climate change

Imagine that. Scientists doing empirical work:

“The researchers say that their empirical findings (note empirical – as opposed to models on a computer) prove…”

A scientific study on the results of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill has yielded some surprising results that appear to disprove fears of methane release as a global warming “tipping point” to catastrophic warming. The theory as currently incorporated by most climate models requires “tipping points” to go from mild anthropogenic warming to catastrophic global warming. The most plausibleand significant of these potential tipping points has always … Read More

via hauntingthelibrary


As a Canadian living in Canada, I’ve always thought that concern over global warming was misplaced. So what if it went up a few degrees. Overall, life in our northern climate might actually be more pleasant.

In a new book, The World In 2050, Lawrence C. Smith considers the upside for Canada:

By the year 2050 Canada could be enjoying newfound status as a global superpower blessed with a developed north, plenty of fresh water, a growing population and new shipping lanes through the Arctic.

That’s the theory put forward in Laurence C. Smith’s new book “The World in 2050” — a scientific exploration of the effects of climate change over the next 40 years.

According to Smith’s 40-year projection, global warming will free up northern natural resources such as oil, gas and water. That in turn will attract immigrants and lead to new infrastructure and development for northern rim countries — NORCs, as he calls them — at a time when southern countries will be running out of resources and seeing their populations fall.

Of course, the underlying climate alarmist scenario in the book portends disaster for other parts of the world. But if this is the case, why should Canada actually pay to address the issue while forgoing these potential benefits? Maybe the other parts of the world should be paying us.

Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein notes that circumstance, not principle, is the primary factor behind the respective stances of different states with respect to climate change. Of course, that doesn’t stop a fair amount of hypocrisy along the way.

What’s preternaturally stupid is to buy into the perpetual bitching of environmentalists that our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world, as if every Canadian was running around setting oil fires.

We live in a big, cold, northern, developed, sparsely-populated, oil-producing country, where the energy requirements for electricity generation, heat and travel alone are enormous compared to other nations.

That’s why our per capita emissions are high, not because we’re evil.

Which brings us to the Kyoto accord, a deal designed mainly by European drafters to punish a big, cold, northern, developed, sparsely-populated, oil-producing country like Canada, while rewarding an environmental basket case like Russia.

Actually, the main intent of Kyoto was to hobble the U.S. economy, but the Americans weren’t dumb enough to ratify it.

Our previous Liberal government was, and the only feeling Canadians should have about that is not shame over failing to implement Kyoto, but anger the vainglorious Jean Chretien ratified it, either because he didn’t know what he was doing, or did know and never intended to implement it beyond posing for the photo-op.

Read the rest.

Matt Patterson notes Al Gore’s shrinking influence in the Washington Times Post:

The fortunes of Mr. Gore’s global-warming crusade certainly are in decline: A recent Rasmussen poll found that just 34 percent of respondents “feel human activity is the main contributor” to global warming and that the percentage of those who consider global warming a “serious issue” has “trended down slightly since last November.”

Mr. Gore himself is to blame for at least some of the public backlash against global-warming orthodoxy: Using bad science to justify bad policy will inevitably rub people the wrong way. And Mr. Gore has not helped his cause by consistently expressing outrageous falsehoods (“the debate is over”) and shamelessly trying to shield his assertions from legitimate criticism by claiming “settled science.” All the while, he has enriched himself and pushed a left-wing economic agenda.

Do Nobel Prizes come with a best before date?


Blogging has definitely been light as of late. It must have something to do with global warming. It’s been so damn hot lately.

Along these lines, Best of the Web posted this juxtaposition today:

Two Newsmagazines in One!

• “Ultimately, however, it’s a mistake to use any one storm–or even a season’s worth of storms–to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries.”–, Feb. 10

• “As the worst heat wave on record spawns wildfires that are destroying entire villages, Russian officials have made what for them is a startling admission: global warming is very real. . . . There may turn out to be a bright side to Russia’s devastating weather: one of the nations most responsible for driving climate change may finally start trying to do something about it.”–, Aug. 3

And a few more links:

Expert: Win climate change debate by easing off science

“Climate scientists — stop talking about climate science. We lost. It’s over. Forget it,” Foley told a surprised audience during a featured panel discussion on the last day of the three-day forum.

Is Environmentalism a Luxury Good?

Add environmentalism to the long list of things the Great Recession may have successfully pulverized.

Keep your experimental windmills away from school buses

Recognizing the turbine was spinning dangerously fast, nearby workers attempted in vain to shut it down.

More than 400 feet of blades came loose, flying into nearby fields and narrowly missing a number of parked school buses on a neighbouring storage lot.

My daughter recently wrote her grade 10 science exam. One of the questions went something like this:

Your friend is sceptical about global warming. How would you convince him/her that global warming is a serious problem?

Unfortunately, a high school science exam is not the place to challenge authority. To pass, you have no choice but to dish it back to them. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make fun of the earnestness of your teachers and Al Gore on your own time.

Wow! The mainstream media is waking up.

The greatest scandal connected to global warming is not exaggeration, fraud or destruction of data to conceal the weakness of the argument. It is those who are personally profiting from promoting this fantasy at the expense of the rest of us.

Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world’s greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. His science-fiction movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Academy Award for best documentary and 21 other film awards. He was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Gore was laying his own foundations. As he was whipping up hysteria over climate change, he cannily invested in “green” firms that stood to profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not more) from increased government regulations and sweetheart deals from connected politicians and bureaucrats. The multimillionaire climate dilettante was given a free pass by reporters, who refused to ask him hard questions about the degree to which he was profiting from the panic he was causing.


Given the clear conflicts of interest of those who both promote and profit from climate-change alarmism, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize should be rescinded.

Is the Nobel Foundation listening?

Next Page »