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.

The eco-nuts have lost the debate on the Oil Sands

I watched a couple of excellent debates with Ezra Levant and various green stooges yesterday.  I must conclude that we have won the debate.  The various boycotts and public defamation campaigns (PD rather than PR) have utterly lost the argument.

The debate between Andrew Nikiforuk and Ezra Levant in Calgary was fantastic.  This is the sort of debate that I've come to enjoy.  I prefer a hostile audience and a hysterical opponent.  I like the deeply polarized back and forth  between very different ideologies that almost reminds me of a sport.  Nikiforuk lays on the thick and pointless rhetoric and Ezra Levant handily upends the entire righteous onslaught.  By the end of the debate Nikiforuk is sounding shaky and shrill and indirectly concedes the point that Oil Sands oil is more efficient and more ethical than any other major source of oil on earth.  

Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk debate ethics of Alberta's oilsands from Trevor Howell on Vimeo.


These are the sorts of debates you'll have in your own life.  Skeptics must be prepared to fight from a corner without a friend in the room. Have the courage to stand up to the liberal nonsense and you'll find their arguments combusted like a greenpeace pamphlet in the fireplace. 

You can see that Ezra won the debate by the end of the video.  More proof that this is a winning argument comes from the next debate in Ottawa.  This time its Ezra and Elizabeth May the leader of the Green Party.  I found this debate slightly less entertaining and edifying than the first one. 

Ezra Levant was awesome of course.  Elizabeth May on the other hand treated the debate like a Green Party press conference.  She immediately falls back on the "we still need to do more" argument.  Gone is the old "Stop the Tar Sands" shrieking.

This is a victory.  The leader of the Green Party supports the Oil Sands.  Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, and the rest are that far removed from the wishes of the people today.  We are winning and its thanks to Ezra Levant and all the skeptics out there turning one person at a time.  Keep it up, and enjoy part one.

Ezra Levant - Elisabeth May debate Pt. 1 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

(h/t GayandRight I appreciate all your good work and that of the Free Thinking Film Society.) 

Praise for the Conservative Senate's scrubbing of the Climate Change Accountability Act

Peter Foster wrote a marvelous piece in the Financial Post last week titled "Canada Doges Carbon Suicide." 

Its definitely worth the read but here are some the relevant and juicy bits. 

Mr. Harper has always clearly grasped-- apparently unlike the majority of his international counterparts--that the greatest threat facing humanity is not climate change, but climate-change policy. Bill C-311 was a perfect example. Opposition parties, in thrall to radical green groups or sheer hypocrisy, were supporting a piece of draconian legislation that would not have had one raindrop's worth of perceptible effect on the global climate. Nor would it have in any way influenced the way other countries are attempting to writhe away from this issue.

So there.  Harper and the Conservative Government are doing one heck of a job.  Here's one for the Harper haters out there:

Anti-Harper carpers niggle that three years ago Mr. Harper declared that climate change was the "greatest problem facing humanity." Good grief, could that have been mere political expediency, based on the necessity of pacifying a needlessly alarmed electorate? Did he not really mean it? You'll be telling us next that he really favoured that BHP takeover of Potash!

And here is some more with a damning quote from the IPCC:

Before he was forced to talk the minority talk, Mr. Harper described climate change as a "socialist plot." Intriguingly, this fact is now openly acknowledged. This week, German IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said in an interview: "[O]ne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy....One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more."

I shared this article on Facebook and its triggered a huge debate on Global Warming with a warmist friend of mine.  I'll post it here when it winds down but its tens of thousands of words long already.  

I strongly suggest you read the whole article for yourself because its that good.  Mr. Foster and I are of one mind on this. 

Shake off the UN

We didn't get a seat on the Security Council.  Canada withdrew its bid, conceding the seat to Portugal.  I'm actually happy about that.  There is no reason to pander to international socialists, progressives and Islamofascists.

Lawrence Cannon unfortunately struck out when speaking about the withdrawal at a press conference.  He blamed Micheal Ignatieff for losing the seat because he publicly declared that Canada did not deserve representation on the Security Council.  This doesn't help our case at all.  Liberals who pride themselves on being un-canadian, on leaving the country for three decades, on kissing both cheeks with the elites at the UN, certainly did not help their country at the same UN.

This gives Iggy far too much credit.  He couldn't even win his own party's leadership in an election among liberals.  There is no way that Iggy could have cajoled that many countries into voting against Canada.  They had their own reasons.

One of those reasons is the state of Israel.  Our support for Israel is like a finger in the eye of many evil regimes at the UN.  This is something to be proud of.  We should organise a state visit to Israel.  Support for that one country displeases all of their enemies.  The enemies of Israel are Canada's enemies too and should expect further displeasure.  Odds are we could find ourselves bombing some of those countries in the next ten years.

