs. Though it may seem as if humanity can manipulate the climate of the earth, I remain skeptical. We are on the verge of a natural warming trend. It is only natural that we would want to assign some kind of significance to this fact. It is still only the mindless flow of time.

Anthropogenic CO₂ does not cause global warming. Nor has CO₂ from any source in the deep past influenced climate. Natural processes like solar activity, and the march of the continents, cause global Warming. There is no basis for the claims that humans will cause flooding and droughts and hurricanes. The current rise in temperature and all the subsequent ups and downs in the future are simply normal oscillations of the climate. The scope of geologic history has seen many peaks and troughs of temperature. Any change we might, ever so slightly, accomplish through CO₂, will surely be swamped by solar impulse or geologic whim. We might slip into a new Warm Age, then again we might not. This slight increase in temperature that we are experiencing is simply a ripple in the surf.

References Barron, E. J. (1995, May, 2). Global Change Researchers Assess Projections of Climate Change. Eos [Online], 76(18), 185 189-90. Retrieved November 17th, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/barron.html Bullock, M. A., & Grinspoon, D. H. (2000). Global Climate Change on Venus. In D. Levy (Ed.), The Scientific American book of the Cosmos. (pp. 203). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Burnett, S. H. (1999, June, 30). The Collapsing Scientific Cornerstones of Global Warming Theory. Idea House: National Center for Policy Analysis [Online], 299. Retrieved December 4th 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html Campbell, N. A. (1996). Biology. (4th ed.). New York: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company. Davidson, J., Reed, W. E., Davis, P. M. (1997). Exploring Earth. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gore, P. J. W. Geologic Time Chart. American Geological Institute. Georgia Perimeter Collage website: http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/timechrt.htm Greenpeace. Greenpeace’s International Campaign to Save the Climate. Greenpeace website. Retrieved December 4th, 2000: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatemain.shtml Karl, T. R., Nicholls, N., Gregory, J., (1997, May). The Coming Climate. Scientific American [Online]. Retrieved November 17th, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sciam.com/0597issue/0597karl.html Lindzen, R. S. (1999). Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus. Regulation: the Cato Review of Business and government [Online]. Retrieved November 17th, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html Robinson A. B., Baliunas, A. L., Soon, W., Robinson, Z. W. (2000). Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Petition Project [Online]. Retrieved January 24th, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://sitewave.net/pproject/s33p36.htm Veizer, J., Godderis, Y., Francois, L. M. (2000, December, 7). Evidence for Decoupling of Atmospheric CO2 and Global Climate during the Phanerozoic Eon. Nature [Online], 408, 698-701. Retrieved December 21st, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.nature.com [Fee]

Conspiracy Confirmed: leaked CRU documents show coordinated effort to discredit AGW skeptics.

Wow everybody except the MSM is talking about it. You would think that a fact like all the climate models being wrong would get some attention in the MSM. Nope. Real news passes them by. Why?

Well there is a clue in these leaked emails and other files out of CRU. The same MSM that defamed Catholic priests and made them synonymous with child molesters has elevated climate scientists to sainthood. Their vaunted impartial objectivity is no more. The climate science of AGW is nothing more than PR and now we have the proof. Peer review panels are stacked in favor of AGW. Its a lot like stacking a jury to influence a verdict. Peer reviewed journals are kangaroo courts where only palletable papers are allowed to be published.

I strongly suspect that the reason the MSM keeps pushing AGW is because their editorial boards are as biased as the CRU cranks and possibly worse. If institutions and scientists can be infultrated then what makes the media so impregnable? Nothing! News is not news, its views.

Update: green socialists have been thrown in jail this morning after occupying Environment Minister Jim Prentices office. Terrorists hold lives hostage, while socialists hold property hostage. Thier demands were that Canada sign a treaty that would reduce harmelss CO2 emmissions to 25% below 1990 emmissions.
I've got a better idea. Why don't the green socialists reduce their income to 25% below their collective 1990 average? Oh no that kind of draconian measure only applies to us proles, not to our new lords and masters: the econazis. Hitler started with blackshirts and protests. Stop the green shirts! Time to push back!