Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Get Colby Cosh onto this right away..

This prelude to a climate change article in the NY Times by the Washington Monthly is an appropriate segue to my title, which I’ll explain in a bit:

Some of the lazier lawmakers and activists on the far-right not only reject all of the science on climate change, but in light of the CRU emails, have also decided that evidence itself is no longer worth considering. Reality, meanwhile, is indifferent to the demands of indolent ideologues.

And here’s the article that’s being referred to by the Monthly:

Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said. The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s and so on,” said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, speaking at a news conference at the climate talks in Copenhagen. The international assessment largely meshes with interim analysis by the National Climatic Data Center and NASA in the United States, both of which independently estimate global and regional temperature and other weather trends.

My reference to Colby Cosh is to his first couple of articles at his new gig at Macleans, where he went on about how these hacked emails from East Anglia university with scientists discussing climate change proved that global warming/climate change was at a minimum overblown or at worst, a hoax – Mark Steyn ranted about that too, for that matter (As an aside, Macleans is quickly turning into a right-wing magazine version of the National Post).

Actual evidence and real data says otherwise, though that won’t stop folks like them for continuing to deny what’s right in front of their faces.


3 comments to Get Colby Cosh onto this right away..

  • kmartin

    I think it is safe to say that there is evidence for both sides. Here is one truth I have heard today. In Copenhagen(spelling?) for this summit this is close to 1500 limo’s and 150 private jets. They say this will produce more pollution than Switzerland produced last year in total. These guys are so responsible to do this. I wish Harper would just leave and come home. Canada does not need to be a part of this scam which is all about shifting wealth from the haves to the have nots. Canada produced 2 percent of the worlds pollution yet some dutch idiot over there says we need to pony up 9 BILLION dollars to them to help others? WTF for. The climate is changing I will not deny that and yes we are contributing to that but if we think for one second that we are so powerful that we can alter this then surely we can stop tornadoes hurricanes and earth-quakes. The doomsday people claim they know we are heading towards Armageddon have 150 years of data to work with yet core and ice samples taken from many areas of the world suggest that this is just a normal cycle we are in. WHO KNOWS. I have have heard this and will come back to verify if it is true but the comapny that is respondsible for the cap and trade credits is a publicly traded company on a stock market somewhere in the world. If this is true does that not tell you that this is more about profits than helping us?

  • Roll Tide

    Oh how the alarmists wish those e-mails never got released.
    They have yet to explain them.
    The more people know, the more they question.
    Its messing up the plan.

  • No, no. We always now refer to him as “Mark Steyn”, to reflect his habit of using quotes to denote issues he views with disdain, such as “global warming”, “human rights”, “intelligence” and the like.

    Denialists will never care about the weight of evidence supporting the theory that our polluting habits are behind much of the current warming because they disagree with the policy which is developed due to the science.

    If the existence of antibiotics resulted in policy these types disagreed with, they’d attack them as a myth.

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