Archive for Global Warming

Feedback Loop

Last winter, the Great Lakes froze over more than they had in decades.

Looks like that may be a trend:

Michigan residents may see a cold and icy winter arrive sooner this year, reportedly due to lower temperatures in the Great Lakes.

Average surface temperatures for both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan have dropped: Superior’s went from from 53.7 degrees on October 11, 2013 to 47.6 degrees Saturday, while Michigan’s went from 62.1 degrees to 56.0 degrees, reported.

That means both lakes experienced temperature drops of 6.1 degrees, the news site explained.

Michigan residents may need to bundle up sooner to brace both November and December chilly weather as a result of cooler lakes, reported.

And the Global Warm Mongers freak out over fractions of a degree!

So, the lakes will freeze even earlier than last year. Soon, illegal aliens will find it easier to walk across Lake Huron in June than to swim across the Rio Grande in July.

Comments (1)

Feathered Fricassee

We don’t want to gloat, but we told you about this six months ago:

If you don’t remember (one out of so many scoops):

Environmentalists have hit out at a giant new solar farm in the Mojave Desert as mounting evidence reveals birds flying through the extremely hot ‘thermal flux’ surrounding the towers are being scorched.

After years of regulatory tangles around the impact on desert wildlife, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened on Thursday but environmental groups say the nearly 350,000 gigantic mirrors are generating 1000 degree Fahrenheit temperatures which are killing and singing birds.

According to compliance documents released by developer BrightSource Energy last year, dozens of birds were found injured at the site during the building stage.

Poor birds are still flyin’ and dyin':

Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair.

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one “streamer” every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.

The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.

Same solar plant, same bird massacre. Only the month has changed. At one streamer every two minutes, with an average amount of daylight of 14 hours (dawn and dusk being especially active for birds), I estimate conservatively at least 75,000 birds fried by this one “green” solar plant alone—a lot more than mere “dozens”—since we first reported the problem.

Thank goodness we have wind turbines to fall back on.

President Barack Obama has mounted a second-term drive to combat climate change, proposing first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.

His plan aims to help move the U.S. from a coal-dependent past into a future fired by wind and solar power, nuclear energy and natural gas.

Bird-hatin’ bastard.


Settled Science Update

Ha! Made you look. Betcha thought I was talking about global warming.

I am, kinda:

The doubters have spoken.

A group of independent experts — who prodded authorities to release satellite data on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 — says it thinks it knows the approximate location of the missing aircraft.

Five separate computer models all place the plane in a tight cluster of spots in the south Indian Ocean — hundreds of miles southwest of the previous search site.

“We recommend that the search for MH370 be focused in this area,” the group said in a statement late Tuesday.

Doubters, experts, computer models—it sounds like the global warming fracas, doesn’t it? We’re months removed from the original…event…and no closer to discovering what happened.

No, wait. We are closer. We’re closer because by trial and a whole lotta error, we’ve eliminated thousands of square miles. So these “experts” may be on to something. The plane may be where they say it is because it isn’t anywhere else.

The group believes that after the Boeing 777 circumnavigated Indonesia, for reasons that are still unknown, the plane traveled south at an average speed of 470 knots, probably at a consistent altitude and constant heading, Exner said. All five computer models developed by the experts place the aircraft in a “pretty tight cluster…plus or minus 50 miles of each other,” he said.

The plane and its 239 occupants vanished March 8 while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

In a blog post, group member Tim Farrar called the recommended search site “our best estimate — but not the only possible — location for a potential search.”

Give these experts credit: unlike the global warm mongers, they admit doubt. They confess uncertainty. They grant you that their theories are only educated guesses. My takeaway is that it’s still a big world out there, and it can still mess with us. If the missing plane doesn’t freak you out, look up the Yellowstone caldera. Gaia could snuff us out with Australia and Madagascar tied behind her back.

Keep a few virgins handy for emergency sacrifice. Borrowing from President Obama, if you don’t believe in an earth goddess, you think the moon is made of cheese.


It Depends on the Meaning of “Ice”

The Great Lakes are finally free of ice!

All of the Great Lakes including Lake Superior are now ice free. This marks the end to a 7 month stretch where the lakes were covered in at least one ice cube, which is the longest streaks since satellite records began back in the 70’s. June 7th became the official ice out date of the lake which also makes in the latest in the year ice has coated the water. There was still a third of the Lakes coated in ice the last week of April which was the largest amount of ice that late in the year, a trend that continued into June.

Wait… there appears to be a chunk of ice that’s still remaining across the southeastern portion of the lake, but that doesn’t appear to be part of the “official” ice cover measurement. Here is a satellite image taken Sunday afternoon that shows the iceberg type piece flowing along the southern edges of the lake.

Can we get a closer look?

