Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« You may ask . . . | Main | Why the good news from Somalia is so important »

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Baird Reverses Global Warming in 5 days

A review of mean temperatures in selected Canadian cities over the last week demonstrates overwhelming success for Baird on the global warming file, in all areas except British Columbia (possibly the reason he was reassuring climate-watchers there yesterday).

Mean temperatures across the reviewed cities have dropped by an average of almost 8 degrees Celsius since John Baird became Minister of the Environment.  This is a welcome reversal of global warming.


Some, however, may be concerned.  Using this data in weather models to extrapolate temperatures out to March 1, 2007 we might expect an average daily drop in temperature, in these selected cities, of 1.54 degrees Celsius per day.  By March 1, the current cooling trend could result in an average temperature drop for these cities of 78.54 degrees.

 

City by city, again with the help of climate modelling, we can predict temperatures in the temperature drop zone (the TDZ) as follows (all in degrees Celsius):

  Edmonton –32.2

  Calgary –48.06

  Winnipeg –218.82 (CO2 in solid form at this point; emissions no longer a problem)

  Toronto –106.0

  Montreal –67.8

  Halifax –27.3


Supporting Data


Day that John Baird is sworn in as Minister of the Environment

January 4, 2007

  Vancouver 3.8

   Victoria 2.9

   Edmonton –3.1

   Calgary 0.1

   Winnipeg 0.7

   Toronto 8.2

   Montreal 5.0

   Halifax 6.3



January 9, 2007

  Vancouver 5.1

   Victoria 5.8

   Edmonton –5.7

   Calgary -4.2

   Winnipeg –18.9

   Toronto -2.0

   Montreal –1.5

   Halifax 3.3



Change (January 4 to January 9)

   Vancouver (increase 1.3)

   Victoria (increase of 2.9)

   Edmonton  (drop 2.6)

   Calgary (drop 4.3)

   Winnipeg (drop 19.6)

   Toronto (drop 10.2)

   Montreal (drop 6.5)

   Halifax (drop 3.0)

Posted by John Ratchford on January 10, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8350b4ef269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Baird Reverses Global Warming in 5 days:

Comments

Another iceage is coming! Another iceage is coming!!

Posted by: Mike H. | 2007-01-10 1:30:42 PM


Great job! Another iceage is coming!!!

Posted by: mike H. | 2007-01-10 1:34:31 PM


Such information and facts will continue to fall on death ears of the Left - the sky is falling and it is all our fault crowd!

Posted by: Alain | 2007-01-10 1:38:49 PM


Oh please be serious. The only way to fight global warming is to hand over our money to some developing nations! Everyone knows that - otherwise you're a climate change denier!!!

And if that doesn't shame you, this will. Kyoto is a United Nations plan. There? See! You can't refuse the United Nations!

(Of course the above doesnt apply if you live in Ontario, which has been exempted from Kyoto.)

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-10 1:57:00 PM


All we need now is to have three scientists testify that, in fact, this short period of time constitutes a trend.

Then, we could annoint them as ‘leading scientific authorities' and challenge the prevailing wisdom.

Isn't activism fun?

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-10 2:04:52 PM


John,
Is your methodology in this exercise really any different than that of those who support man-made global warming as fact?Of course not,I assume that was your point.
Some anecdotal weather stories,mingled with'fun with numbers'...the only tactic you missed was to question the intelligence of anyone who questioned your'facts'.

I suspect I am not the only one here who has tried to keep an open mind on global warming.I have yet to find any hard scientific evidence of man-made global warming,actually,I don't think any has ever been produced.It all seems to be based on supposition,anecdotal weather stories and questionable computer models.Most scientists concede that we really have very little understanding of the effects of clouds and solar activity,among other things,on the atmosphere.Huh?I think Gore forgot to mention that rather humongous chunk of info in his shamefully one-sided propaganda bit.

As we experienced some admittedly bizarre weather these last few months,I watched with fascination how this was spun.As a matter of fact,I actually heard CTV mention the tragic tsunami 2 yrs ago as a weather item.....again,huh?Denver has been hammered by repeated blizzards...Denver?...tell me it isn't so!The high number and strength of hurricanes was touted as proof!No mention of this pass season having less activity than normal.
Does anyone else here remember all the press El Nino,and then El Nina used to get before global warming became all the rage?It was blamed for every abheration in the weather at the time,in the news constantly.I understand these phenomena are occurring at this time...no mention of it by the MSM any more though.So were they wrong then...or are they wrong now?I think that is a fair question,actually,I think it is an important one to see if any of these people have any integrity.Do they have the ability to admit an error or are they simply focussed on selling their theory.Like a religion,they seem to demand I show a certain amount of faith....bullsh*t....Prove it!

Man,there's a lot more I would like to say on this topic but I do not want to hog all the bandwidth...

Scientists selling their integrity...

Harper's 180...sincere or opportunistic?

Finally,I say to those who believe down to their little toes that global warming is fact,is indeed man-made,and is an imminent threat....

Show me the proof.I think that is a completely reasonable request.After all,my usual response to the term'trust me'is to do the exact opposite.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-10 2:23:40 PM


Bet the Florida Tourism people are seriously concerned with this Global warming trend.
Wonder if they've been consulting with Al Gore to see how much longer they have to make a killing in the business?

It's a freaking sham, bring on the jokes.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-10 2:39:43 PM


Suggest that all of you take the time to read Lorrie Goldstein Assistant Editor Toronto Sun Today - Lorrie has done his homework on Kyoto in ture professional journalism style (that is to say Mark Steyn Style) Of course Chretien signed the Protocol
-I don't think Chretien read more than a small fraction of what he signed. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-10 2:57:56 PM


After reading Mark Steyn's new Book "America Alone", I started googleing (among other things...)the "ecochondria" syndrome.

In the course of my search, I stumbled across Michael Crichtons website, where I found an entirely reasonable explanation of the environmentalists attachment to the whole global warming thing. Have a look at
"Environmentalism as Religion" on his site.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/index.html

Posted by: Steve G | 2007-01-10 4:24:47 PM


Right, Steve G, Michael Crichton's speeches are a must read for all! "Environmentalism as Religion", so bang on.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-10 4:59:55 PM


I knew that John Baird was the right man to reverse this glob all bawling trend. Seven days into the job and the Chinook Forces are unemployed. Sooon the masses will panic with the cool needs aid hysteria and he will be heading off the advance of the Ice Sheeps with a call to the Sun to bring on some summer.

This pattern might produce, even reproduce, a toilet action (errr movement) by the YU2 K0I YO TA 2 traitors. Mr. Baird says he has no plans to target Kor He Ha or CH-CH-CH-HI IN AH! with the pollution problem that such a movement would treaten plumbing all over the glob. He says he might break it into groups and ship it all via CSL to make huts for humanity.

Posted by: jema54j | 2007-01-10 5:24:12 PM


Michael Crichton's article is a must read.

That was my feeling that enviro was sort of a religion. Now, I have arguments.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-10 5:27:30 PM


Thanks for the laugh John.

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2007-01-10 5:44:10 PM


Michael Crichton ? The ficton writer ?? The pulp fiction writer ??? bwaaa haa ha - And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously ?
Oh thats right, I forgot all the vital scientific evidence Anna Rice gave up at the tainted blood inquiry - Sheesh

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-01-10 5:45:23 PM


"A review of mean temperatures in selected Canadian cities over the last week demonstrates overwhelming success for Baird on the global warming file, in all areas except British Columbia (possibly the reason he was reassuring climate-watchers there yesterday)."

Funniest post I've read yet today!!! LOL!

Posted by: Ace | 2007-01-10 5:54:38 PM


Canadian Observer: here's my attempt at a one-page summary of the global warming issue.
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/greenhouse.html

Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" provides detailed discussion of the scientific history, including what's known and what isn't.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Prominent skeptic Ronald Bailey--he writes for Reason magazine and edited the 2002 book "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death"--recently concluded, based on the accumulating evidence, that anthropogenic global warming is indeed happening. He explains why in "Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2007-01-10 6:01:14 PM


Nbob,

Yeah the pulp fiction writer, you got it!

CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/aboutmc/biography.html

I guess I'll just go back to believing what Al Gore says....

Posted by: Steve G | 2007-01-10 6:17:39 PM


Steve G, you don't need to rely on Al Gore.

