Is Climate Change 10 minutes of fame over?

From NetNewsledger.com

Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?

Written by James Murray

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2821233728_5e75b1230a.jpg

THUNDER BAY – Yesterday was the International Day of Action on Climate Change. In Ottawa, cold weather kept the crowd from hitting the 5,000 people that organizers hoped. About 500 people showed up. In Calgary, a snowstorm dumped wet heavy snow on the city.

On Google, unlike past climate change events, there was not a special logo created. On the front pages of major newspapers across Canada the major stories were not about the looming climate crisis.

In Winnipeg, about 200 people made it to a rally at the Manitoba Legislature. In Vancouver, a city steeped in protest, the crowd was estimated at 5000. Across Canada interest in the day of action appeared less than ever.

Could it be that the fire is smoldering out on the issue of climate change? Maybe in an era where ever shorter attention spans want to shift to other topics the climate issue has had its “ten minutes of fame”?

On the popular news site www.bourque.com the climate issue is not mentioned. This morning, on Google News, there isn’t a mention of the day of protest on the top stories either. The front page of the Toronto Star is void of climate change stories too.

Over on www.wattsupwiththat.com a website that over the past several years has dug into the issue, the comment is that global warming and climate change are “urban legends”. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. writes, “I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming”.

It is, perhaps causing some in the movement to ramp up their rhetoric to try to gain more attention. Elizabeth May and the Green Party recently took the approach that the only way to get the message out is to state, “Your Parents F*cked Up The Planet”. May’s justification is that “Our culture is steeped in the F-word”.

Read the complete article here: Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “Is Climate Change 10 minutes of fame over?

  1. I found the article rather dissapointing. He seems to suggest people are becoming bored with AGW rather than believing it an unproven theory.

  2. I don’t trust ’em … it’s like when the kids get too quiet… they must be up to something.
    I had expected a lot more CC exposure running into the Copenhagen love in, but it is eerily quiet. Maybe they think they have done enough already to coast it home?
    I think they are trying to keep down the exposure now that the draft Copenhagen document is out and the ramifications of the treaty are becoming apparent. At this stage any CC blog is going to attract negative attention from those wanting to know “what’s the price of this treaty?”

  3. The “faithful” will not be disuaded by logic nor facts.
    Their “belief system” (that feel good feeling they get by enforcing their AGW beliefs on the rest of society) can only be changed by “conversion” not discussion or negotiation.

  4. [write without profanity or implied profanity or risk wholesale deletion. Fixing these is more work than I care to put in ~ ctm] why is life expectancy 35+ years higher than it was in 1900, why do 1st world countries have much better environmental outcomes than 100 years ago, e.g air quality, improved rivers, streams etc.
    It’s all because of relatively cheap energy and an incredible increase in modern technology ( medical, engineering etc) and much higher spending on R&D due to a much higher standard of living.
    Of course people in 3rd world and developing countries have also benifited from these improvements and are much better off than they were a generation ago.
    The human population of the planet was little more than 1.5 billion in 1900 when so many ( now)1st world countries had a high percentage of their population working on farms just to provide enough food to eat.
    These green numbskulls are real whackos with little understanding and even less common sense.

  5. The story in this morning’s Independent, normally a bastion of global warming goonery, is one I heartily endorse them reporting:
    that in Copenhagen, a treaty designed to protect tropical rainforests is being modified to allow them to be chopped down and replanted with a monoculture.
    Our problems, such as they are, are undoubtedly exacerbated by uncontrolled, unsustainable logging. It will go the way of European fishing…..
    Now if the politicians would grasp the nettle on this VALUABLE treaty??

