Canadian Senate Testimony – Skeptic side now being heard in Canadian politics

Mark Thompson submits this story:

Now that we have a majority Conserviative government in Canada and the past history of Liberal obfuscation is being erased, the Canadian and the broader world public is now getting a chance to hear the truth on climate issues.

The video link provided is two hours of testimony before a Canadian Senate Committee from December 15, 2011. Most who have a skeptical viewpoint will have already heard of some or all of the four presenters.

The presentations and follow-up questions are both excellent! Interesting to note the avoidance of some of the alarmist bullying seen in some of the U.S. Senate hearings from the likes of Clinton and Boxer. Of course, you’ll see the odd Liberal senator make the typical noxious commentary around thousands of scientists and ‘consensus’ but it doesn’t matter, they are  only looking increasingly foolish.

View it all here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU&feature=related

About these ads

122 thoughts on “Canadian Senate Testimony – Skeptic side now being heard in Canadian politics

  1. I’m still getting no e-mail notifications,
    in spite of checking it every time I post.
    Is anybody else losing notifications?

  2. I am watching the video right now, and I think it is worth pointing out that the Canadian Senate is not at all similar to the United States Senate. It is more like the British House of Lords in power, but the Senators are appointed…I think…but it is still great that these guys are getting a platform to get their message out.

    Andrew

  3. What the Cdn MSM give us, however, is more pap from Tides, Suzuki, WWF, Andrew Weaver, Greenpeace, and other stakeholders – NOT the skeptical side at all. Continued demonization of Harper and big oil, rarely anything showing WHY we backed out of Kyoto, etc.seems to be the path of the conventional media channels.

  4. Good, the word is getting out. Officially. The media will still try to memory hole the testimony, but it’s loose on the internet – so long as Google and Utube don’t try to supress it.

  5. Thanks Canada! You provided the positive note needed to start a New Year right!
    Let’s hope we can find a way this year to follow your lead, down here in the ‘lower 48′.
    Hope….. Change…..

    MtK

  6. How many people really watch these things though?

    It is nice that people in (Canadian) power are being exposed to climate skepticism, but I doubt many minds will be changed – their careers depend on it.

  7. One would’ve thought that when the AGW-skeptical TEA Party voters’ impact upon the elections of 2010 gave the Red Faction a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and cloture-denying numbers in the U.S. Senate for the duration of the 112th Congress, there would have been a similar overt and very prominent legislative examination – amounting to nothing less than a vehement public attack – upon this preposterous bogosity and the various practitioners of this “Back-Stabbing, Cork-Screwing, and Dirty-Dealing” we’ve been suffering for the better part of the past three decades.

    Unfortunately, in our great bipartisan Boot On Your Neck Party incumbency, not even the TEA Party movement could rid us of the “go along to get along” incarcerated incumbent senior scum at the top of the RINO cesspool, and the Kabuki theater proceduralism of the federal legislature has ensured that no light would be flicked on in either chamber to send the cockroaches scuttling.

  8. Low quality video, but extremely important. The slides were censored [not bilingual, and you know how important that is to the issue at hand!], so you can’t see much of what the witnesses are describing . The overall picture is clear, however: Global Warming is a hoax without any scientific underpinning. The Warmists and their lap-dog journals and MSM fellow-travelers have managed to keep the hoax alive by suppressing oceans of contrary evidence.

  9. Thanks, again, Canada. It is about time that both sides were given a fair hearing. I’m only halfway through the video but I would like to add that I am also grateful to the Canadian Senate for taking the time to listen.

  10. It is nice that people in (Canadian) power are being exposed to climate skepticism, but I doubt many minds will be changed

    Maybe there’s a reason why they pulled out of Kyoto.

  11. Senator Mitchel you where not listening or did not want to listen. You should open your mind, you just might amaze yourself.

  12. Glad to see some common sense at last in a country as important as Canada. The imbeciles here in Aus are still beating the drum however a few conservative state premiers are doing ungreen things and winning widespread approval; cutting feed in tarriffs on solar and making it harder for wind turbine advocates.

    OT I see Nat Geo is offerring subs at 88% off. Must be a few like moi who have ditched their subscriptions, something I had for 45 yrs.

  13. It was my great privilege last year to visit the memorial to so many brave Canadians who were killed in the Dieppe Raid in WW2 while trying to liberate the world from military fascism.( *)

    Now we are threatened by a green fascism nearly as pernicious. It seems that Canada is showing us the way to liberation once more.

    Vive le Canada libre!

    (*) The audacious raid is also commemorated by an annual cycling weekend. All are welcome from those who like a gentle 20 miles in the countryside to serious TdF contenders. I can vouch that it is a great event. Hope to see you there in 2012!

    http://www.dieppetour.com/

  14. An important point has been missed here – Mckitrick is good looking and cool. Not only do we have the science but we have the chiseled charisma as well, whilst the opposition look like stunt doubles in an Addams family movie

  15. Good to see, and hear that Canada is starting the ball rolling at government level. I commend Chris Huhne to hear this.

    ( Huhne is the UK’s Secretary of Energy and Climate Change neither of which he understands or knows about).

  16. The patronising attitude by Grant Mitchell in his summing up speech says it all:-
    “Thousands upon thousands of independant Scientists worldwide answer and overwhelm with devastating concensus and devastating frequency the points that have been made here”.
    His is a mind that cannot be influenced by realistic observational science preferring instead to accept the doctrinal AGW message. Fortunately some of the other senators were more open minded. Let us hope that they have greater influence than Senator Mitchell in Canadian political thinking.

  17. You can find this video and some others at the following site

    http://icecap.us/

    I watched them all yesterday they are of quite good quality and are watchable in full-screen mode.
    There are graphics and diagrams as part of the presentations. Here again the quality is very good.

  18. Quite a contrast to the idiots in government in my home country of Scotland who have fallen for CAGW hook, line and sinker.

  19. Before I began my research on Global Warming / Climate Change, I used to just ignore any articles labeled “environment”, or derivatives of “climate change”. For example I skipped the entire Vancouver Sun Saturday issue that helmed David Suzuki as the editor for that days entire paper. I have been a reader of the Vancouver sun since I was a teenager over 30 years ago.
    It seems ironic that before the climate change scam, I found the Vancouver Sun to be an informative news paper, regaling its readers with stories from behind the Iron Curtain, about the injustices communist governments would commit against its citizens, but today the paper acts like the propaganda arm of a former Soviet Union type of entity.
    After I began my research, for a while there I would read every article about the environment or climate change with an amazement as to the claims made in these articles when I knew better. And now for the most part am back to ignoring such articles. Unfortunately I can not say the same for the CBC and CTV news. I have found that if there is even a hint that a climate change topic might be mentioned, I can feel my heart pounding. Have I developed a phobia? Any way I have solved this problem by no longer watching those stations. Problem solved. Sad though as I have watch the CBC news since I was a child, long before even Linda Frum hosted the show, as far back to recall watching the daily broadcasts of Vietnam war casualties, a war perhaps an order of magnitude more costly than the Iran / Afghanistan wars in terms of comparison to the relative sizes of the economy of the day.
    The National Post has been a life saver for me, for without it, I would probably consider the whole world mad, because you see, it is so blatantly obvious that the Global Warming / Climate Change science is just activism and politics. The National Post is also where I was first informed about climateaudit.org and the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
    When I finally began my online research a few months after the first Climategate emails and during the Vancouver Winter Olympics, when there was nothing good to watch on TV, I was initially mislead because I came across the alarmist web sites first, such as realclimate. I won’t here tell of my long journey to the truth, which I am sure most WUWT readers have had similar experiences of their own, as it is a complex and book length journey. And I still have miles to go before I sleep.

  20. Good stuff. It prompted me to do this…..

    Dear Neil, (Parish – MP, Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

    Good to see you at the Hunt meeting in Tiverton on Boxing Day. A splendid turnout I think you would agree.

    As a constituent I have one issue that you, as my MP, must address in 2012. To my mind, it is of historical importance that some person of integrity grasps this particular nettle and starts to bring it out into the public domain. If there was any issue upon which to make your name then this is it.

    I urge you to watch the following video of a sub-committee meeting of the Canadian Government and, more importantly, circulate it amongst your fellow representatives.

    It is far too important for you not so to do and I would, personally, be of the opinion that you had failed in your duty as my Parliamentary Representative if you do not.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/canadian-senate-testimony-skeptic-side-now-being-heard-in-canadian-politics/#more-54041

    I fully expect a response from your office in this matter. Moreover, I expect you to reply one way or the other, to the specific questions stated as follows:

    1. Have you watched the video in its entirety?

    2. Have you circulated its content to all other MP’s

    3. What is your personal opinion?

    That aside, I look forward to bumping into you some time in 2012 and particularly at the opening of my partner’s new business in Newport Street, Tiverton around the beginning of March. I’ll buy you a drink. (Consider that as an invitation I should be grateful that you accept – details to follow).

    Looking forward to your reply as a matter of urgency.

    Best regards

  21. The day will come when David Suzuki is exposed for his role in this GW consensus.

    I hope it is done soon and that he has a chance to make amends than to have this shame and infamy unfairly borne by his children and grandchildren.

  22. It is nice that people in (Canadian) power are being exposed to climate skepticism, but I doubt many minds will be changed – their careers depend on it.

    =========

    Well their careers depend on getting it right – either way.

    If they are the one’s that are associated with costing the public billions on unwarranted costs, they will get it in the neck.

    However, what they will first do is blame the scientists for telling them lies. The scientists made me do it.

  23. Ross McKitrick, your intro was one of the most powerful, cedible and well-crafted summaries I have had the pleasure to hear. If only you could be invited to Australia and tell our Senate the same…….
    To the extent that you have affected Canadian policy, my most heartfelt thanks.

  24. Great stuff – give Professor Ross McKitrick a medal, scrap the UN and let Canada lead the world.

    Consensus be damned! The house of cards is beginning to fall.

    Just one thing Ross – a precautionary carbon tax? Please NEVER EVER give governments another avenue for taxing the public. They will NEVER EVER give it back – even if Canada freezes over.

  25. Canada is leading the way in the West. Goog on them since qall the West will benefit from this.
    India and China (and others) are rightly protesting at the EU tax on avaiation emissions and refusing to pay these.

    Gradually, the word is coming out. The Financial crisis in the West will speed this up since quite frankly the West has run out of money and is unable to pay the green bill. People are beginning to realise the harm that has already been done to industry and one reason why it will now be that much more difficult to have a manufacturing based led recovery; jobs and industry have been permanently lost to this fiasco and those in power are realising that a balance needs to be struck if industry is to compete with the rising BRICS.

  26. Having presented evidence from time to time to UK governmental select committees, it appears to me that this hearing is in exactly the same format as UK governmental processes. They tend to be less combative than the US format and are more likely to produce useful information on which to base legislation. However it depends on who you call with regards to what answers you get.

  27. Senator Grant Mitchell unveils an new tactic from the warmist politician’s play book, “The Inverse-Gore”. Whereas “The Gore” play is to simply make a speech/statement and then refuse to answer any questions. “The Inverse-Gore” play is to refuse to ask any questions and then simply make a statement. After the four presentations from the invited skeptical scientists/academics, at 53min, he demurs when ask to ask the first question. Then near the end in trying to be last to speak, at 1hr51min30sec, he again refuses to ask a question, but does manage to make a nasty pernicious little statement.

  28. Actually, I thought the testimony by Ian Clark was brilliant… allowing the attending politicians to be able to readily understand the catastrophic man-made globe warming and climate scare as presented by the IPCC in contrast with the real science. Brilliant!

  29. Interesting the Vice Chairman (apparently the only one very pro AGW) kept his questions to the end, trying to wrap up with a voice of disagreement.

    Didn’t really work in his favour, the discussion continued, and he just appeared a bit spiteful (IMHO).

  30. This was an interesting panel to open minds that were ready to be opened. Veizer is a well funded, well published and well respected scientist. He is not easily dismissed as the guy is gushing with credibility. If he says it all about the water vapour as the forcing greenhouse gas then I just don’t understand why there isn’t more discussion about deforestation and its impacts on water vapour. We have lost around 7% of the worlds forests in the last 50 years. This could be an anthropogenic effect that is a driver along with celestial driver of variation in galactic cosmic rays.

  31. Where is the data that proves CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature? Of course, there is no real data and there is no causal link. The correct question to ask of the IPCC is: is it true that you will not advance a hypothesis of cycical climate change because it would dry up your funding and destroy an industry that controls a proposed UN-administered fund of $US100 billion per annum? CAGW is not about science, but about the corruptibility of human nature. Canada is providing the intellect through McKitrick and Laframboise to save us from the carpetbaggers of the UN.

  32. Thankyou Canada

    However it should be noted that other governments in the west are just as aware of the fraudulent nature of the whole AGW enterprise, it suits them however to go along as the revenues now raised on the back of environmental/green issues is so vast it cannot be lost

  33. WHO CARES IT IS NOT…… NOT BEING BROADCAST IN CANADIAN NEWS!!!!!!!
    Yes I am yelling. I am sick and tired of people on these blogs getting all excited about nothing.
    The idiot on the street still believes in GW and the news here is shockingly so biased towards it that no other side is broadcast. My god have none of you talked to your family and friends and neighbours over the holidays. Like talking to a wall.
    A Quebec company lost a contract because the British company it dealt with was upset with our politicians pulling out of the Kyoto accord. The news presented was all about how we were getting screwed by our politicians because they are skeptics.
    Until every moron on the street who votes understands the truth we will be forced to spend money on useless gov’t programs and worse.
    Lets hope 2012 is the year some very strong action is taken against the AGW movement.

  34. Well I just sat rivetted to this video. Brilliant presentations. McKitrick I thought was outstanding and good on Canada for having the nerve to allow these guys to be heard.

    A lesson for the Australian Labor Party whose very existence relies on the Greens.

  35. If you listen to the end, you’ll see it had little effect on the know-it-all senators who already believe the world will be destroyed if we don’t act within five years.

  36. Geoff Smith,
    The main stream media may not broadcast things like this hearing, but once videos and transcripts are on the internet, those of us who actively engage our various elected officials use them in our correspondence. I highly recommend we all do this.

  37. This is where Greenbusiness, I mean Greenpeace, are spending their millions: On Italian television, Greenpeace are showing a paid commercial consisting of a sequence of videos of UFO’s that at first are seen to be stationary and then suddenly speed away into space. The commercial ends with a question and an answer:
    Q: Why are aliens leaving our planet so fast?
    A: Because our planet is becoming uninhabitable.

    Just google Greenpeace UFO commercial…. Just plain stupid.

  38. Those of us who are of the Canuckistan Clan are proud to have our current PM and government in place to push back against the fear mongering, eco grifters & greenie looney crowd.

    PM Harper is on record years ago as recognizing Kyoto as a “socialist ponzi scheme”, so we should expect no less.

  39. Canada could be the first industrious (I prefer to use this word than ‘industrialised’) country to improve its economy by leaps and bounds. All it needs to do now is remove all green subsidies and let the renewables just survive or die by simply competing in the market. Kill all subsidies and the economy will flourish.
    The EU will just have to crash, Euro and all, before it realises it’s own folly.

  40. Mitchell, the Liberal senator just before the end, I think, did his AGW cause no favours, with his long rushed rant (instead of a question) stringing together as many alarmist slogans and attacks as possible, trying to tell other senators what the outcome of their hearing would conclude. He may have just been the catalyst needed for undecided senators to look more closely at the skeptics position.

    I thought McKitrick was best, with clear, to the point explanations and his economics background more important to the sentor’s policy decision needs. Next came Tim Patterson who I think was the best of the 3 scientists. He rang a bell with his Ice Road relation to the Senators policy making decisions. Ian Clark dazzled the senaotrs with too much science. His good graphs left them puzzled. So it was a shame that he didn’t explain at a level the senators could understand more easily. Jan Veizer, came through as a typical ivory tower academic, which was a shame too, with all his excellent research. His emotion at the end somewhat reduced the skeptics impact on the senators, playing a bit to Mitchell’s position.

    All through, I could feel for the other senators, trying to understand, for their voters, the real problems with new policy decisions they must now make, given the obvious public debate on climate science now. They thought the science was settled and now they must come to terms that they have made wrong policy decisions.

    We skeptics would do well to realize how much the average person doesn’t know about science, let alone climate science. As one senator noted, after a long days work the tired average citizen expects the scientists to keep their own house clean (just like the police and hospitals) and give people accurate information. Lets hope more panels like this spread to other senates in the West.

  41. Well worth the two hours watching the Canadian Senate get the skeptical side for the first time. Thanks JTF for this post and that was a good video and shows just where our efforts need to be placed. Most Senators seemed to never had heard of our side at all. Amazing.

    Everyone, watch if you can.

  42. I love the testimonies of Professor Jan Veizer and Professor Tim Patterson.

    No dissolve the UN IPCC, EPA and sack Obama before the choke you to death

  43. Geoff Smith says:
    January 2, 2012 at 5:17 am
    WHO CARES IT IS NOT…… NOT BEING BROADCAST IN CANADIAN NEWS!!!!!!!
    Yes I am yelling. I am sick and tired of people on these blogs getting all excited about nothing.
    The idiot on the street still believes in GW and the news here is shockingly so biased towards it that no other side is broadcast. My god have none of you talked to your family and friends and neighbours over the holidays. Like talking to a wall.
    A Quebec company lost a contract because the British company it dealt with was upset with our politicians pulling out of the Kyoto accord. The news presented was all about how we were getting screwed by our politicians because they are skeptics.
    Until every moron on the street who votes understands the truth we will be forced to spend money on useless gov’t programs and worse.
    Lets hope 2012 is the year some very strong action is taken against the AGW movement.

    Actually this is very important. It is getting out. We have a “FoxNorth” called Sun News Network and the programs they have on this issue are all pro-skeptic and out right contempt for the IPCC (and UN in general). When the topic comes up in papers like the Globe&Mail and Toronto Star the VAST majority of people post comments do not support AGW, and are well informed, including WUWT readers. The word is getting out to the general public. If we are not at a tipping point yet, we will be soon. I can tell you that on Twitter and other forums that people were posting how proud they were to be Canadian when the news came out we were not continuing with Kyoto (They were all just as proud when Canada annouced we would not participate in the UN Security Council as long as North Korea was Chair).

    Harper is adding 7 more conservatives to the Senate this year, This is only going to get better.

  44. Brady CaldwellBrady says:
    January 2, 2012 at 6:30 am
    Mitchell, the Liberal senator just before the end, I think, did his AGW cause no favours, with his long rushed rant (instead of a question) stringing together as many alarmist slogans and attacks as possible, trying to tell other senators what the outcome of their hearing would conclude. He may have just been the catalyst needed for undecided senators to look more closely at the skeptics position.

    It is because of arrogant Liberals like him that the Liberal Party of Canada is at an all time low in seats in the House of Commons. They were devistated last year in elections. The NDP, more socialist than the Liberals, is opposition in Canada. Not to worry about them ever getting power, they generally run less than 15% support because they are too radical. Liberalism and socialism in Canada is in the toilet, we can only hope this is perminent.

  45. Geoff tell us how u really feel. I tend to agree with u. The silly research preprint pre research media packages of impending doom will not stop till the gravy train ends and is exchanged for some other gravy train. They are drug addicts and will not go away.

  46. Professor Jan Veizer: “Stating that CO2 drives climate is like stating that the economy of Pueorto Rico drives the World Economy”.

    Professor Tim Patterson: “Our scientific knowledge of the climate system is accumulating very fast. With the knowledge we have today there wouldn’t be a Kyoto Protocol”.

  47. Heartland’s post: Climate Realists Testify Before Canadian Senate, Cite New Heartland Book provides links to each speakers home.
    Dr. Ross McKitrick, Professor, Department of Economics,University of Guelph.
    Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences,University of Ottawa.
    Dr. Jan Veizer, Distinguished University Professor, Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences,University of Ottawa.
    Dr. Timothy Patterson, Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

    Dr. Clark held up a copy of Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report

  48. I liked Jan Veizer’s analogy. That under the IPCC model of positive feedback, Puerto Rico drives the world economy. That an increase in economic activity in Puerto Rico increases economic activity in the US, which increase economic activity worldwide. That a decrease in economic activity in Puerto Rico decreases economic activity in the US which decreases economic activity in the US which reduces economic activity worldwide. Thus Puerto Rico drives the world economy.

    His point was that the sun drives the water cycle, which drives the carbon cycle. Not the other way round.

  49. Excellent series of videos. One can only hope that some of the politicians in the UK might also see them.

    Sarc / Of course the Bernie Madoff scandal didn’t happen, did it. And the sub prime casino-banking collapse didn’t happen either, did it. And so it goes without saying that NASA and the IPCC can’t be wrong either. / Sarc.

    You would think by now that our politicians (UK) might have become just a little less gullible and just a little more inclined to scepticism and to ask questions. But no, it seems they are as easily duped by our Newspapers front pages as ever.

    Much as I hate cold weather I find myself wishing that the sun quickly gets to it’s max in the current low solar cycle asap and start it’s expected long (and therefore) decline and the North Atlantic move into it’s 30 year negative phase asap and so join the Pacific in it’s 30 year cold phase. I read that the last time all three were together in a cold phase was during the Maunder minimum when the Thames froze over in some style and millions died throughout Europe.

    Add in the tiny little bit (2%) of extra obliquity since the Maunder minimum and it might get cold enough here in the UK to even rouse a few of our Members of Parliament out of their hypnotised ostrich head-in-the-sand stupor. OK, it’s the New Year and I might be being a tad optimistic.

    Just as long as wine doesn’t run out all will be OK.

  50. Prof. Jan Veizer, Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus)
    PhD (1968), Slovak Academy of Sciences, PhD (1971), Australian National University
    “1000 molecules of water for every molecule of CO2″.
    Pointed to clouds: 30 watts/m^2 difference between clouds and cloudless.
    A few % variation can easily account for the disputed 1.6 W/m^2.

    Dr. Timothy Patterson, Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
    Notes: “One of the lowest solar cycles is coming up – Government needs to prepare for cooling – global cooling primary threat, especially for Canada. Ice roads – 88% over lakes. More than $500 million carried to camps. $ 1 billion generated.

    Pacific Decadal Oscillation – discovered in 1996 – contributes to step wise temperature changes. Correlation between solar cycles – troughs and temperatures.
    We are heading into very week solar cycles for several decades. The PDO just shifted to negative. Thus we will have several decades that will enable use of the ice roads. If had known what we do know today – we would not have need the Kyoto protocol.”

    INTERVIEW: DR. R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON There’s No Correlation Between CO2 and Climate Change
    Cores give the highest resolution – can see annual resolution. Enormous variability. Only looking back 3000 years (since much warmer before.) At northern end of agriculture in Northern Territories. Cooling will have serious consequences. Need adaptation strategies. If cool, can’t make things grow in short seasons. Project next few decades will have good conditions for ice roads!

    Ref to Milankovitch cycles

  51. Anthony, Thank-you so much for this link! The Canadian news media has a complete black-out on these hearings. I would never have heard that it took place. Sincerely, thanks so much!

    I have listened to the presentations and I have heard most of the information prior in this blog, however, seeing these guys in suits, with the formality of a senate hearing, speaking succinctly, and so devastatingly to the “fools paradise”….and the “obfuscation” by the “group think” was exalting….it really was exalting….I was transfixed. I could not believe that our view was being heard. McKitrick and Clark were devastating to the UN and CRU.

    It was heartwarming to see my countrymen present their ideas in such a calm and clear and rational way in face of the global AGW hysteria at the UN.

    Thanks Anthony. You have been such a tremendous support to this effort, you and all your contributors. Nice job.

  52. Dinoflagellate cyst-based reconstructions of mid to late Holocene winter sea-surface temperature and productivity from an anoxic fjord in the NE Pacific Ocean R. Timothy Patterson, Graeme T. Swindles, Helen M. Roe, Arun Kumar, Andreas Prokoph Quaternary International 235 (2011) 13-25
    This gives very high resolution measurement of temperature fluctuations:

    This drop in winter SST culminated in the initiation of neoglacial advances in the NE Pacific by w3500 cal BP. Following the termination of glacial conditions in coastal areas therewas a general increase in winter SST through the Late Holocene linked to a weakening of the California Current, which would have resulted in a greater influence of the warm central gyre and overall more El Niño-like conditions. Winter SST temperature spikes coeval with megadrought conditions recorded in continental records are found in both core TUL99B03 and TUL99B11.

  53. I’ve emailed my MP the link to this – and I am going to book a meeting with him to bring/show other literature – thank you for posting this link.
    We need sharp tools of this kind to get through to our politicians – keep them coming.

  54. Brady CaldwellBrady says:
    January 2, 2012 at 6:30 am

    Jan Veizer, came through as a typical ivory tower academic, which was a shame too, with all his excellent research. His emotion at the end somewhat reduced the skeptics impact on the senators, playing a bit to Mitchell’s position.

    —————-

    Is that a man’s point of view? Senator Mitchell had just pretty much accused the 4 scientists of being conspiracy theorists and kooks. I thought Veizer’s emotion was understandable, and he actually showed quite a bit of self-control considering the snide, smug and smarmy nastiness of Mitchell’s comments. Overall, I thought the presentation prior to this was cool, factual and insightful, and am very grateful that McKitrick, Clark, Veizer and Patterson agreed to testify before this committee, allowing the more open-minded politicians a glimpse of the truth through the fog of climate warfare. Well done!

  55. It is a very interesting discussion and good to see the green shoots of a balanced debate

    Ross McKitrick floated an interesting “bet” in the form of a tax which could vary according to temperature trends. This doesn’t work as proposed because it assumes the removal of money from the private sector will automatically save CO2.

    Tax revenue goes into the hands of the government – if it is spent (or displaces other spending) it is almost certainly not neutral. To complete the proposal, Ross would need to add some meaningful measure of how passing money into the public sector would deliver a net CO2 reduction.

  56. Good to see the Canadians looking more calmly at AGW than the rest of the world — go boys and girls go!

    On another note I ‘ve visited the D day beaches and war cemetories in Northern France where so many Canadian Lads lost thier lives and have been laid to rest— truly heartbreaking
    God bless Canada from Adrian in Britain

  57. Is it me, or is there an alarming absence of “R. Gates” and “Lazy Teenager”, from the comment section, when they know they are outclassed?

    (Not that it is difficult to ‘outclass’ those two … … … )

  58. David Hagen,
    Thanks for the notes. I didn’t do a good job taking notes and references while listening.

  59. I just watched the video and put it on my Facebook page. I wonder if any of my pro AGW nieces and nephews will comment. My sister called me on Christmas day from the UK. Her first question was what did I think of Canada pulling out of Kyoto. I said Canada had to get out before 2012 or pay 14 Billion in penalties. She was shocked. She had not heard of penalties. I think most of the people posting on Environment Canada’s website have never heard of the penalty either. I have tried to educate them but doubt if they will ever go back to the site to see my comment. Why does Environment Canada have a website that is pro AGW? They also disallow comments that they do not want posted. I do not want my tax dollars going to that and have told my MP. The conservative government should rid the payroll of all Liberals and greenies.

  60. Nice presentations. If the Canadians do their Committee transcripts the way the Aussies and Brits do, hopefully the slides will be available in due course.

    Oh, and McKitrick is hawt! Very charismatic – hadn’t seen him in the flesh before. Agree with PP that he should be used as a frontman more often. He certainly blows away the ugly trolls that seem to proliferate on the CAGW side. Maybe taking up CAGW as a career is a substitute for getting girls.

  61. A model proceedure for such a committee – should be emulated globally. I assume that Senator Mitchell was the ‘court jester’, as he was allowed his little joke speech and then put back in his box. Interesting that he was prepared to throw the IPCC to the wolves though.

  62. I always admired Ross for his work in busting the hockey stick graph and just being a thorn in the side of the alarmists over the years.

    His performance here was very good and there were plenty of times where I would have erupted from my seat and flew over the table at some of the crap spewed by the liberal senators. In reality, he did plenty of damage by remaining calm, on topic and communicating clearly.

    Most Canadians will never know what is happening here, but Harper seems to be a very patient man when it comes to this issue. If he is as skeptical as many (myself included) are hoping, than Canada might be in for a good few years.

  63. As a Canadian, I thought this video was highly informative. Not only for the discussion, but also the liberal’s POV.

  64. That Senator Mitchell – the quintessential warmist.

    A big thank you to Ross and his mates for a little pure light shone on the subject.

  65. This is a suggestion for Canadians. One of the issues raised was why is there so much reported on the side of CAGW, and so little reported against CAGW. I believe one of the reasons for this is bias on the part of the MSM in Canada. There is little one can do about such bias, where the MSM is privately funded.

    The Canadian Broadcasting Corportaion (CBC) is publicly funded, and ought to conform to the 1991 Broadcasting Act. This Act specifies that when the CBC broadcasts anything on radio or television (not the internet), then it is required to give both sides of any issue that is of public importance. CAGW is of public importance, yet the recent radio broadcast by Bob MacDonald on Quirks of Quarks was hopelessly biased pro CAGW; and this bias has been present for years. I would like to suggest to Canadians that they contact the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment, and point out to them that the reason one only hears only one side of the CAGW debate in Canada, is at least in part due to the CBC flagrantly violating the provisions of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. If a lot of us do it independently, then maybe someone will listen.

  66. Jim Cripwell says:
    January 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    This is a suggestion for Canadians. One of the issues raised was why is there so much reported on the side of CAGW, and so little reported against CAGW. I believe one of the reasons for this is bias on the part of the MSM in Canada. There is little one can do about such bias, where the MSM is privately funded.

    The Canadian Broadcasting Corportaion (CBC) is publicly funded, and ought to conform to the 1991 Broadcasting Act. This Act specifies that when the CBC broadcasts anything on radio or television (not the internet), then it is required to give both sides of any issue that is of public importance. CAGW is of public importance, yet the recent radio broadcast by Bob MacDonald on Quirks of Quarks was hopelessly biased pro CAGW; and this bias has been present for years. I would like to suggest to Canadians that they contact the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment, and point out to them that the reason one only hears only one side of the CAGW debate in Canada, is at least in part due to the CBC flagrantly violating the provisions of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. If a lot of us do it independently, then maybe someone will listen.

    I rarely watch the CBC. Too socialist for my liking. One day they had a documentary on the Arctic, I think it was. The first words of the commentator’s mouth that something along the lines of

    “Ever since humans left Africa 30,000 years ago, we have changed the planet…”

    I turned it off. Our $1.1 BILLION per year at work.

    Sun News is all over the CBC for it’s blatant political biases.

  67. The following was posted over a year ago on WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/canadian-senate-kills-climate-change-bill/

    Canadian Senate kills climate change bill
    Posted on November 17, 2010 by Anthony Watts

    “Senate kills climate change bill
    Last Updated: Wednesday, November 17, 2010
    The Canadian Press

    Senators have voted down an opposition bill to tackle climate change with just days to go before another round of United Nations talks in Mexico.”

  68. DJ says:
    January 2, 2012 at 8:59 am
    Seems like an appropriate time to share, once again, the blame…
    Blame Canada!

    Robin Williams agrees! Via CTV no less!

  69. Senator Grant Mitchell acted more like an AGW witness (not to be confused with an AGW witless) than a senator. But, given his firm conviction that man creates climate change, what would you expect? This is from a May 2010 speech ( http://senatorgrantmitchell.ca/speeches/9515.aspx ) of his:

    “…That is exactly the kind of obligation that climate change involves — we create climate change today to impact someone who may not even be born yet. That concept makes the precise link to climate change being a human rights issue.

    I know all honourable senators in this house agree with the assertion that we are causing climate change. Is there any honourable senator who would raise his or her hand to tell us people are not causing climate change?

    All scientific evidence suggests that people are causing climate change. To those who say climate change is occurring, but people are not causing it, I repeat that we had better hope people are causing climate change because if we are not, we cannot fix it. We will have no chance to do so. We are not capable of moving sun spots to keep the temperature right. Some will then say that it has been happening for a million years. I will say it has been happening for a billion years, but the world has been uninhabitable for most of that time.

    If honourable senators do not think we are causing climate change, they should drop to their knees and pray we are so we have a chance to fix it. The science is powerful; there is a great deal of scientific consensus. All those skeptics who argue against climate change can never demonstrate science that defends what they say. They can pick something apart from a room full of scientific data and taint it, and say that, because that piece is tainted, it is all wrong. That is like saying one line of the National Post is wrong; ergo every National Post article ever published is without credibility.

    My point is that there is irrevocable science. We are causing global warming. It is within our grasp to fix it and that finishes the link for me. Human rights are affected by climate change today. Human rights will continue to be affected, unfortunately, with greater intensity in the future and with even greater intensity still if we do not start to act in a way that we should, and provide leadership in a way that a country like Canada can provide….”

    I think these excerpts sum up his professed conclusions at the senate hearing nicely…he has evidently discovered something called “irrevocable science” which explains how climate causes human rights violations. Someone should alert the media….

  70. ferd berple says: January 2, 2012 at 8:03 am
    I liked Jan Veizer’s analogy. That under the IPCC model of positive feedback, Puerto Rico drives the world economy. That an increase in economic activity in Puerto Rico increases economic activity in the US, which increase economic activity worldwide. That a decrease in economic activity in Puerto Rico decreases economic activity in the US which decreases economic activity in the US which reduces economic activity worldwide. Thus Puerto Rico drives the world economy.
    ————————————————
    Heh. This reminds me of the statement that everyone alive today has two parents, and four grandparents. Therefore, it must have been really crowded back then! Some logical arguments supporting AGW seem to be just as coherent as this.

  71. saltspringson says:
    January 2, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    And to think I was feeling a bit sorry at the tragic decimation of the Federal Liberals in the last election. At the time I wanted them to be merely chastised for arrogance, not massacred. But if Senator Mitchell represents typical Liberal values and views, then I now celebrate the Liberal humiliation at the polls and wish electoral death upon their party. His rude dismissal of these scientists is simply disgusting.

  72. I used to be a Liberal supporter all my life of 50 years, but when Stephan Dion pushed climate change and carbon taxes, that was it for me. I voted Tory in the next election.

    • He must have stocks in “green” companies….

      Hello…..

      Ya think? I have know idea, but I would look into it. See if he has any ties to Tata, the firm from India that just bought all of BP’s Solar interests in December…(terms not disclosed)

      The Energy and Resources Institute, commonly known as TERI (formerly Tata Energy Research Institute), is headed by…Rajendra Kumar Pachauri…

      …hey Al Gore…want me to continue?

  73. You Canadians have been making a lot of common sense lately. If you guys create a free market health care system, my family will move to Winnipeg.

  74. Oops, I forgot to mention…

    Pachauri is such a busy man, I am suprised he had time to write his novel…what was it about again?

    Anyway, Pachauri also heads Teri University:

    From Wikipedia…

    “TERI University was established on 19 August 1998 and recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as a deemed to be University in 1999.[1][2] Set-up as the TERI School of Advanced Studies in 1998, the institution was subsequently renamed the TERI University.[3] In the period since its inception, the University has developed and evolved as a research university exploring the frontiers of knowledge in areas of major significance to human endeavour.[4][citation needed] TERI University is the first of its kind in India to dedicate itself to the study of environment, energy and natural sciences for sustainable development.[5]”

    “TERI University signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with several institutions with the aim of facilitating a mutually-beneficial exchange of students, faculty, knowledge, resources, and ideas.[14] In February 2002, TERI University entered into a memorandum of understanding with the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies of the Yale University.[15] In February 2003, TERI University signed MoU with Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, USA. In April 2005, the University entered into a MoU with the University of Nottingham, UK. In September 2007, TERI University signed MoU with Michigan State University, USA.[16] In November 2007, TERI University signed MoU with University of New South Wales, Australia.[17] In 2007 itself TERI University signed an agreement of cooperation with Freie University Berlin, Germany.[18] In February 2008, TERI University signed MoUs with University of Iceland, Iceland and North Carolina State University, USA.”

    Andrew

  75. A very interesting film. It is good to see that the Canadian government is looking at all sides of the issue. Senator Mitchell is clearly religiously converted to the cause – yet in his whole speech did not mention a single scientific fact to back up his argument. His whole case was based on “huge numbers of scientists” saying the same thing. He would never have accepted Copernicus’s theory, nor that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria.

    I have met a lot of UK politicians and I know that privately they do not accept AGW, but they are afraid to speak out as they fear it would leave them isolated. That is one thing that most politicians fear. I was at a lunch where a prominent politician (now retired) was guest speaker. After his speech we were invited to ask questions. I asked him if he thought it was right that we should be spending so much money to prevent global warming. He replied by asking the audience how many of them wre not convinced the theory was right. To my surprise almost the whole audience put up their hand. He then said that he too was of the same opinion.

  76. Salts,
    OK. Lets say that you are correct in your emotional diatribe and that catastrophic warming is ongoing and manmade. Lets calculate how much warming could be mitigated by immediately reducing planetary CO2 emissions by 20% and maintaining that level until 2100 (which is impossible politically – but lets do it for fun). Worldwide emissions of CO2 in 2010 were estimated at 33 x 10*9 metric tonnes. The IPCC predicts approximately 0,02 degrees of warming per year on average OR 1 degree of warming per 1650 x 10*9 metric tonnes. Reducing emissions by 20% until 2100 comes out to a reduction of 587 x 10*9 tonnes compared to 2010 levels or approximately a third of a degree.

    Are you REALLY willing to throw humanity into abject poverty to prevent 0,33 degrees of warming over 89 years ?

  77. Jeff Wiita: “If you guys create a free market health care system, my family will move to Winnipeg.”

    It already is. Only basic coverage is offered by the government. I get most of my coverage from work.

  78. Jim Cripwell;

    I like the way you think. I doubt much would change, but has anyone tried filing a formal complaint against the CBC?

  79. What surprised me about the CBC was in the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq they were the only big north american media other than FNC to be somewhat non-hostile towards it. The CBC even sent reporters to Detroit (where the largest number of Iraqi expatriates live) to ask Iraqis how they felt about invading Iraq to depose Saddam. They were pretty much all saying “About damn time!”. Not even FNC would do that. But then the CBC flips the other way and backs the CAGW fraud/hoax to the hilt.

  80. Thanks for the vids with graphs. I have a couple of kvetches with Clark’s; he shows the 30s as much cooler than present, yet it had the warmest yr. of the century. And I think the labelling on his parallel CO2/Temp. slide (5:30ff) is reversed, as it clearly shows the CO2 red leading the yellow Temp. Which did not happen.

    As for the McKitrick tax proposal, it has a stinger in the tail: It’s conditional. It goes up if the temperature does, and down if the temperature sinks. As he says, that way the politicians can’t go wrong, an amazing prospect.

  81. Quite sneaky how the deputy chair tried to engineer the whole affair to finish with him and his “surely gentlemen you are not saying this is a conspiracy are you?” argument. This was why he did not speak second as is notmal in these types of meetings. He was derailed nicely and as previous posters have said, just looked silly.

    No wonder Gore and his ilk do not want to have open debates. They would be slaughtered. There is a very endearing streak of common sense in the Canadian people and it was clearly on display here.

  82. Info on the Love Guru and his BP connections one need only look at the last comment on this thread over over at Steve McIntyre’s site…what is it called…oh yeah “Climate Audit”….

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/30/return-to-almora/

    The comment dated Feb 7, 2010 links to this piece in the Telegraph…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Questions-over-awards-given-by-worlds-top-climate-scientist.html

    Didn’t BP twist a few arms at Whitehall…or wait was it the Scots that let al-Megrahi free…remember Lockerbie…Pan Am 103…I don’t know if anything was ever proven…

    Where is 60 Minutes when you need them…(sarc)…or maybe Bob Woodward…it could happen…

    Andrew

  83. MrX says:
    January 2, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    Jeff Wiita: “If you guys create a free market health care system, my family will move to Winnipeg.”

    It already is. Only basic coverage is offered by the government. I get most of my coverage from work.

    Sorry MrX. That is not a free market health care system. Who is John Galt?

  84. David Davidovics says:
    January 2, 2012 at 5:41 pm
    Jim Cripwell;

    I like the way you think. I doubt much would change, but has anyone tried filing a formal complaint against the CBC?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes – but it goes through and incredibly circuitous routing – like complaining about the David Suzuki Foundation advertising that this year has the lowest amount of ice ever and we need to contribute to save Santa ….. Of to the broadcasting approval agencies to decide if a complaint is valid – disappears into the ether for years. And yes, Bob MacDonald of Quirks and Quarks is incredibly frustrating … good topics always get a “twist” to conform to the dogma.

  85. On Canadian Senator Grant Mitchell’s blog are some posts of his which help explain the Senator’s thoughts on Climate Change.
    “3. The jobs argument is invoked as an endless mantra in defence of all things big oil. But what about all the jobs that will be lost due to climate change and are already being lost? Why can we not work to protect both energy jobs and other jobs hurt by climate change, like forestry, agricultural and fisheries jobs?”
    From Senator Grant Mitchell blog on Paradigms…

    He provides no reference for nor count of these lost jobs.
    Cheers,
    Big Dave

  86. Brian H says:
    January 2, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    “….As for the McKitrick tax proposal, it has a stinger in the tail: It’s conditional. It goes up if the temperature does, and down if the temperature sinks. As he says, that way the politicians can’t go wrong, an amazing prospect.”
    ———————————————————————
    Maybe Brian, but I say never give those blackbeards a new tool to work with. Besides, to be fair, perhaps the pay scale should be reversed if the disasters do not happen and more food is produced due to additional benefits of CO2. The supposed, maybe , “what if” harm of CO2 decreses exponentially, while the known benefits actually increase at more then a linear rate.

  87. Geoff Smith says: WHO CARES IT IS NOT…… NOT BEING BROADCAST IN CANADIAN NEWS!!!!!!!

    Reminds me. What started Steve McIntyre was when he received a little leaflet (as did every Canadian) on… AGW… headed-up by the Hockey Stick.

    Perhaps a similar action for a different reason may now be possible? -how to bypass your MSM

  88. oh, and Ross was superb.

    BTW when enough of the AGW nonscence is fumigated, IIRC Ross has published something on a number of other scientific issues getting similarly bad treatment. Shall look it up.

  89. OK Eastern Canada has been warm, but Australia has had its coldest summer in Historia its not “global” its regional wind patterns duh

  90. Am I the only one who noted that there were no biologist invited to explain what CO2 is?
    Was that because that they were already educated about it, or because they are totally uneducated?

  91. “David Davidovics says:

    January 2, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Jim Cripwell;

    I like the way you think. I doubt much would change, but has anyone tried filing a formal complaint against the CBC?”

    Yes, I have, on at least two occasions; as has, to my certain knowledge, The Friends of Science (Arthur Jacobs if I recall correctly). It was some years ago. I went through the CRTC, and after several months, ended up corresponding with the CBC ombudsman (Vince somebody). He turned out to be, IMHO, a toothless lapdog. After this sort of experience, I limit my effort to just writing an email complaint. It is not much effort, and gets the same result; namely nothing happens. That is why I hope the Senate may have more success; they have teeth that can bite if they want to.

  92. Once upon a time man believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Climate alarmists believe the earth revolves around man.

  93. “As for the McKitrick tax proposal, it has a stinger in the tail: It’s conditional. It goes up if the temperature does, and down if the temperature sinks. As he says, that way the politicians can’t go wrong, an amazing prospect.”

    There is no way the government can base revenue and govern based on the weather. And who decides if it is warmer or cooler in any given year? The opposing party would provide evidence of false temperature readings in an election year, it would open an endless can of worms, gad I don’t want to go there.

    Besides, it looks like the provinces will bring in their own carbon taxes.

    As Canadians, we have to ensure provincial carbon taxes stay off the table. If we don’t speak up, this is going to be rammed down our throats.

  94. It was good stuff, but unfortunately it won’t go anywhere. The Canadian senate is a toothless tiger.

    Ted

  95. The Chair had a sense of humor: “Thank you, Professor Mitchell.”

    Thanks to the four presenters.

  96. The fact that these Canadian Senate hearings have had no MSM coverage is of little consequence as the MSM is an endangered species. For years now I have watched no TV, read no newspapers aside from the occasional glance at the National Post, and obtain all of my climate news from blogs such as WUWT. Kate McMillan, of Small Dead Animals, has an amusing Not waiting for the asteroid series of posts where she documents the self destructive nature of the MSM and their increasing lack of relevance in an age where truth finds its own means of digital expression. Why anyone would waste any time on a low information bandwidth medium such as TV news is something I’ll never understand. I’ll wait for the transcripts of the Senate hearing to come out as it will only take me 10 minutes or less to read them compared to 2 hours of watching video.

    Prime Minister Harper has shown himself to be an excellent strategist waiting patiently till that time he could form a majority government in Canada and then undertaking a major series of changes. Anyone who has read Prime Minister Harper’s early publications from his days in the Canadian political wilderness knows that he was then profoundly skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis. He’s simply waited until the time was right to start moving Canada away from the road to eco-suicide.

    The Canadian MSM were blindsided by the results of the last Canadian election since it was a truism on their part that no party in Canada can form a majority government without Quebec and Stephen Harper did so. The primary population and economic growth in Canada over the last 20 years has been in the western part of the country and the oilsands are a major part of this. There’s a lot more work to be done in Canada to dismantle years of CAGW idiocy and Prime Minister Harper is likely the best man for the job. It wouldn’t surprise me if a plan to defund the primary CAGW propaganda arm in Canada, the CBC, is in progress and the greatly truncated broadcaster can then perform it’s only useful function which is to broadcast Hockey Night in Canada. For those who still insist on viewing TV, Sun TV has taken off in Canada satisfying a Canadian hunger for news programming done from a non-watermelon perspective.

  97. But still the ad hominem attacks on “skeptics” continues unabated in all kinds of circles. Two examplescan be found in the October 2011 issue of Physics Today, which generally goes out to all members of the American Institute of Physics, and it’s affiliations such as the Optical Society of America.
    The first of two “feature” articles is authored by someone named Steven Sherwood, who is a “codirector” of the Climate Change Research Centerof the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
    His paper is lamely titled: Science controversies past and present.
    Present (controversy) is of course the refusal os skeptics to accept the concensus view on CAGW, those inconvenient truths from Physics.
    Except the revailing data literature from the purveyors of CAGW, seems to show that CAGW simply isn’t true. Oh yes it has warmed of the last 10k years or so, and humans have changed the face of the planet, simply by existing; but it doesn’t seem that anyone in their lifetime really notices anything much; well at least about the weather.
    Well for his past science donnybrook, Sherwood conjures up the Ptolemaic versus Copernican view of the solar system, and berates the late adopters for their pig headedness, in not accepting what was obviously true.
    Well Sherwood fails to note a couple of things. First off, the Copernicus/Galileo view versus the Ptolemy view was NOT a difference of science. It was the clash between an observed apparent Physical view of the solar system, and a purely religious view of the heavens, dictated by the then all powerful Catholic Church.
    So Sherman errs in relating today’s climate view debate to that ancient religion versus science issue.
    Equally important, it is apparent, that BOTH the Ptolemy and Copernican views were quite correct; they both described the correct relationship between the sun and planets. Now one view was mathematically simpler than the other; but both were correct; well actually both were equally wrong, since the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, nor the earth around the sun. Both move with respect to some intermediate point, that isn’t the center of either object, and furthermore, as Einstein pointed out, there simply isn’t any absolute frame of reference, so Sherman is grasping at straws in trying to draw a parallel beteen that religious/scientific disagreement of long ago, and the science versus science of today’s climate debate.
    But Sherman relies heavily on the presumed absurdity of the earth centric epicyclic view of the solar system, to paint climate skeptics as equally idiotic.
    It’s a lame argument, and Sherman leads us through the tired old John Tyndall/Svante Arrhenius/Callendar to the modern world of CO2 spectroscopy, until apparently just after 2,000, “Anthropogenic” warming becomes evident. Well we all know the history of the blame CO2 game, and we acknowledge the discoveries and researches of those early workers; but even with all our modern satellite trappings, we really haven’t advanced the peg very much.
    Well yes, bilions of dollars have been spent keeping generations of otherwise unempolyable “scientists” well fed, and convinced that they were the salvation of at least the planet, if maybe not of humanity. Too bad that just a small fraction of that giant slush fund has not been spent, developing more efficient ways of running our affairs.
    Well some has; I’ve been working at that all my life; but doing it for profit making enterprises, who progress by making life more beneficial for all who wish to take part; and I’m still working at that aim after more than 50 years. but Sherman just lathers obvious ancient history onto his anti-science ad hominem thesis. No he doesn’t call for the guillotine for science dissenters to the party line; but maybe it would be more honest if he did, than write this piece of drivel.

    Well luckily, Sherman is not to be outdone by the duet authors of the second “feature article”
    Communicating the science of climate change. by Richard C.J. Somerville and Susan Joy Hassol
    Well Somervilel is a professor at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and also some non profit Climate Communication in Boulder Colorado. Apparently Colorado is a great place for climate “scientists.”
    So Susan Jay Hassol “works with climate scientists to communicate what they know to policymakers and the public.” And she is THE director of Climate Communication.
    Well the two of them once again launch into an ad hominem attack on the purveyors fo the “disinformation campaign”
    and as we all know, these disinformation rascals are all well funded by big oil corporations, and other enemies og the planet.
    Well I’m sorry Susan; but I know of no larger well funded cadre of special interest folks, than those who aspire to make a name for themselves in the science of CAGW.

    No I’m not going to accuse them of deliberate falsification, of results or conclusions; I believe that many of them are dedicated scientists eager to learn the truth; But they can hardly be unaware that their gravy train would dry up, if it was shown that basically nothing untoward was happening, and that the planet was simply adapting as it has always done.

    Well the article gives us no clue as to the science credentials of Ms Hassol, let alone her climate scien ce credentials. I assume she likely has some “communication” credentials, since that seems to be a popular major for people with no particular career path in mind; maybe next to “Education” or “Political Science” in college popularity. But I’ll assume that somebody paying the bills of thois non profit, is satisfied with her communication credentals. Hopefully they too will read this “feature article”.
    Meanwhile I will ponder why two such “feature artcles” grace the pages of Physics Today, which is intended for serious scientists; not politiicians.

Comments are closed.