The national science academies of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the US, as well as Brazil, China, and India: "Scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222

Panel of US scientists appointed by Bush: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. The greenhouse gas of most concern is carbon dioxide. There is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past twenty years."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/energy/warming_6-7.html

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2007-01-10 6:31:48 PM


Damn you Baird ! Once again my kids are denied the simple Canadian pleasure of toboganning.The West Coast wants in!

Posted by: nick | 2007-01-10 6:54:45 PM


O/T - just a little humour For Those Born 1930-1979

This little post reminds us that we have survived some things in the past. From time to time, I wonder if the concern over global warming (while valid for consideration) is not somewhat overdone.

http://www.highdesert.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=220597&sid=519519ac9f077af5135a909cc0213b94

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-10 6:57:55 PM


Steve G

Didn't say he wasn't smart (or even a bad writer). I just said citing a fiction writer lacks gravitas - particularly when one's up against the national science academies of all G8 nations,Brazil,China and India.

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-01-10 8:12:39 PM


Nbob,

Did you even read what Michael Crichton wrote (said) about Environmentalism being the new religion?

Do you disagree with what you read? If so, let's hear your opinion. In the meantime, it would be nice if you could get past your obvious bias for the manner in which he collects his pay cheques.

Posted by: Steve G | 2007-01-10 9:13:02 PM


Well, I for one, am doing my part to stop global warming. I turned the heat off completely. I live in the frigid west right now, in blizzard conditions. I am only using candlelight, and plenty of blankets and comforters to keep me warm.

However, tomorrow I shall get up in the dark, again by candlelight I will get ready to go to work so that I can pay my fair share of the taxes in order to send money overseas to those poor unfortunate undeveloped polluting unaccountable countries that are part of our global Kyoto warming plan.

I just wanted to set an example for other excessively greedy Canadians who might be using heat and light during this blizzard. Quit being so selfish. :-)

Posted by: anonymous | 2007-01-10 9:26:15 PM


anonymous

Seeing as your freezing your ass off and feeling generous at the same time I thought I'd send my energy bills along to you for your immediate attention!
So instead of sending $$$ to developing nations,we could set up a new service called 'Climate Martyrs' whereby some of us unselfishly freeze for the benefit of the excessively polluting underdeveloped countries with a gadzillion people and exempt from the doctrine.
Ah,I must commend Canadians on their dedication to the cause!

Posted by: Simon | 2007-01-10 10:23:56 PM


Simon:

Here's a better idea.

I will allow environmentalists to send a fuel-cell powered vehicle to my home from which they can load the half-metre of accumulated snow and send it to an underdeveloped country.

At the underdeveloped country's expense, of course.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-10 10:34:06 PM


Steve G,
If nbob won't say it, I will: Crichton is a bad writer, a hack, a grind artist, an untalented piece of shit. And vindictive one at that. After a columnist took issue with the hackery of his last book - which you half-wits seem to hold in high regard -- Crichton used a variation on the columnists name to identify a pedophile character that made a brief and unnecesary appearance in his next book.

Classy guy, your Mr. Crichton. We should all talk what he says very seriously. After all, look at his resume. He went to Hah-vahd.

Posted by: truewest | 2007-01-10 10:35:32 PM


truewest:

I didn't know you were qualified as a literary critic.

Hmmm. Learn something new every day.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-10 10:38:25 PM


I see that Mr. Crichton has a number of additional essays up since I went through all the extant ones a few years ago, which I found to be very good. Thank's for the tip, Steve G, I'm looking forward to reading them.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2007-01-11 12:05:09 AM


Crichton wrote "Airframe" in 1994-1995 based on his flawed research on the MCDonnell-Douglas MD-11
which was full of serious technical errors and
badly reasoned conclusions which had no bearing in reality, since his knowledge of the basics of theory of flight and commercial aircraft manufacturing techniques and engineering were simply put, not acceptable. We worked on projects related to the
McDonnell-Douglas MD11 and MD12X mainplane design and technology, the idea being to manufacture the "big wing" in Malton Ontario, rather than Long Beach California. That same mainplane (wing) is the C-17 Super Starlifter Wing today, built in Long Beach CA.

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-11 7:29:50 AM


In one of his first novels "The Andromeda Strain", Crichton included a bibliography to make his book seem like a narrative of actual events. When it came time to make it into a movie, the screenwriter checked these sources. They were all fake.

Beware of insights given by a novelist. I'd only take Crichton's input regarding medicine, which he is trained to do.

