Dear fellow climate change deniers,
We are at a loss how you hacked our website and posted your message:
But congratulations! This is, in your own words, climatedenialgate! With your evil hacking skills, you are now the prime suspects for the climategate hack.
By the way, your idea of a causal connection of sunspots, global cooling (or warming?), and plate tectonic activity is truly intriguing!
Keep up the good work! And celebrate the fact that Koch industries have registered as lobbyists in Alberta! This means lots of funding for us all.
We will report on FoS all next week. Stay tuned!
No. 25 “FOS is dedicated to providing the public with insight into
Calgary has just experienced the 38th coldest winter since 1900 and the 9th snowiest. Global temperatures are presently at levels which occurred some 30 years ago. These temperatures are consistent with natural forces associated with such phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and sunspot cycles. Yet scientists from most Learned and Professional Societies and Institutions diligently pursue costly avenues supposedly designed to keep us from getting warmer. Shades of Brave New World!
Schweinsgruber says: The Friends of Science just released their 13th worst newsletter with the 5th highest number of bullshit per paragraph. They should invest into Patagonia, The North Face, and Mountain Equipment Coop. But hey, the latter is communism. And why has each of them an air conditioner installed?
As we enter solar cycle 24, solar activity is mimicking the pattern of the Dalton Minimum that brought an extension of the Little Ice Age and signalled a period of intense tectonic activity that included the largest volcanic eruption in modern history in 1815.
As with all scientific predictions, there is not 100 per cent certainty that we will see increased destructive tectonic activity over the next few years, but the precautionary principle dictates that we must put measures in place to deal with these eventualities. Read More...
Tracy Spencer proposes intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species which may explain the outrageous pictures below.
Somebody tells me that the pictures below are not from Huntsville, Alabama, but from Huntsville, Texas. We simply deny that and clearly warn you: the wages of sin is death!
After all, we climate change deniers have to be tough on crime, big on family values, and hateful of people who think differently!
July: Ian Plimer speaks to the Friends of Science in Calgary. FoGT don’t want to afford the $200 per plate, which largely supports the Friends’ denial activities. The Friends run a new radio blitz which largely fails to be heard because they can’t get the audio clips into iTunes. U Vic’s Andrew Weaver is challenged into debate by Lord Monckton. The former refuses and they settle for a duel and select clubhouse sandwiches as weapons.
August: Blog scientist Dan Moutal develops a speech impediment (caused by water in tooth) which makes it temporarily impossible for him to continue his ‘irregulate climate’ podcast. Little known Albert engineer Barry Moore revolutionizes climate science by simply reinventing it on the back of a napkin during lunch. Jo Nova empties her website’s tip jar and recovers $17.34 Aus. Naomi Oreskes goes on vacation. Read More...
Morally superior greenies don't let facts stand in their way At the beginning of the year, the pharmacy/convenience store in my neighbourhood -part of a large national chain -started charging a nickel per shopping bag. Each time I have checked out purchases since, the cheery cashier has asked, "Would you like a bag for five cents?" to which I ave replied, with increasing exasperation, "No, thank you, I would like one or free."
Stores that have begun charging for bags may as well be telling customers, "Thanks for shopping here, now you figure out how to get your stuff home. Yeah, sure, we're happy enough that you dropped a few bucks (or quite a few) in our store, but what you do with your purchases is none of our concern. Please pick up your crap and go." Read More...
The leader of this party, Danielle Smith, says about CO2:
“...The discussion surrounding global warming has become highly emotional. There is obviously still healthy scientific debate as to the extent manmade emissions of CO2 are affecting global temperatures – and this debate will likely carry on for many years.
As a province we must strike the delicate balance between promoting out of precaution a practical reduction of CO2 emissions while ignoring the environmental extremists that would have us needlessly overreact to the severe detriment of our economy.
It is thus important that government avoid enacting CO2 reduction policies for the sake of simply appearing to be doing something. Read More...
One of the first principals I was taught was to question the void. Unfortunately, due to the large number of scientifi- cally unskilled people, including the news media and politi- cians, involved in this debate, unsubstantiated claims are accepted without careful study. Instead, intuitive logic and highly selected correlations are taken as scientific proof, which of course they are not. Read More...
I concur with Tom Harris that 'deceptive' climate polls should be ignored, simply because they are irrelevant for climate science. They are however less irrelevant than Tom Harris' opinion piece, which is part of an echo chamber aiming to cast doubt on climate science by disinformation. And the organization he chairs, the 'International Climate Science Coalition' is even more deceptive, as it is just another free-marketeering, ultra-right-wing self-interest group with no interest or expertise in climate science whatsoever. Bluff packaging!
How galling that Tom Harris should dismiss climate change without citing a shred of evidence. He asserts "the period around 1970 was the coldest in the last 80 years in the U.S.," but conspicuously fails to note that this cooling was only 0.2 degrees, whereas from 1970 to 2005 there has been a temperature increase of 0.55 degrees. All of the preceding data come from the U.S. National Climate Data Centre.
He asserts "much of the data from cold rural stations was dropped out of the record in the early 1990s." No such statement can be taken seriously until, and unless, he gives the numbers and the source of the information. If anything, with the use of polar orbiting satellites and using radio telemetry for easier to access data from remote stations, the temperature record has never been better. Read More...
Asking the question in this poll as to whether or not Canadians "believe" in climate change is like asking them whether or not they believe in cancer. No one "believes" in cancer, but rather, people are convinced by the scientific evidence that cancer cells exist and that there are medical ways we can prevent their growth and remove them when they form tumours.
So, I don't "believe" in climate change, but I've read enough of the scientific evidence to understand that it is happening and that its effects will become more severe as carbon dioxide concentrations increase.
This is not a belief system that you either choose to believe or don't, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny (no harm done if you believe in them). As Paul Hawken says, "If you look at the science about what is happening on Earth and aren't pessimistic, you don't understand data."
Teresa Posyniak, Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
A news release from the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity last Wednesday began, "A poll released today shows that Canadians believe that climate change is happening and would be willing to pay for government policies that reverse or slow the damage." They continued, "Belief in climate change among Canadians substantially outpaces belief in this phenomenon among residents of the United States."
But that wasn't really what the survey showed -respondents were actually asked about somewhat different topics.
This was not explained by most of those reporting on the poll. For example, the CBC wrote, "Far more Canadians than Americans believe climate change is real, according to a report produced by U.S. and Canadian think tanks . . . In Canada, 80 per cent believe in the science behind climate change . . . ." Read More...