Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks to Americans about our greatest contribution to world culture.
Phil Jones tries to explain his "trick" to "hide the decline". It sounds like nonsense to me.
Brilliant.and so so subversive. There is a scene in the Green Police video that makes me wonder about the person who wrote it. That person captures in a scene the reason why Americans will never accept the green movement solution for global warming, or for anything else environmental.
I wonder if that person knew what he or she was doing.
Ian Katz, a columnist for the Guardian, and a true believer in global warming, says, quite reasonably, that time will have to be taken to rebuild the credibility of the global warming movement.
He's on the right track, though he doesn't leave room for doubt. What happens if a do-over reveals what many suspect, and that is that there is no global warming because of human activity?
Models are only as good as their ability to answer questions put to them. A model of the Earth is flat is fine, until you ask the model what happens at the edge. If the model doesn't correctly predict the observation (there is no edge, but you end up back where you started) then the model is no longer helpful.
I've read about a model that correctly predicts values for atmospheric measurements. That's impressive. It also predicts what NASA has just recently announced, and that is that predicted global warming was offset by unexpected decreases in water vapour concentration.
That's particularly impressive.
And it's ironic too, because the guy who predicted this used to work for NASA, until he was forced out for developing a model that said global warming was a mirage and simply can't happen.
There is a movement in California to repeal global warming legislation in the face of massive unemployment. Meanwhile in Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty brags that companies looking to cash in on the green thing are coming to Ontario instead of California.
I suppose they will until Ontario taxpayers realize they're being shafted too.
The New York Times is reporting that people in the Obama administration, as well as key environmentalists, are thinking that trying to negotiate a legally binding treaty that demands emissions cuts (through unspoken actions defined by each nation) is never going to work.
What will work, they say, is negotiating a legally binding treaty that demands actions by each nation (by which unspoken emissions cuts will be achieved).
Isn't this a case of six of one, half-a-dozen of the other?
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been caught out in two more serious errors over the last few days.
Each in of itself suggests incompetence, and skeptics of the global warming theory are growing in number as a result.
But when you start looking at all the errors, incompetence is no longer an excuse (as bad as an excuse as it is). Why? Because there is no randomness to the errors. The errors all tilt in the same direction.
As India announces that it will take sovereign control of the issue of global warming as it affects that country, the forces of transnational progressivism risk losing the best tool they've ever had to make their hideous dreams come true.
Is it time for environmentalists to save the furniture, as they say?
A convergence of evil -- lobbyists for energy interests footing the bill for nefarious Russian cyber-spies to crack the University of East Anglia's email servers and abscond with the Climategate emails.
This from the former chief science advisor to Tony Blair.
Well, makes for a good story. A like a good story, it was entirely fiction.
There are extensive archives arranged by month and by category.