  6. You may have a point about the popular media. See, for example, today’s Daily Mail:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1222950/Its-YOUR-fault-kittens-puppies-drown-Daddy.html
    It’s about that absurd British government advertising campaign to persuade us that carbon dioxide “from grown-ups” is drowning puppies. The Daily Mail, at least, has had enough. Here are a couple of choice quotes from the article:
    “A tide of green propaganda (like this £6m TV ad) is turning children into eco-tyrants, says one persecuted parent.”
    “Equally, I want my children’s generation to grow up believing in progress.
    I believe that a lot of the eco-nonsense our children are taught has far less to do with love of nature than hatred of mankind.
    It’s a manifestation of the same urge that led pagans to sacrifice their prettiest virgins to the gods: this poisonous , self-loathing idea that we are the authors of all the planet’s ills and that only by making life more miserable for ourselves can we ever hope to atone.
    Our children deserve better than this pessimism. It’s their future. We should give them more faith in it”.
    Elsewhere in the paper, another article is outraged by the proposed green taxes on new cars:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222976/The-green-car-tax-blitz–3-300-levy-new-vehicles-fuel-duty-soars.html
    “Motorist face a huge increase in fuel duty and a £3,300 levy on new cars under plans that could see families’ green tax burden soar.
    A report unveiled today by experts including the Government’s environment tsar will urge £150billion in taxes on households and businesses.
    Petrol could cost £2 a litre by 2020, while a tax on new cars that would start at £300 would rise by £3,000 over the next 11 years.
    The blitz is essential if Britain is to meet its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a third by that time, according to the influential think-tank behind the proposals.
    But critics said drivers were already over-taxed and were being used as ‘cash cows’.”
    The tide may be turning as the popular media realizes where all this global warming propaganda is taking us, and what it’s going to cost us all.

  7. <i.Could it be that the fire is smoldering out on the issue of climate change? Maybe in an era where ever shorter attention spans want to shift to other topics the climate issue has had its “ten minutes of fame”?
    Maybe in Canada, but not in the UK where alarmists continue to link any flood, storm or warm spell with climate change, which the BBC then report as a fact. It is as if the BBC has just become the press department of WWF and Grrenpeace, there are no hard questions (except perhaps Stephen Sackur’s HardTalk interview with the retiring Greenpeace director). Skeptics are never invited to comment or give a counter perpspective, as evidenced by the recent Newsnight programme.

  8. Elizabeth May has such a quaint if rather unoriginal way with the English language. The word itself does indeed possess great versatility within the English language as an adjective, verb, noun, etc! Let’s hope CC has indeed had its day, it’s amazing that David Miliband can’t grasp that over 50% of the UK population doesn’t believe him & his scientifically illiterate colleagues about all this nonsense. He seems to forget that until he & or the EU legislate accordingly (all in good time), we are a relatively free country, & as such are so far permitted free thought & opinion, & as many of us are older & wiser are probably better educated scientifically speaking, before it became state policy to change the science in schools & universities, to suit political expediency.
    I do hope the Ministry of Information’s science re-training camps are well equiped & by the sea!

  9. I don’t believe that it’s a question of having had it’s 10 minutes of fame, more to do with the majority of the general public not being quite as dumb as politicians would wish.
    After many years of dire warnings about tipping points that are always (insert favourite number) years away, forecasts for (insert season) that are laughably wrong – let alone the inability to even get the weekend’s weather even vaguely right and seeing the way that politicians preach to us how we should change our lifestyles, whilst still carrying on merrily flying the earth, keeping public buildings lit like Christmas trees at all hours and being completely inable to formulate even a medium-term energy policy, whilst sticking their thieving hands deeper into our pockets in the name of “Saving the Planet”, Joe Public has spotted that the climate hasn’t got warmer, indeed it has all the hallmarks of cooling off.
    Add in the regular jollies taking “World Leaders” off to somewhere nice for a few days, where they & hundreds of hangers-on can have a few slap up meals and glad hand each other infront of the press, but after all the hot air, nothing happens, Joe Public starts to ask “Is there really anything the matter”?
    Especially compared to the way that a threat like that shown by Islamic terrorism and Saddam Hussain can be tackled within a fairly short order.
    The fairy tale “The Boy who called Wolf” comes to mind, except the wolf has turned out to be a rather scruffy, toothless mongrel, that after being taken in, bathed, de-flead and given a few square meals, actually turns out to be pretty good with the kids.