There are probably a bunch of other little reasons to vote against Canada.  No bribes and gifts.  Ezra Levant.  The environment lobby.

The more interesting question is about what to do now?

Apparently Canada is the 7th largest donor to the UN.  Lets reduce that amount to Portugal size. 

Our $400 million contribution to the Copenhagen debacle bought us absolutely nothing.  The environmentalists will take our money but they won't be bought.  Perhaps we should stop paying them.  It does absolutely nothing to give them money.  I suspect the progressives are wise to our lip service anyway.  Lets just come out and tell the bastards where to go.

The lie of Global Warming has already begun to crack.  All the UN's horses and all the UN's men can't put Global Warming back together again.  Its a wealth redistribution scheme and everybody knows it.  The plan is to take power from sovereign countries and give it to basket case countries who won't know how to keep their charity anyway.  The UN will be the benefactor and distributor of Canada's wealth and will therefore retain the power we gave them.  None of it will help the world or the environment.  It only helps the UN.

The Cancun summit should be fought by Canada.  We all need to do our part to save us from the eco-fascists and if we have to fight through Tory ministers that is what we have to do. Please put an end to this UN IPCC charade.  We can see its a fraud.  We cooperate and still we get hammered by the hypocrites.  Its gone on for far to long.  Get us out of this ridiculous sham called the UN, or at least slap these socialist elites until they smarten up.

Skeptic Victory: Cameron Wimps Out of his own CAGW Debate

Name any competition you like.  If you don't show up, YOU LOSE.  James Cameron lost his first debate on Global Warming.  It was spectacular display of cowardice and vitriol.

The debate was put forward by Cameron himself with all the bravado of a western gunslinger.  He said he wanted to "call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads."

We were there at high noon.  You think trash talk like that is going scare a skeptic?  We've heard worse from better people and still win.   

Ann McElhinney, Marc Morano, and Andrew Breitbart took up the challenge.  They were contacted by Cameron's people and invited to debate at AREDAY.  AREDAY was an environmental conference that would give Cameron the home field advantage and the crowd.  Then things start to get fishy.  Cameron starts changing the rules until the debate becomes a no public, no cameras round table where even audio recordings became a bone of contention.  So much for high noon. 

I believe Cameron was trying to force his opponents to quit and storm off in a huff.  It didn't work.  Skeptics performed admirably and graciously, conceding to all of Camerons unreasonable changes until he was finally forced to run away like a big wuss.  That same day, sore loser Cameron petulantly called skeptics "swine."    

This is the character of you're average warmist.  They talk a big game, playing it up like they're Mohamed Ali going into the big fight.  What do we get instead?  He runs and hides like the biggest wussy on the planet calling us swine over a cowardly shoulder.  

How often do we hear that money is not the measure of a man?  James Cameron measures up like a loser, a coward and a wuss.  (this is me being nice)

What benefit could running away from your own event have for Cameron?  Someone advised him not to do this presumably for some tactical advantage.  He obviously wants to scrap but then doesn't.  He forfeited  giving us victory but if he wants to run lets indulge him some more and give chase.  There's some weakness here that we must perceive and exploit.

What could force Cameron to run?  He thought it was a good idea and then changed his mind.  Could he become the next Al Gore?  Would people have seen him spitting and frothing and known the true face of James Cameron?  David Suzuki has his hate face on youtube and there is no amount of PR the Suzuki Foundation can apply to counter it.   The King of the World doesn't want his crown tarnished.

It's his crown and kingdom that he truly values.  Like all hypocritical leftards he puts his wealth and stature above his trendy causes.  This is why he ran away, leaving his cause to look pathetically cultish, intolerant, and threatened.  

Go for the crown and we draw him into battle.  This is war after all.  Cameron has declared war on the human race.  A self-declared enemy deserves no quarter and no comfort.  Its an irony that anarchists, socialists, and haters of the free market and law have created tools that directly diminish Camerons wealth.  The people inclined to willingly consume Camerons product are also the people most likely to steal it.  

We must simply not consume any Cameron product.  If you must consume it for academic reasons, borrow it from a friend or from the public library.  As Cameron, King of the Avatards, ages the bitterness and vitriol are sure to increase.  Enjoy these outbursts.  It means we are winning.   

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!

Copenhagen: better than expected

Well done Minister Prentice and Prime Minister Harper. I was happy with what was being done by Canada at Hoaxenhagen (Copenhagen) but I wanted to wait until it was over before giving thanks.

Any gathering of high caliber nut jobs like socialist Chavez, mad Ahmadinijad, and The Goracle needs to be carefully watched. Poor handling of a thing like Hoaxenhagen could end up with us all clapped in chains as Dr. Fruit Fly Suzuki wishes.