There are still a number of smaller chunks of ice in some of the protected bay areas. The picture below shows ice in an area that the map above does not indicate any ice.

Lake Superior is still in the 30s, which means the land around it (downwind, anyway) is also cooler. And you know what else cold water creates?


If he global warm mongers would just relax and enjoy nature in all its unpredictability, they might be less excitable.

Comments (1)

Sealed With a Kiss

Waste not, want not!

Blogger Susan Crockford reports on Polar Bear Science that she received an email on May 22 from Dag Vongraven, chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group [PBSG], that an upcoming report on worldwide polar bear population would contain a footnote that some polar bear populations are simply best-guess estimates.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000,” the footnote reads.

“It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated.”

The note goes on to say here are no “abundance estimates” for bears in the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and Russia.

Which is about the size of Rhode Island, right?

“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

Why should that stop anyone? Don’t you know how science works?

“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004?s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

To characterize where we are with this report and this issue, I would like to quote James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Energy Secretary, who said: “We have only two modes — complacency and panic.”—commenting on the country’s approach to energy (1977)

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts.

In the parts I omitted, he says there is good science in the report. This is not among that good science:

Why measure the temperature? Why count the polar bears? We have models that do that!

Oops, wrong kind of model—but do you think she’d do any worse?

[T]he IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined.

The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”

No [bleep]! Who wants to traipse around the North Pole counting polar bears? (Count the number of legs and divide by four.) I’d rather roll on a polar bear rug with my climate model above.

Traitor Obama (if we are to believe half the Bergdahl story) is running hell for leather into the Global Warming fracas. May he wind up looking like the carcass in the picture, top (politically speaking, of course).


Mutt Blows Dog Whistle—That IS News

First of all, in case you think I’m kidding about racist “dog whistle” words, this Daily Caller post from the 2012 election, should erase any doubt.

My favorite, of course, is “skinny”, because how could it not be?

In the Aug. 1 Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick asked, “[C]ould Sen. Obama’s skinniness be a liability?” Most Americans, Chozick points out, aren’t skinny. Fully 66 percent of all citizens who’ve reached voting age are overweight, and 32 percent are obese. To be thin is to be different physically. Not that there’s anything wrong, mind you, with being a skinny person. But would you want your sister to marry one? Would you want a whole family of skinny people to move in next-door? “I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” an “unnamed Clinton supporter” wrote on a Yahoo politics message board. My point is that any discussion of Obama’s “skinniness” and its impact on the typical American voter can’t avoid being interpreted as a coded discussion of race.

He’s serious, swear to God.

But then…

When President Barack Obama reviewed his aides’s ideas for tackling climate change last year, he gave one simple directive: “Don’t skinny it down.”

That’s taking self-loathing to a new level! And speaking of loathing:

The National Association of Manufacturers in Washington is spearheading a drive by 140 organizations against the expected draft ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency. Coal producers, steel manufacturers, and refiners and are also gearing up to fight the regulations.

“This administration is setting up the next energy crisis in this country,” said Laura Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in Washington. “They’re not looking at the long-term consequences.”

Obama also faces push-back from some within his own party, who warn that tighter regulations could hamper Democratic candidates in areas where coal is a major source of jobs. Democrats in Kentucky and West Virginia already are distancing themselves from the president’s energy policies, highlighting their opposition to a “war on coal” on the campaign trail.

“War on coal”? Wherever would they get that idea?

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

We didn’t really elect this guy, did we? This is just a crazy dream, right? One slice of anchovy pizza too many?

But he’s got his supporters:

Liberated from re-election politics, he’s freer to speak about the challenges of a warming planet and is using his bully pulpit to create urgency on an issue that most Americans rank as a low priority, the aides said.

In a White House meeting with eight Western governors last February, Obama used satellite images to make the case that climate change was responsible for the wildfires and droughts facing their states, arguing that the country must take bigger steps to tackle the issue.

“He has a deep understanding of the science,” said Democratic Governor Jay Inslee of Washington.

Of course he does.


How Many Nuclear Power Plants Does it Take to Illuminate a Light Bulb?

Trick question: they’ve outlawed light bulbs!

And nuclear power plants.

But if you want to make a global warm-monger pant in anticipation (not that you would), show him this graph:

A life-cycle footprint measures the negative impact of human activities on the environment. It’s the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide, or CO2.

Better than solar (which fries birds that fly through its concentrated beams), better than wind (which minces birds and bats), better even than burning biomass (like aborted fetuses)—better than all of them is good old clean nuclear power.

As the issue of global warming continues to capture the focus of America and the world, it is vitally important to look at the role nuclear can play in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that continue to pollute the air and damage our ecosystem.

Nuclear energy is the most “eco-efficient” of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species and air resources.

Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere by causing ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain. Nor does nuclear energy produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases suspected to cause global warming.

Electricity generated by nuclear avoids almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S. The 2,100 tons of nitrous oxide (N2O) avoided by Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is the amount of N2O, released in a year by 110,000 passenger cars.

Me, I don’t give a crap about so-called global so-called warming. It’s junk science, peddled by junkie scientists (addicted to government graft). But there are plenty of people out there who do, or claim to. Why do I have to praise the benefits of nuclear power? Where’s Bill McKibben on the issue? Why isn’t Al Gore screaming about it?

The boy can scream when he wants to!

Has anyone seen Memphis? He looks like he ate it.


Wanted: Dead

We’ve written plenty about the mayhem, murder, and peril birds suffer from wind turbines. It’s like Hitchcock in reverse: these slicers and dicers are merciless on our feathered friends, including and especially our national symbol, the bald eagle.

But it’s more than just birds:

DISEASE and heedless management of wind turbines are killing North America’s bats, with potentially devastating consequences for agriculture and human health.

Wind turbines nationwide are estimated to kill between 600,000 and 900,000 bats a year, according to a recent study in the journal BioScience. About half of those lost to turbines are hoary bats, which migrate long distances seasonally throughout North America. Eastern red and silver-haired bats, commonly seen in Central Park in New York City hunting insects at night, are also being killed by turbines by the tens of thousands.

We can’t afford to lose these creatures. In the Northeast, all of our native bat species eat insects. One little brown bat can eat 1,000 mosquitoes in an hour, reducing the potential for mosquito-borne diseases. A colony of 150 big brown bats can protect crops from up to 33 million rootworms over a growing season. The Mexican free-tailed bats of Bracken Cave in south-central Texas consume about 250 tons of insects every summer night. The natural pest control provided by that species across eight Texas counties has been valued at nearly $750,000 as it protects the $6 million summer cotton crop. Nationwide, the value of bats as pest controllers is estimated to be at least $3.7 billion and possibly much more.

So, you’re okay with chopping bats and eagles into mincemeat, just to “save” the climate?

You are so stupid:

Edward B. of Vancouver, Wash., writes:

Do wind farms affect weather, at least ­locally?

Marilyn responds:

Yes, and the more widespread they become, the more these changes will go beyond the immediate area. Some effects, such as ground warming and drying for miles around, are already known, but cumulative ­effects on the weather—especially if wind farming grows signifi­cantly—are unpredictable.

One point to note is that while wind farms are a source of renewable energy, this doesn’t mean they—and other forms of renewable energy, for that matter—don’t cause change. Even ­improved engineering of the turbines (to reduce turbulence, etc.) cannot eliminate the fact that the machines remove energy from the wind, and this will have an impact on the weather and ultimately the climate.

That’s Marilyn vos Savant, the “smartest” person in the world (as measured by IQ) in Parade Magazine. Why it never occurred to us that the law of conservation of energy applies to wind farms shocks me. She’s absolutely right: has anyone done even a preliminary study on the effect of turbines sucking wind energy our of the atmosphere? Think of wind currents as waterways. If you keep draining off more and more of the current to turn more and more turbines, eventually the wind runs “dry”. Good news for the birds and bats of the world, but not so hot (rather, too hot) for the farmers.

Comments (1)

Can You Swim?

You’d better learn.

Catastrophic collapse of Antarctic ice sheet now underway, say scientists

Put another way:

Irreversible collapse of Antarctic glaciers has begun, studies say

You think that’s scary?

Ice melt in part of Antarctica ‘appears unstoppable,’ NASA says

And that’s not all NASA says:

Glacial Region’s Melt Past ‘Point of No Return,’ NASA Says

Thank God we have the Washington Post:

NASA spots worrisome Antarctic ice sheet melt that could add 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels

We’ve already heard enough out of you, NASA—let’s hear from someone else:

West Antarctic glacial collapse: What you need to know

Finally, constructive advice:

Nothing distracts from blind panic better than a hot mom in a red bikini. Now can we talk sense?

The wailing today is that the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet has already begun.

It’s pretty bad when other environmental reporters start calling you out on it, such as NYT’s Andrew Revkin did today.

Awful misuse of “Collapse” in headlines on centuries-long ice loss in W. Antarctica. See rates in papers. Same as ’09

Buried below the headline in the article, there is agreement with Revkin:

But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away.

A lot can happen in several centuries, why even in the last couple of years Antarctic has seen record levels on Antarctic sea ice.

Just tell yourself that the “irreversible” and “catastrophic” melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is as far removed from us as we are from Ethelred the Unready’s resumption of the throne of England after a year in exile in 1014. (But you already knew that.)

Once the ice starts melting, that is:

Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,’’ the centre said.

So, Antarctic sea ice has topped the previous record by an area greater than the size of New Mexico. Feel better?

