Saturday, December 19, 2009

A Great Way to Lower Earth's Temperature

Rather than reaching an agreement on making "carbon credit" transfer payments to developing countries, lets just call previous aid payments "carbon credits". That's gotta be good for, what, 2 degrees Celsius.

We need to be careful not to apportion too much past aid though. We don't want to lower the planet's temps too much. I'm thinking changing the name of "aid" given by the West from...say... 1986 onwards should be about right. Should cool things down in a jiffy.

However, in order to keep temperatures up in really cold places like Winnipeg and Edmonton, a portion of Canada's aid given will be withheld from the accounting.

UPDATE: Due to the incredibly strong demand by folks in Winnipeg and Edmonton to raise their respective temperatures, it's been decided that not only will a portion of Canadian past aid be withheld from the accounting, a group of Western Canadians will actually go to various developing countries and take back the aid we have given.
UPDATE II: Great ideas in the comments. Heck, we can solve "global warming" today, right here!

Friday, December 18, 2009

"Meaningful Deal" Reached In Copenhagen... At the Hands of THE ONE

How do we know it's "meaningful"? Obama said it is so. And so it shall be written.

We've reached the epicenter of leftist media nirvana. Where AGW fever and Obama worship meet.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Easy Way To "Warm" the World Average Temps: Leave out Siberia

The brazenness of the manipulation is almost comical. The Russians are saying its weather stations (a lot of them) showing cooling or lack of warming, were simply left out of the global temperature accounting. Kate has it all.

BBC Interviews Computer Programmer on Released CRU Coding - It's Not Reliable

A chilling interview (by the BBC...yes the BBC) with a computer programmer who's gone through the released coding from the CRU. To think that trillions are riding on this is the scandal of the century.

In short, the coding is an absolute mess and inherently unreliable. The video is brief, watch it all.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Reaction to Climategate Tells us More About AGW Than Climategate Itself

To not be at least mildly skeptical in the face of that which cries out for further answers, is to have a faith based belief system.

The shaky fundamental tenets of AGW, the unreliable modelling, the actual evidence contradicting the models, the natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet left unexplained, the incestuous relationship between the UN, key AGW scientists, and "science reporters" all with highly politicized motives, and not the least of which, the emails themselves, cry out for skepticism, if not a repudiation of AGW.

That there are so many who lack even a modicum skepticism at this point, only reifies the concerns that AGW is a politicized and dogmatic belief system that has precious little to do with the objective search for the truth via a dispassionate scientific method.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Richness of the Day

Several posters at Macleans Blog have been following their brethren in the MSM in serially posting on the Afghan Prisoner issue. I've been asserting that this is a pet left wing issue that doesn't move everyday Canadians.

The latest post at Macleans is one mocking Hillier's quote in the post title: "I Haven't Followed It". How fitting for all the wrong reasons. You see, Macleans has a feature on the right side of the blog page, which tracks the "most read" posts.

Notwithstanding the incessant coverage on this issue there, not one Afghan prisoner post is among the most read. It seems Macleans readers' response would be the same as Hillier's:

"I haven't followed it".

Friday, December 11, 2009

On Retribution

Retribution – even violent retribution - has long been part of our way of life. The extent to which retribution is accepted, or at least understood, is very much dependent on the context of the antecedent offending actions. In our beloved sport of ice hockey, for instance, when a player takes a “cheap shot” against another, we condone or expect a swift violent reaction ranging from a counter slash of the stick to the immediate dropping of the gloves. In such instances thousands stand round cheering on the beating of the instigator (if he’s on “our team” that is).

Moving up the scale of retribution we see instances of violence done to others out of jealousy (a less accepted form) where one partner will cause harm to another caught in the act of cheating. We see that it is wrong but we are not surprised or shocked that it has happened. Then there are instances of vigilantism or emotional defense. I cannot imagine the prospect of my young child being molested or intentionally harmed by another, but I have no doubt that if I caught the perpetrator I would do severe violence to them. I imagine that society in general, while acknowleging the theoretical wrong of commiting violence to another, would sympathize with or at least understand my offending behavior.

War is an altogether different matter. History is replete with examples of one side exacting horrific revenge on the other side. The Russians retaking the Eastern front from the Nazis gave rise to thousands of instances of unspeakable acts of atrocity. Not much has been written about it, as history has appeared to recognize the scope of the antecedent instigation, noting that all is fair in love and war. In the Serbian conflict, under the watchful eye of UN observers, countless acts of barbarity ensued, much justified as revenge. We cannot condone savage revenge done to, say, a colonel in charge of rounding up villagers and having them shot because they had the misfortune of being Croatians in a Serbian region, but if that Colonel is later captured, hung upside down and stabbed a thousand times by the villagers (as happened to Mussolini), we understand.

Which brings us to the Taliban. A more barbaric group would be difficult to find. The savagery they inflicted on the populace while they were in control rivals anything mankind has done in a millenia. Women being stoned, gays hung, “impure” actions met with torture and death, an entire class of young women essentially banned from public life. Since being driven to the caves and mountains their barbarity has continued, with the routine targeting of innocents, including bombing groups of poor children seeking candy from UN soldiers.

