anthropogenic global warming

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.


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?


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?

I must admit I was initially sceptical that the “Climategate” revelations would have much of an impact on our approach to “climate change.” Too many — politicians, environmentalists, businesses, teachers, etc. — had too much invested in the notion that the activities of mankind are destroying the planet and something, therefore, has to been done, and done quickly.

It is probably too soon to tell whether climate alarmism is dead, but its proponents are certainly on the defensive. Encouragingly, even the mainstream media, which until this point has been the key purveyor of the climate-change creed, has begun to ask serious questions about the science behind it.

As Bloomberg notes, climate-change fervor is cooling.

The latest blow to those urging action against global warming came last week, when Yvo de Boer said he would step down as United Nations climate chief, two months after 193 countries meeting in Copenhagen failed to reach a binding agreement on curbing greenhouse gases.

‘Sad Day’

The resignation may reduce the possibility that a worldwide market aimed at reducing carbon emissions is within reach, said Trevor Sikorski, an emissions analyst for Barclays Capital in London.

“It’s a sad day for the carbon market, and we’ll be lucky to get somebody with Yvo’s dedication and hard work as a successor,” Sikorski said.

UN carbon credits have fallen 13 percent on the European Climate Exchange in London since the start of the Copenhagen meeting, which was aiming to set limits for emissions after 2012. The NEX index tracking shares of 86 companies involved in clean energy has tumbled 12 percent since the talks.

Also last week, ConocoPhillips, BP Plc and Caterpillar Inc. said they will quit the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of companies created in 2007 to push for legislation to reduce carbon pollution.

Let’s hope cooler heads prevail. Catastrophic climate change is a myth. There are many good reasons to lessen our dependence on carbon-based sources of energy. But ultimately, if alternative energy sources are to become commonplace, it will be to our benefit if economics drives their success rather than political fiat guided by myth.

If global warming is so-o-o horrible, how come they're not happy it's all kinda fizzling out?Source: Diversity Lane

Many reasons have been put forward as to why the mainstream media have largely presented a one-sided view of the global warming debate. But, new revelations in the UK suggest they may also have been talking their book:

STRIKING parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund can be revealed today.

The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon.

The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.

Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted.

Despicable if true.

Next Page »