The impression I'm getting is that nobody is happy with the agreement-treaty thing. Skeptics aren't happy and Eco-nazis aren't happy. I'd say this is good news, or at least the best news we could have hoped for.

The thing to do now is follow through on our commitments. I'm sure we will be able to meet our objectives with new technology like carbon capture and smart innovations like off grid NG powered housing. I'd like to see the grits toot the eco-horn if we actually make some progress in that direction. Its got to be all carrots and no tax bombs.

Thanks and Merry Christmas to All.

The Preponderance of Climate Opinion and what to do about it.

I watched the Right Honourable Prime Minister Harper talk about Hoaxenhagen and what sticks in mind is:

"The preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion is that Climate Change is a very real challenge."

And so it is. The preponderance of that evidence however is opinion. The leaked emails out of CRU are the tip of the iceberg. The data is tampered with and then destroyed. The peer review process is faulty and exploited by powerful organizations and people.

Imagine yourself the expert of experts sitting on a grand panel of your peers. Will you support a paper that invalidates your own expertise and more importantly your funding? Of course not. Its not in their interest or the interest of world, they will say to themselves. They won't even look at the data. Look up the resistance Alfred Wegener met with after discovering continental drift. Peer review is garbage. You only get more of the same.

The choice then is either to ensure that skeptical research gets enough funding to undeniably push past the bias in the climate community or to institute an open scientific audit mechanism.
Stephen McIntyre can't do it all himself. He needs students and a budget. No paper in any discipline should get published without being audited by an external entity. We should probably do both, but the second option is the important one.

Over the last two weeks we've seen how bad science can have a huge financial impact. Every financial statement of a publicly traded company is audited so that shareholders are less vulnerable to fraud. It doesn't mean all accountants are crooks. Its just standard practice. The time has come to insist on the same rigor in the scientific process. Science should be objective and impartial. If an auditor would comb the data before any paper would be published then I think Science will drift back to its core pursuit of truth over activism and advocacy.

Slavery? Suzuki is as bad at sociology as he is at climatology or economics

I don't have much time to write because I'm literally a wage slave. Dr. Fruitfly's latest insult to my existence is too much to leave to others. I wasn't always a wage slave and I won't be one for long. I am a wage slave now directly because of the slump in drilling in Alberta. Not many people choose their province, but I did. Its beautiful, its prosperous, its conservative, and its Canadian. Paradise.

Here is what the misanthropic mad doctor had to say about me and my industry:
"We can't give up slavery because it'll destroy our economy and slavery gives us jobs and we have to have slave runners and all of that."

What are you talking about? Do you actually believe this are are you just spouting cultural pollution again? Slaves are terrible for an economy you idiot! They don't get paid! They don't contribute to the economy except in base production. They don't even pay taxes! Who are slave runners anyway? Do you actually believe they were a large part of even a backwards slave based economy? You make no sense on so many levels.

Shutting down the tar sands, or slapping us with a carbon tax will reduce intelligent educated Canadians like me to slavery. Not just in Alberta. Everywhere. We cannot support these wonderful social programs without some sort of wealth creation. All industry starts in the ground somewhere somehow. There is treasure in the ground here and all they can think about is taking control of it.

I'll continue this later. I've caught Suzuki lying on television before and spewing nonsense. He's not going to get away with it anymore. He is not a great Canadian. He's an angry old fool with an empire to build and he thinks we are all stupid.

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

Where is Stephane Dion?

Mr. Green Shift is muzzled even during Hoaxenhagen? Stephane Dion signed Kyoto and then named his dog after the treaty. The dog is fine but the treaty is as dead as a coffin nail. Mr. Dion is somewhere in between.

I googled Stephane Dion and the top news is about a facebook tiff he and Iggy had recently. Oh boo hoo to those two. The next article was about his wife's letter extolling the virtues of the Coalition and the Green Shift.

What a laugh! No matter what you believe about AGW the whole world is humming and hawing over Copenhagen. I suppose Dion's usurper Micheal Ignatieff has him tightly leashed. Iggy astonishingly polls below Dion on a consistent basis. Where does Iggy get the authority to keep Dion quiet? Dennis Coderre wasn't under the same spell.

With some in the media already moving to anoint a new Bob Rae as the new Liberal leader, I don't know why Iggy doesn't let Dion loose for a little while. (I say new Bob Rae because that is a different person from the old Bob Rae who was Premier of Ontario.) Seriously, Dion can only hurt himself, and Iggy would look good in comparison. It would even give old Bob Rae pause on the next palace coup since it would be obvious that having a new leader does not a prime minister make.

Free Dion! I miss the bumbling professor.

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!