Still, it was an enjoyable movie.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-01-11 7:59:20 AM


Yet, is Crichton's fiction (that's what novels are, people) as damaging as the fiction that humans are primarily responsible for earth's emergence from the Ice Age?

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-11 8:37:26 AM


It's come to the point where people can't distinguish what's truth and what's fiction. Many don't know what the hell's going on beyond their own
little world.

Just because Crichton is known as a writer of novels doesn't mean he has no handle or opinion on reality or is not capable of doing research on a subject.

Besides, fiction mirrors reality.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-11 8:58:41 AM


Russil Wvong:

Your references simply support the contention that major global warming and cooling has happened many times before and will continue to cycle in the distant future.Humans will have very little influence on these enormous natural forces!!

Posted by: Mike Halpen | 2007-01-11 10:32:05 AM


Can anybody our there tell me the difference between these two terms?

1) Global warming

2) Emergence from the most recent Ice Age.

Seems to me it's one and the same thing.

Yet, when we learned about ‘emerging from the most recent Ice Age; in elementary school, it was understood that these are natural cyclical phenomena.

In fact, had the earth not emerged from its most recent Ice Age, it would have been impossible for humanity to survive.

Yet, today ... humans are causing this latest emergence from an Ice Age?

Makes no sense to me.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-11 10:39:35 AM


It is not the weather that bothers me most, but rather that damn Kyoto Protocol.

Between you and me, I really do not care whether there is a correlation between sun-spots and Beetle-mania, sun-spots and mountain pine-beetles, or the fact that ever since Rona was removed from her post, that things have gotten dreadfully cold around here.

What bothers me most, and gets me really hot under the collar, is that our government cannot OR will not fund programs that will increase the use of solar panels and electrical wind generators amongst the common people. A very small investment up front, with grants to individual families who are home owners, would result in huge savings to them as individuals, and go a VERY long way to addressing the political issues concerning clean air and clean water.

In other words, a stitch in time would save NINE!

I propose a double incentive program, for families who instal solar power AND wind power, or other alternative, that reaches a specific production of electricity in one year.

With the right amount of incentive, individual families can be enabled to reduce, and the political gains would be enormous, without cowing to a single NDP botched highly bureaucratic governmental nightmare, that gives our tax-payer's dollars to some undeserving-oppressive-shariah-female-genital-mutilation-supporting-dictatorial-freakdom!

And, even though Rona has hair that makes the average female jealouse, John Baird looks sweet on National TV.

I have heard some folks say that if the government supported a program, that the price of the solar and wind products would hit the roof. Well, that IS an NDP view. What could therefore be included in the grant making process, is a statement that grants would be forthcoming on products that are sold at a cost shared, with industry investing at the same token as government. The taxpayer's investment is the government money, therefore the taxpayer already has a share in this aspect, but must purchase at least 50% of the cost. This would permit people to have a real reason to invest now. Each and every single building in CANADA could also be included, and every city could have solar pannels. It would go a very long way to reducing our dependency on middle eastern oil, which is going to run out anyway. And, we would be able to conserve our own, and ensure an oil industry that is both vibrant and renewable.

And none of our tax dollars would be spent wasted on that stupid government money (our taxpayer's dollars) bureaucratic nightmare called Kyoto Protocol.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-11 11:12:22 AM


Set You Free,

The measurement of temperature over time is not just in terms of ice ages, but in terms of cycles over shorter periods of time as well. What we have here is predictions made on shorter cycles, based on periods of about a thousand years. And, what we are measuring are average temperatures around the globe, in the last couple of decades, and correlations of CO2 emissions.

The thing is, there is no way we can actually do any experiment that will prove causality between CO2 emissions and whether we are seeing our end, as a result of the termination of our species, through total fault of ourselves. Although NDP et al claim that the results of their studies are conclusive and good science, in fact the models are computer generated, and speculation based on assumptions derived from those correlational measures. Having said that, even though we do not have conclusive data, we have ample other reasons to change our habits, such as clean air and clean water. If we happen, just so happen to address climate change while addressing the need for keeping our air and water clean, then we have been intelligent. But if we address the issue, by creating this massive bureaucracy, the one that is necessary through Kyoto Protocol, then we are fools.

It has been written, that a fool and their money are soon parted.