  10. Dont mean to be snarky etc but I think NH ice needs to be looked at seriously at this time. The only sensible ones are DMI who are NOT prepared to put up trash data since October 1. Briefly saw DMI 2 days ago it showed completely trashy data with a disclaimer that it should not be relied on. They have pulled the site again. Meanwhile CT, Jaxa Norsex continue using this data Please….

  11. [snip]
    When they trot out the F-word rhetoric, you realize the Greenies know they have jumped the shark. People are fine to play along with hoaxes until it costs money or hurts them personally.

  12. Sounds like the message is getting out at last. I wonder how long it will take to percolate through those thick venal skulls of the politicians driving this BS?

  13. Unfortunately, there can be as many (or as few) stupid “Days of Action” as you like and the polls can reflect (or not) widespread and growing scepticism about this whole ridiculous eco-fascist AGW hoax.
    When there is a General Election in the UK in May, which party can I vote for, to register a protest against the really scary thing – the hikes in taxes, damage to the economy, fuel poverty, betrayal of the third world poor which are absolutely the consequences of this scam? All the major Political Parties vie with themselves to be greener (= more stupid) than the next.
    Do you think that those who will gather in Copenhagen in a few weeks time care two hoots about public opinion?
    They have their eyes firmly on the eco-fascist Super State they are working towards and the enormous stealth taxes they will collect.
    Their attitude is the same as one of my bosses when I started working as a Civil Engineer many years ago. “Facts? Don’t confuse me with facts! I’ve made up my mind!”

  14. Beautiful day in Sydney, Australia… but only a few hundred turned up – if you count the kids dragged along by their parents!!

  15. .
    I suppose images like this do not exactly help their cause:
    http://www.iceagenow.com/SnowyProtest.jpg
    http://i.usatoday.net/weather/_photos/2009/03/02/climate-protestx-large.jpg
    I’m still waiting for the Copenhagen Conference to be held in a blizzard.
    Two hard winters will see of this entire religion, and all the AGW supporters will sink with it. It was rather stupid for anyone to hang their political reputation, and the economy of a nation, on something as variable as the weather. Political suicide.
    .

  16. As I’ve said before, the decision(s) has/have been made. It matters not what supporters/deniers of AGW think, beleive or know, the *politics* is settled.
    It really does remind me of the ending of the film “Soylent Green”. Recall, the lies arround sea based food supplies? Well lies, are lies, no matter what their basis are. It’s clear AGW, based solely on A-CO2 emissions over 150 years, but more so the last 50, is just *not* happening. Lies. The ending of the film sums up, I know pessimistically, for me the fate of the masses (Of taxpayers). The elite will win, and then I will look for support from my fellow unwashed, and lop the heads off these parasites.

  17. I’m sorry if I used profanity, but I did no more tha repeat what was in the article, certainly no more.
    I didn’t use the full f word but took my cue from the reference you have at the end of the story, no more no less.

  18. “Loco (02:10:38) :
    Beautiful day in Sydney, Australia… but only a few hundred turned up – if you count the kids dragged along by their parents!!”
    Today? Cold, very cold for mid spring. But then cold is only weather.

  19. >>>(except perhaps Stephen Sackur’s HardTalk interview
    >>>with the retiring Greenpeace director).
    But Stephen Sackur was an absolute kitten on Hardtalk, with a wind-power proponent in Jan ’08. The creepy proponent said “the wind always blows, and days without wind are like hen’s teeth”
    And Sackur let that go, not saying a word. Even if Sackur is totally scientifically illiterate, which he probably is, he should know that even windy Britain has many windless (below 10mph) days, when windelecs do not work. (They do not work below 10mph and above 40mph)
    Moreover, those windless days are anticyclonic, and so tend to affect the entire UK (and most of Europe too). If we had 20% wind power in the UK, as this Greenpeace-Eco-Government wants, we would have a power cut every week, and sometimes for weeks on end.
    .

  20. The scheduling of these events in the times of the year where cold weather normally resides is rather obvious. Global Warming was supposed to make for a backdrop of balmy conditions. Didn’t happen. Neither has Global Warming.
    Sounds to me like 90% of the supporters deserted, and some of these once ardent fans aren’t coming back. AGW just lost key support at the grass roots, where once devoted and loud voices make for the worst possible outcome: Base turned skeptic.

  21. Nic (01:22:36) : “I found the article rather dissapointing. He seems to suggest people are becoming bored with AGW rather than believing it an unproven theory.”
    Perhaps that is enough, Nic. I suspect most of the extreme supporters of man-made-roasting are just in there for the adrenalin, and the average guy and girl do it as a “cause” to fill in boredom time, and none of them either know or care about the “science” anyway — therefore “boredom” is probably to be expected, and as such is positive if only by lowering the vote and support of those who do catastrophe for a living…

  22. Perry (01:53:48) :
    OT, but AMSR-E has “glitched”, it would appear.
    A “U” turn from 7,527,652 down to 7,447,813 square kilometres of Arctic ice. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    If it is not a glitch in data processing, there must be very high winds blowing there. Remember for the area they count 15% of the ice so there is a lot of space for compaction.
    If there are strong winds I expect we are going to see a lot of movement of cold air down to us and a spike should come up in the temperature in the DMI plot on the right.

  23. In a light-hearted essay, Clive James takes a look at Montaigne, golf-ball crisps and our attitude towards climate change sceptics.
    “In fact the number of scientists who voice scepticism has lately been increasing. But there were always some, and that’s the only thing I know about the subject. I know next to nothing about climate science. All I know is that many of the commentators in newspapers who are busy predicting catastrophe don’t know much about it either, because they keep saying that the science is settled and it isn’t. ”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm

  24. If the cold wave(s) continue, this crowd will move on to another bogeyman. The power you would have over the world by having the right to regulate CO2 is too great to give up. The next focus will be on ‘ocean acidification’ as the reason to control CO2 emissions.

  25. “He seems to suggest people are becoming bored with AGW rather than believing it an unproven theory.”
    Honestly, in the world of pop science, what’s the difference? Most people don’t know the thermoelectric effect from a thermostat.
    Even assuming the contention of the article is true, institutions like the IPCC which are far removed from the democratic process will be glacially slow to reflect any change in public sentiment, if at all.

  26. R.E. Nic
    That just about sums it up. Trends are based on relative interest aren’t they? Did you really think the layperson was attracted to AGW because of ‘facts’?
    After the hedonistic 80’s-90’s period, people needed psychological penitence. Enter Global warming.
    This is all about the collective psyche, nothing to do with facts and everything to do with the unconscious state of humanity.
    Why does history repeat?

  27. I am very interested to hear your comments on the article
    This was covered in a number of posts last week. Look for posts with midges in the title. Long story short, it’s worse than the usual AGW dreck.

    It was covered here in great detail, over several articles.

  28. Done and Done. Turning point has been achieved.
    The real fight and reconstruction has to begin. The rules of science must be defended.

  29. “Is Climate Change 10 minutes of fame over?”
    I certainly hope so. Perhaps now they’ll clear the stage and yield to real scientists so that an understanding of what’s really happening can be achieved.

  30. “Canadian PM Stephen Harper may simply ignore Copenhagen’s climate change scam”
    “Environmental evangelicals are the most gullible constituency on the planet. They will be spouting industrial quantities of dogma at the Copenhagen treaty summit this December. Here’s a prediction: after it’s all over, the last man standing at the BS Corral may well turn out to be Stephen Harper – Conservative prime minister of Canada, normally a country susceptible to Green scare stories.”
    “But Harper, currently enjoying his highest-ever polling numbers, has shown an acute lack of interest in international ol’ boy back-slapping. He shows up late for world leader photos in which he usually appears somewhere on the periphery; in September he skipped the organised daytime UN “climate change” blathering and re-emerged in time for dinner, and largely held out on emptying the treasury while other governments were doing so in a manifestly misguided attempt to spend their way to prosperity. Here’s what Harper had to say on the issue during the September summit:
    “Our government is committed to working toward a comprehensive and effective international agreement that puts the world on a clean energy path. We need the commitment of both developed and developing nations on a framework that is fair and ambitious, yet realistic and responsible, in addressing the challenges of climate change.”
    In political speak, he’s not committing to signing anything – although he used the term “climate change”, which will lead some to think he must be a true believer and not simply applying it with the same linguistic weight as, say, a preposition. But look again. He’s supporting a world pact for “clean energy”, but also says it has to be “realistic and responsible”. If the Copenhagen Treaty isn’t, he has left himself an out.
    Worst case scenario: Everyone can sign this thing, then just ignore it just as Canada and some other countries are doing with the Kyoto agreement. It’s “enforced” by the United Nations. What are they going to do? Invade Canada?”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/rachelmarsden/100014731/canadian-pm-stephen-harper-may-simply-ignore-copenhagens-climate-change-scam/

  31. The AGW mantra has been chanted so often that the direction of thought has been set, much like a large container ship heading towards the shoals. Our course of action is dead set on carbon emission restrictions, green jobs, and ‘save the polar bears’ mindset, and even if everyone agrees there is no real science behind AGW, it will take at least a decade before the ship of thought can be turned away from the looming reef of economic disaster.

  32. Anthony, time to bring out the obligatory “Fonzie jumps the Shark” photo.
    Except I’d like to photoshop it, though, maybe put Al Gore on a motorscooter jumping over James Hansen.

  33. Would a day of inaction not be more appropriate since almost every action performed by people results in CO2.

  34. Mothers used to tell their children the story of The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, the message of that story being that if you lie or exaggerate repeatedly, eventually people won’t believe you even if you are telling the truth. The environmental movement has been crying wolf for years in the belief that the truth isn’t enough to motivate people and the people still haven’t seen a wolf, so they’re tuning out. No surprise there. I guess they don’t grasp the effect that repeated lies and exaggerations have on their credibility because, gosh darn it, their intentions are just so noble.

  35. Please read “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker. Absolutely brilliant! It shows what a coniving bunch of manipulative liars the green/environmental lobby is, what they stand for, and what their real intentions are. As for the IPCC? Absolute disgrace to science! But hopefully, at last the veil is lifting from people’s eyes and the truth is starting to become apparent.
    Remember the new Red is Green – and they have an agenda!

  36. The reports of the death of AGW are going to be slightly exaggerated until we see what really happens at/after Copenhagen. I am hoping that there will be a very large snow storm. It’s a wonder that they aren’t holding this conference in the Brazilin rainforest for PR

  37. Interesting article in the Guardian today related to this …
    Green taxes ‘under threat from Treasury’, claims Greenpeace
    Many may not realise that in the UK groups like this who are Registered Charities get a kick-back from general taxation from donations and membership subscriptions. IMHO activist groups like Greenpeace should have their Registered Charity status removed. Why should every UK tax payer be effectively forced to subsidise extremist minorities?
    I’m inclined to agree with Bulldust (01:34:49). I don’t trust ‘em either!

  38. In the end, AGW is really about one thing — money. Given that we have spent ** billions ** of dollars on this research since 1990 is a testament to the success of the AGW movement. By the time the general public find out it’s a scam (since everything “bad” is supposed to happen 30 years from now), the scientists and researchers involved will have retired with generous government-funded pensions and lucrative consulting contracts.