It is in this context that we find our Canadian MSM reporting of allegations of mistreatment of Taliban prisoners.

Not by us, mind you. By those who’ve been suffering unimaginable acts of horror at the hands of the Taliban.

In a sane media complex, free of partisanship, and absent a base desire to oust a government they consider unworthy of leading due to its unacceptable political stripes, the real story behind the Taliban’s captors would be their incredible restraint.

Yet, in a society which cheers the violent pummelling of a defenceman for the grave infraction of a trip from behind, we suddenly find ourselves being asked by the left leaning media to ignore the context (which ignoring is aided by them not even pretending to report on the occasional Taliban barbarity as a semblence of “balance”) and rally as a country in outrage for the “mistreatment” of the Taliban.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Major New Study Published in Leading Scientific Journal "Nature" Slices and Dices AGW Theory

From Andrew Bolt's blog (which is required reading if you're interested in this issue).

Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

This post at WUWT, should be headline grabbing news in every major daily. Startling.

The raw temperature data "adjusted" to fit the preconceived theory.

Get it on the net, because the MSM surely won't tell you about it.
UPDATE: Kate has more.


Monday, December 7, 2009

The Government-Media-Academic Complex in Lockstep

George Will's scathing critique of AGW theory includes this gem:

"Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject."

A free media is supposed to inform the citizenry. Yet instead of digging deeper, the media averts its eyes. Instead of asking hard questions about the revelations, the "mainstream" media makes excuses or belittles the evidence. Rather than looking at the potential implications, it summarily concludes this doesn't change anything about the science.

From the same Canadian media that attempted to find deeper sinister meaning to a pooping cartoon, a hand shake between a PM and his son, or...gulp...the type of vest warn by our Conservative PM. And from the same U.S. media that spent days leafing through dumpsters to literally find dirt on Sarah Palin, and who assigned dozens of "fact checkers" for her new book.

The reason the media has not delved deeper into Climategate is not because of the lack of newsworthiness in what they will find, but precisely because of the the depth of information they know is lying in the vast store of released information.

That, my friends, is propaganda, pure and simple.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Comrade, Don't Worry Yourself With This Silly "Climategate" Talk

The definition of propaganda in Wiki:

"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."

It's fascinating how much of the facts coming out of Climategate fit squarely within that definition. Not just the conduct of the scientists evidenced in the emails themselves, but the propaganda arm of the Climategate Politburo in the media and Google. Kate at SDA has been following the latter creepiness.

I suggest using Radio Free Europe as a search engine from now on.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Copenhagen Prostitutes: Free Sex for UN Climate Delegates

Luxury travel on the taxpayer dime: $50,000
Conference based on faux science: tens of millions of dollars
Free prostitutes for the participants: priceless!

Climategate: "The Smoking Code"

Robert Greiner is a scientist and engineer and has gone through the released code to find that it has been rigged to provide a hockey stick shaped graph, regardless of the data input.

AGW theory is literally coming apart at the seams right before our very eyes.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Media Blackout on Contra AGW Evidence Did Not Begin Two Weeks Ago

Have you ever seen a mainstream media report on a Conservative proposal that did not include an "expert" or opinion leader brought in to take the idea down a peg? Whether it be a "leading economist" to challenge the numbers, or a "prominent doctor" to question the efficacy. It is virtually automatic. Defenders of the media would argue that such is just good reporting. Questioning assertions is part of the job. Yes it is. Yes it is indeed.

Yet in the world of AGW, it simply doesn't happen. Being the quintessential leftist cause of the day, no matter how big the name, no matter what the credentials, statements of prominent scientists questioning AGW have been simply blacked-out from coverage.

If you go to the U.S. minority Senate report, you will see an incredible number of world leading scientists, openly questioning the science behind AGW. The quotes are startling, as are the names, who include IPCC scientists. Most amazing is the fact that this list is not new. It's been building for years now. Here are just of few:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

There are hundreds more. Hundreds.

Each one could have garnered headlines. None did. Not individually, not collectively. Think of this repressed list the next time you read the words "scientists agree" in the next press offering on AGW.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

AGW "Scientist" or Hard Left Political Activist

Tomato, Tomaaato.

James Hanson hearkens back to the days of the Vietnam protests and calls for similar "civil resistance." That's "the kind of activism we need" says the good Doctor.

Dying declarations are considered in law to be inherently reliable. On death's doorstep, the need for dishonesty disappears and our true thoughts flow freely. Watch more of the AGW mask slip as the climategate noose tightens.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Warmists Have Taken Science Back 100 Years

Professor of meteorology at MIT explains how AGW theorists have taken science back a hundreds years with their politicized simplification of the climate - the simplification being that everything comes down to a single factor - CO2. A nice, tidy omnipresent gas which makes for good central economic control. From Ace.