Here. Now?



Snow Job

I don’t want to be hard on President Obama, but the plane is still missing, the girls are still gone, and Ukraine is still Russia (only more so).

So, let’s give him props on global warming:

More than a foot of snow fell on parts of Colorado and Wyoming. The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning for most of northern Colorado and parts of southern Wyoming for all of Sunday and for Monday morning.

Accumulations could reach up to 15 inches of snow over part of Colorado and Wyoming, with enough force to cause power outages and treacherous driving conditions. Denver officials said they were deploying 70 snowplows overnight to prepare for Monday’s commute. At 3 a.m. Monday, the weather service said it was still snowing around the city.

Wintry conditions forced the closure of a 150-mile stretch of Interstate 80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, Wyo.

Julie Smith, a spokeswoman for Denver International Airport, said crews have treated runways in anticipation of dropping temperatures Sunday night.

“At this point we are seeing some delays with our airlines while they are getting their deicing operations up and running, and we do expect the airlines to be fully deicing in the morning,” she said.

To think just a few short years ago we were all worried about the rising tides!

And this miraculous cooling isn’t limited to just Denver:

A relatively cool spring will give way to a colder-than-usual summer locally, all because of the continuing impacts of the intensely frigid, snowy winter, scientists said. And at least one Great Lakes ice researcher thinks that the domino effect could continue into a chilly fall and an early start to next winter — and beyond.

The reason is the unusually late ice cover that remains on the Great Lakes. Heading into May, the Great Lakes combined remain 26% ice-covered, with Lake Superior still more than half-blanketed in ice. By comparison, at this time last spring the lakes were less than 2% covered with ice.

The remaining levels of ice cover are amazing, said Jia Wang, an ice climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.

“This prolonged winter will affect summer temperatures. This summer will be cold, and then a cooler fall,” he said.

Thank you, President Obama, for saving the planet. Now, to return to my Obama-bashing ways, let me paraphrase Joe Biden: Chris Stevens is dead and Lois Lerner is alive.


Save the Polar Bear!

They said if we did nothing about global warming the cute little monsters would be in trouble—and they were right!

Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick – is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.

That’s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears’ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told

“Prompted by reports of the heaviest sea ice conditions on the East Coast ‘in decades’ and news that ice on the Great Lakes is, for mid-April, the worst it’s been since records began, I took a close look at the ice thickness charts for the Arctic,” Crockford noted in her Polar Bear Science blog on April 18th.

“Spring and early summer are really a critical time for polar bears. That’s when they need to eat as many seals as they can because that’s when they put on fat for the rest of the year. If they have trouble doing that in the spring, they’re in big trouble.”

Oh no!

But I have a solution:

As we approach the southwestern shores of Spitsbergen, I survey the spectacular rugged mountains covered in snow and the glaciers reaching all the way to the contrasting dark ocean. Although I have enjoyed this view for the last 10 days, the scenery still takes my breath away.

However, our team found far fewer females with cubs than expected, along with several adult bears whose bodies were in poor condition. The researchers also found a dramatic lack of sea ice.

Bears need to be close to sea ice when they emerge from dens so that they can hunt ringed seals found at the ice. During the last few years on southern islands, however, mothers and cubs emerged from the den in spring and found a totally open sea. The ice was already gone, and with it, most ringed seals, leaving the bears with a tough start to their new lives.

Too much ice in the Alaskan arctic, yet not enough ice in the Norwegian arctic? Move the bears! Or the seals—or the ice! I don’t care. Just get it done.

Honestly, this world can’t make up its mind.

PS: And the ice isn’t threatening just bears. Whales are exploding—literally!

The residents of a town on Canada’s Newfoundland island fear a blue whale carcass that washed up on its boardwalk last week could explode at any time.

The 25m (81ft) whale on Trout River’s rocky beach is one of several believed to have died in heavy ice weeks ago.

Town Clerk Emily Butler says the body is bloated with methane gas caused by decomposition and will soon reek, regardless of whether it explodes.

As Mr. Incredible complained, why can’t the world stay saved?

Comments (2)

Global Warming Melts Resolve

Try not to let this story destroy your faith in the Global Warming Crack-Pot-ocracy:

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.
He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC.’

Excuse me if I’m not surprised. The sentiment is not original to me, but I’ve often said that I’ll start to take the Global Warm Mongers seriously when they start acting seriously. I’m one of those loathsome skeptics year hear so much about, one so low on the evolutionary scale I’m on a first-name basis with pond scum (though I have to address serial child molesters as “Your Eminence”). But these guys claim to be convinced. They’ve bought in.

If I were a cynic, I might wonder if these unnamed government types were just after the power this alleged crisis might grant them, not any actual solution to the alleged crisis.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »