Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


In other news, Colby Cosh is back.

More on the Afghanistan inquiry soon, but in case you missed it, Colby “I think global warming is overblown” Cosh, recently let go by the departed from the National Post, has found employment at Macleans. You can guess what he’s writing about – he’s picked up where he left off by spewing the same nonsense on climate change that he was spewing at the NP.

It’s no surprise he’d try to claim that all these hacked emails somehow discredit global warming and climate change, but as other more credible people on this file show, they clearly don’t do that. Colby is just blowing hot air here.

UPDATE – 12:03 pm – November 26, 2009: Colby informs he that he wasn’t “let go” by the National Post. Noted and corrected. I apologize to Mr Cosh for mistakenly assuming this. The rest of my opinion of his writings and that other folks are more credible on the topic of global warming then he remains unchanged.

UPDATE 2 @ 12:52 pm: From the Discover Magazine article I linked to, this is an important point made:

My sense is that the climate skeptic commenters we’re seeing aren’t actually familiar with the vast body of climate science work out there, and don’t realize how most individual studies are little more than a drop in the evidentiary bucket. It is because of the consilience of evidence from multiple studies and fields that we accept that climate change is human caused, and it is because of the vast diversity and number of scientists, and scientific bodies, who find that evidence compelling that we talk of a consensus. I don’t see how anything about “ClimateGate” changes this big picture significantly–and again, that’s even if we assume the worst about what the emails reveal.


15 comments to In other news, Colby Cosh is back.

  • Roll Tide

    @ Mike

    Yes Carl Sagan, was not a climatologist, not sure what your point is, Al Gore and David Suzuki aren’t either. Sagan is a physicist who hosted the popular 1980s science series Cosmos, he did suggest that the burning and clear-cutting of forests might lead to a new ice age.

    • kmartin

      @Roll Tide, Roll..great points but you are going to hell(in the eyes of LIB-BOTS) now for slagging the two greatest FRAUDS in the history of the global warming debate.

  • Prairie Kid

    Colby. The Liberals never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I’m sure the day you get a correction the Leafs will hoist the Stanley Cup.

  • I don’t quite know what to make of an arbiter of credibility who appears careless with facts. I wasn’t “let go” by the National Post, and I’d appreciate it if you would correct any such impression at once. Thanks.

    • @Colby Cosh, Noted and corrected. The rest of my opinion of your writings on global warming/climate change, and the fact I feel other folks are more credible and qualified on the topic of global warming then yourself remains however.

  • Ti-Guy

    Welcome fellow troll.

    At least the troll Prairie Kid has finally admitted to his trolling.

  • Prairie Kid

    Mark. So the scientists clearly have some things they don’t want the public to know. Then why not share the raw data with other scientists?

    And the journal that published crap? All views not shared by you and the scientists you seem to support are crap?

    Nothing I say will convince you there is any substance to those emails. And visa versa. Time will tell.

    And Bull Caller. Did you cut and paste your post in several blogs or do you just have one thought? Welcome fellow troll.

    • Roll Tide

      @Prairie Kid,

      “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

  • Bull Caller

    Don’t Listen to Prairie Kid, he’s been posting the exact same garbage on other sites. He’s just another tinfoil conspiracy troll with a conservative bent. I think he just watched too much Glen Beck.

  • Prairie Kid

    “Somehow discredit global warming”

    Have you read these emails? If you have, do you believe they are a hoax?

    Because if you don’t think the emails are a hoax, please explain to me why scientists would “cheer” when another scientist who holds opposing views dies. And why they are afraid people will use the Freedom of Information Act to get some files. And why they can’t explain the fact that temperatures didn’t rise like they thought they would? And why they wanted an editor of a scientific published fired because he published some articles with opposite views to theirs.

    Take your Liberal hat off for a sec and seriously look at the emails if you do not believe they are a fake. Then honestly tell me what possible other conclusions we should draw from some of their comments. If you think the emails are a hoax, I will gladly wait until all the scientists involved in these emails come out and deny they ever wrote them. They haven’t til now.

    • @Prairie Kid,

      “would “cheer” when another scientist who holds opposing views dies.”

      Sounds nasty, but human. This affects the science how? Oh, it doesn’t.

      “And why they are afraid people will use the Freedom of Information Act to get some files. ”

      Because they clearly have a few things they’d rather not be made public…. like what you pointed out to above?

      Think tanks pounding out propaganda would make BIG LIES out of any little thing found. As we now see happening.

      “And why they can’t explain the fact that temperatures didn’t rise like they thought they would?”

      That’s one prediction out of many. Keep that in mind. But, heck, sounds like the scientific method in process. They agree that the warming is mostly human-caused, but do not agree or know how much by when. Understanding what has been is much easier than knowing what will be.

      “…And why they wanted an editor of a scientific published fired”

      Because that journal published crap, and there was a scandal that later happened resulting in the resignation of 6 members. Very old story. Good scientist were indignant that bad material got published. Makes their job harder. Makes sense to. What do you expect? That they will sit there and tolerate a flawed peer-review process from a journal without criticism?

      Once again, how does this affect the science?

      I’m confused as to what is expected here of these people. They are not PR professionals. They are academics. They have long been disadvantaged in the PR game because they don’t communicate with rhetoric and propaganda. They approach it academically, and get quite frustrated by it all.

      Now, you missed a good one: “hide the decline”

      The propaganda over that one has legs and will haunt us for years. And yet, it is completely valid, and already all published in peer review years back.

      One of many data sets in use out there is considered accurate up to 1960. After that year, you ignore the data as it causes a false temperature decline. The authors who produce the data say so. So everyone who uses the data, masks the data effects after 1960. They hide the decline.

      Old story. But it will fly around the world for years as “proof” of doctored numbers, to the frustration of researchers everywhere.

      Too bad the propaganda put out by the Think Tanks aren’t placed under he same scrutiny, and subject to the same loose interpretations. I wonder what we would find if we got years of emails from The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, The Cato Institute and The Fraser Institute? Will they submit to the same scrutiny? I doubt it.

      In a lot of ways, this is all intimidation. The black hats out there are prepared to hack emails, lie and defame good researchers all to make political gain, and make my children’s future bleaker.

    • Roll Tide

      @Prairie Kid,

      The numbers are not agreeing with their theories. They needed to be either manipulated or “not released”. How scientific.

      I am old enough to remember Carl Sagan and others warning us of the coming Ice age, I was a skeptic then and a skeptic now. Those hacked e-mails only confirmed it.

      Don’t expect Anna Maria Tremonti and the rest of the liberal media to make much of it, it does not fit their agenda.

      Would it be nice if the Liberal party would surprise us and question how much this government is wasting its money into “reducing carbon” in light of these revelations?

      • @Roll Tide, Carl Sagan warned of no such thing because he was not a climatologist. Stop lying and name dropping to make your denial of science somehow more acceptable and relevant when they are not.

        If find it humours and sad that the denialists refuse to accept that AGW is happening and is based on a scientific consensus, because they don’t think humans can affect the planet on that scale, but will latch on to anything barely relevant and claim that a vast conspiracy of thousands of scientists to promote AGW for some unknown reason is not only plausible but probable.

        Crazy. Simply crazy.

        Multiple intersecting fields of science pointing to the same conclusion on AGW == impossible, but vast conspiracy with thousands of scientists acting in concert == probable and happening.

        You guys have no credibility on science so stop trying. Go back to convincing yourself that 9-11 was an inside job and that JFK was shot from the grassy knoll…

  • CWTF

    You’d expect to have some journalist objectivity and a search from the truth from Macleans – I guess not.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.