-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Lawsuit Accuses IRS of Stealing Medical Records of 10 Million Americans
May 15, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Climategate, Fake-gate, and climate data itself have combined to cause the public to view with a skeptical eye claims by climate alarmists that the end is nigh.
Every once in a while, the desperation of the alarmists, including, sadly, of scientists who see their incomes at risk from losing the ability to find funding for studies aiming to prove substantial human impact on climate, is laid bare. After all, there isn’t a lot of money to be made by proving that there isn’t a major problem, or even that there is a problem but the cost of “solving” it far outweighs the possible risks.
Sometimes the alarmists’ desperation is truly amusing.
If you were trying to convince Canadians that the world might come to a horrific end, what would be the first thing you’d claim was threatened by climate change?
A gold star for you if you said hockey.
Thus it offered a good chuckle when I saw an article in Canada’s National Post ( a publication which is one of the best in allowing climate “skeptics” to express their data and opinions) entitled “Global warming could spell the end of Canada’s outdoor hockey rink.”
Seriously, the article starts with this: “A team of Canadian climate scientists is predicting the widespread disappearance of outdoor hockey rinks across the country in the next 50 years due to global warming — with some regions of the sport’s spiritual birthplace likely to witness an even earlier eclipse of old-time shinny on natural ice.”
What the authors did was to accept the standard and fatally flawed UN climate projections, and then to say these predictions suggest a threat to Canada’s national sport — indeed to Canada’s national identity.
I trust that Canadians, who have demonstrated some wisdom in recent years by electing, and re-electing, a center-right government which has embarked on reductions in the size and cost of government, will not be fooled by this obvious, almost pathetic, desperation.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/06/you-know-theyre-getting-desper
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Fiscal| 3.6.12 @ 4:50PM
When are you guys going to actually look at the data instead of injecting your ideology. Here is a chart of the UNMODIFIED satellite data from 1979 -- when it was first collected -- to the present.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp.....y_2012.png
Global warming does indeed exist. To deny that is sheer stupidity. The fact that most of your readers believe there is no global warming shows how our educational system is failing us. Also, historical data shows that increases occur along a sine curve rather than a straight line. Obviously, extrapolational data is less accurate than interpolational data, so projections do have some variability associated with it.
That said, the fact remains that there is absolutely no data that determines causality due to humans. There is a correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and increases in global temperatures, but the absolute levels of CO2 are low enough to question causality and clearly not defined enough to attribute the rise to specific sources.
Therefore, scientifically, instead of calling this a "hoax" -- which makes you look dumb -- you should be pushing the agenda of no overreaction until we have definite research determining direct causality.
Therefore, our plan should be to devote funds to prove, or disprove, this causality instead of vapid attempts to overreach and overreact with solutions like solar and wind only that will put us at an economic disadvantage at a time when our economy is hurting. This is where the "chicken littles" of the liberal wing are off of their rocker.
So let's get away from the "deniers" who are a very small minority group of science crackpots and religious zealots, and deal with this issue rationally in a FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE manner.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 3.6.12 @ 6:36PM
Ummm, NO, let's not deal with it as you say!! It's all fake from the same exact groups that brought you the "next ice age" back in the 70's, so you're an idiot if you believe them, and I like it warm, so there!! Hockey in Canada is going to be safe, for a "very" long time to come!! I guarantee it!! The "science" is settled!!
albert constantine jr| 3.6.12 @ 8:04PM
Fiscal;
Please allow me to offer an unsolicited suggestion. If you wish to persuade others towards your point of view, or influence the formation of opinion with a presentation of relevant facts and your inferences and conclusions from same, I would recommend that you not begin a post so intentioned with the phrase “When are you guys actually going…”.
On the other hand, if you wish to appear like a smug elitist who feels that his well-informed opinion is superior to all of the ignorant others posting here (who must be intellectual lightweights), it is an excellent way to start.
Ross Kaminsky | 3.6.12 @ 8:05PM
"Fiscal",
You need to look at a wider range and a narrower range of data.
A wider range shows you that climate change does not correlate well with CO2, and when it does it seems that climate usually LEADS CO2 changes rather than lagging them.
A shorter horizon shows no net warming since 1997 which would be all but impossible if the UN models were right.
Nobody on my side says climate doesn't change. We say that humans aren't a major influencer of that change.
That claim, the man-made part of "global warming", is the hoax.
Paul McGrath| 3.6.12 @ 9:16PM
And Fiscal, if I may throw my two cents in: if global warming is as settled as everyone says it is, why did the leading global warming theorists at both Penn St. and and East Anglia University exchange e-mails with one another which show that they conspired to enhance their own findings regarding global warming, and to damage the reputations and the science of those who disagreed with them?
Why should this be necessary?
WillyP | 3.7.12 @ 11:17AM
Hockey is to dangerous for the nanny state liberals anyway.
Mitchel44| 3.7.12 @ 2:55PM
Carbon dating studies done on tree remnants recovered from glacial tongues in both hemispheres points to warmer periods within the Holocene.
Here is one from Patagonia, it's a .pdf download link.
http://www.clim-past.net/8/403.....3-2012.pdf
And here is one from BC, Canada.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/17/8/1069.abstract
Lots of smoke and mirrors out there folks!
Mitchel44| 3.7.12 @ 3:05PM
Opps, here is the full document link for the BC paper, it even has pretty pictures.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&.....55QD7gA9JQ