The ONLY alternative to Kyoto Protocol, is to put our money into grants so that each and every single person in Canada, who uses oil/gas etc... can be enabled to participate fully, in clean air and clean water technologies. To begin with, solar pannels and small individual home wind generators that are bat/bird friendly.

Sure, people are worried that this will colapse the oil industry. But, with the increase in production of solar pannels, there is a need for oil materials, aka plastics. These plastics are also renewable resources. And, with the reduction of our dependancy on oil, we will be able to use what we have here, and stop buying from the middle eastern nations, and that dumb Venezuala, and support freedom and democracy, and have clean air and clean water. And, we do not have to buy into Kyoto Protocol in order to make clean air and clean water a reality!

In fact I believe that by buying into Kyoto Protocol, that we are in fact delaying all the reasonable processes that we could have implemented, by placing monies into that Kyoto Protocol.

To begin with, all gst should be removed from ALL (not just some) clean air and clean water products. This would mean an automatic grant.

Second, solar pannels that meet specific specifications and can produce X amount of electricy per household, whether solar or combined, per annum, should be granted. This can be done through bilateral agreements with the Provinces and the electrical energy corporations.

The political dividents would be HUGE!

And that is all I have to say about that.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-11 11:29:30 AM


All hail our new environmentalist overlords!

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2007-01-11 12:53:05 PM


There is information available about an American invention using a magnetic motor driving a 30 KW generator suitable for 25 homes. It could produce electricity without any emission at all.

I suggest there is no real proof that humans have any significant role in global warming. I think it is due to huge phenomena like more solar activity and other space activity.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-11 2:07:08 PM


Philanthropist,

Oh please, stop bending over repeatedly like that!

You are embarrassing yourself, with these repeated self floggings!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-11 2:08:07 PM


Remi,

The formula is ax plus, bx, plus cx...

There is no scientific way we can suggest scientifically that a single variable is responsible for the entire problem.

And whether we agree on the issue as to whether or not the weather is a problem, is besides the point as well.

What we have noted though, in the past, is that politicians rarely actually solve real problems.

A rare exception to that phenomenon is PMSH solving some major problems in reord time....

What we also note is that policians tend to be in power for their own self interest.

taliban jack and stephane are no exception. Although they plead with us, that they are there for their own benefit, ndp and liberanos evidence is all to the contrary. They say they are for kyoto protocol, but the evidence suggests that dion is for it because it was politically correct to sign it, even though we do not have the money to support that kind of bureaucracy, and never will. And taliban jack is for it, because he likes big government, and thinks that just because you have numbers on a paper budget, that there is money in the bank. Oh, that reminds me of something called virtual money....

Well, if we are a variable, and there is an issue, then we should do something, not because of stopping something that is unstoppable, but just because reinvention is necessity at this point in time. Although we cannot control sunspots, or solar radiation, we can control some aspects of what we do, by steering ourselves into completely 100% clean air and clean water renewable right wing resources, such as solar power and wind power, on small home by home, resource by resource, location by location basis.

It is doable, and all we need are a few right people to make certain that it happens.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-11 2:17:17 PM


Steve G

Heavens to murgatroid !

I think Crichton uses the same methodology as the con man and conspiracy nut. The speech is very short on science and long on- lousy with, even - half truth, factual error and logical fallacy. To cap it off , as always, he accuses his opposition of the very sin he commits (mythical belief over good science)

Crichton, along with the guy who wants to sell you swampland in Florida , convince you that HIV does not cause AIDS, fluoride is evil, Bush planned 911, etc. all are counting on the your lack of critical faculties or, if you do have them, that you so like what you're being told you'll forget to exercise them.

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-01-11 3:16:22 PM


Kyoto is globalized socialism. The successful, industrious west is being blackmailed by eco-alarmists into believing that their human activities are adding heat to the earth. Of course the net effect is the effective hobbling of their economies through regulation and huge wealth transfers to still-polluting countries who couldn't care less one way or the other but are happy to accept a bribe.

IMHO if you believe global warming is controllable by man but you haven't heard about McIntyre, McKitrick, and Mann, you don't really know what you're supporting.

In 2001 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released its Third Assesment Report. It relied heavily on the research of one Michael Mann, who produced research that suggested that the earth's temperature was stable from A.D. 1000 to 1900, when it suddenly began to rise dramatically. This has since become know as the hockey-stick graph. In doing so he completely ignored accepted facts of history including the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth's temperature was even warmer than today without any "greenhouse gases" to speak of.

McIntyre and McKitrick have proven that Mann's research is flawed and that the sharp rise in temperature on Mann's graph is the result of uncontrolled bias. Mann's research has been shown to effectively 'mine' any data supplied to it; they found that even when completely different data sets were used, Mann's method still produced a hockey stick-shaped graph. Suffice to say that though his methodology has been found to be flawed, this fact has been completely ignored by governments, NGO's, and of course by the eco-lobby.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Posted by: Larry | 2007-01-11 4:27:23 PM


Larry-

Mann's research was upheld by the US gov'ts National Academy of Science last June: (pdf warning)

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf

skip to page 3 / 2nd column of their report if you're too wraped up in your nutty conspiracy theory to read the whole thing.

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-01-11 5:14:07 PM


Nbob-

It would appear that the authors of the paper you cited ignored M&M, since they continue to cite Mann's now-discredited research in their paper. That fact alone makes their conclusions shaky. On the other hand, our very own National Research Council did agree with M&M:

"The National Research Council Report on the hockey stick was released in June 2005. They accepted our argument that Mann's method is biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped PCs, that uncertainties have been underestimated and that the bristlecone data, on which the famous hockey stick shape depends, should not have been used. They also express very little confidence in the IPCC's claim about the 1990s being the warmest decade in the millennium. But you have to read the report closely to pick all these things up--they bury it in a lot of genteel and deferential prose."

And even the same Academy you cited has members who doubt Mann:

"The other major investigation into the hockey stick was the Wegman Panel Report, headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also the Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed our findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work. Wegman makes a good recommendations about the need for higher standards of disclosure and review scientific research is used in public policy."

Both quotes above are from the M&M link I originally provided.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a simple matter of not accepting faulty research as the justification for global re-distribution of wealth.

Posted by: Larry | 2007-01-12 3:58:01 PM


Uh Larry - The report I linked to is the very same one that M&M cited as saying " they accepted our arguement" . M&M made a mistake in the dates it was June 06 not 05 (for people so anal with numbers you'ld think they'd catch that)

They agree that M&M raise some valid concerns but on the whole they do not change the results. For example -

"In practice, this method,though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temps.."

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-01-12 5:37:37 PM


... along with the guy who wants to sell you swampland in Florida , convince you that HIV does not cause AIDS, fluoride is evil, Bush planned 911, ...

... and believes humans are mostly responsible for the current modest warming trend.

Posted by: nobb | 2007-01-12 6:14:37 PM


And Larry , if I can bring it down to a level that I can understand , is it not true that the carbon cycle will tend to self regulate this global warming phenomenom , which I do believe has to exist to a certain extent ;; i.e. as acid rain falls it tends to erode the rocks faster. As this slurry of I guess carbon - based material flows to the oceans at a faster rate , it dissolves in the oceans , encouraging plant growth [ algae and such ] which gives off oxygen which , I guess tends to ' purify ' the atmosphere. Acid rain also falls into oceans promoting algae growth , so to bottom line it ; are we talking about a self corrective mechanism ?

I suppose there could be a similar self - corrective mechanism , when we analyze the polar snow pack . As snow and ice disappears due to ' global warming ' , sunlight reflects less and less back into the atmosphere , tending to keep air temperatures ' down ' .

Just an amateur wondering .

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 6:55:50 PM


Is it true that rebuilding New Orleans would be a waste of time because there's going to be another 20 feet deep of water once the Polar Ice Cap melts?

Or am I just having a bad dream?

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 7:02:42 PM


I believe both ice caps float for the most part , so therefore that water has already been accounted for in the ' displacement calculation -- I believe -- I think there is more to worry about the erosion of deltas caused by unnatural flood controls along the Mississipi , causing salt water to destroy the environment and allowing unnatural silt patterns .

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 7:13:16 PM


The worst hit areas of New Orleans are recently "reclaimed " bayous drained and diked and built on during the 50s &60s.They will always be -20 ft below sea level and shouldn't be rebuilt.these areas were part of a natural surge control area as well as wet land wildlife habitat.Old New Orleans fared quite well.

Posted by: nick | 2007-01-12 9:44:55 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.