  39. The effectiveness of AWG alarmism may very well have peaked with the public. These things tend to run their course in a couple of years when the press has built up the strawman to a size large enough to burn him down. They’ll be almost as mis-informing on the downside as the upside, but it’s their job to create the news and everything runs in cycles. Don’t look for the issue to go away, though. The luddites are too numerous and under-employed to give up activism. It will just break out in a new, and hopefully, less effective form. Unfortunately, the politicians will chew the AWG bone for a while longer because they’re slow to catch on to public opinion when they have such a tool to do mischief in their hands.

  40. Dave Wendt (02:48:27) :
    MH (01:56:58) :
    Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
    Check out this article – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
    I am very interested to hear your comments on the article
    This was covered in a number of posts last week. Look for posts with midges in the title. Long story short, it’s worse than the usual AGW dreck.
    Dave, they don’t tell anything with content, no scientific facts, just bla, bla, bla, and one of their standard remarks found in many of their publications “It looks normal but it is different this time!
    Science Daily is a consistent producer of the most unreliable and unscientific BS I’ve ever seen in my life and this article is one of them.
    It’s not printed on paper because… you know what!

  41. Something looks odd with the Oct 25 JAXA plot. It looks like the data is taking a jog straight down. Could it be data problems?
    Shiny
    William

  42. “In praise of scepticism
    Claims over global warming are not accepted by all
    A POINT OF VIEW
    In a light-hearted essay, Clive James takes a look at Montaigne, golf-ball crisps and our attitude towards climate change sceptics.
    What do I know? Montaigne asked himself, and in answering that question during the course of several volumes of great essays he touched on many subjects. But he never touched on the subject of the golf-ball potato crisp.
    As far as I know, this essay I am writing now is the first ever devoted to the subject of Montaigne’s relationship to the golf-ball potato crisp, and my essay starts from my certain knowledge that he never ate one. Or anyway my almost certain knowledge. There’s a difference, which I shall try to bring out.
    But more of the golf-ball potato crisp in a moment.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm

  43. I was talking to a co-worker this morning (16F -9C) who favors Cap and Trade legislation. I asked about his support if it turned out that carbon emissions are not causing global warming and that the climate was cooling. His reply;
    “We still need to reduce greenhouse gases, they can’t be good for the planet.”
    The AGW mindset is here to stay, even without AGW.

  44. vg (01:57:10) :
    Dont mean to be snarky etc but I think NH ice needs to be looked at seriously at this time. The only sensible ones are DMI who are NOT prepared to put up trash data since October 1. Briefly saw DMI 2 days ago it showed completely trashy data with a disclaimer that it should not be relied on. They have pulled the site again. Meanwhile CT, Jaxa Norsex continue using this data Please….

    Norsex uses the SSMI data which had problems with the particular satellite that was in use this summer, NSIDC switched to a different SSMI satellite while CT and JAXA use a different satellite altogether (ASMR-E). The problem seems to be confined to DMI and whichever satellite they are using.

  45. It just occurred to me that what we’re seeing is a outburst of Puritanism. Sexual and social mores are no longer socially viable outlets for the puritan condemnation of human behavior, so people with that bent have moved into ecology. Eco-puritans decry anything that relates to human progress, and since CO2 is related most aspects of that, it has become the obvious target.

  46. James Murray doesn’t really have much of a clue, does he?
    He says: The issue of climate change deserves better than the hype it is getting. Actually, what it deserved was to go the way of all failed hypotheses instead of being dug up and given new life, turning it into a Frankensteinian monster running roughshod over the scientific process and threatening to turn modern man back to the stone age. What the “issue” of climate change (meaning, of course, the pseudo-issue of manmade climate change) deserves now is exactly what it is getting – repeated thrashings, ridicule, and yes, boredom.
    Then he says:
    The issue of conserving our resources is a key to our future. However in the rush to action, the most important component, the people could be ending up left behind. Here, of course, like a lot of warmists, he conflates the pseudo- issue of climate change with the real (though often overblown) issue of conservation.
    In “the rush to action” it would seem that it is actually the politicians who are left behind, acting on a pseudo-issue which people no longer care about.

  47. anna v (03:44:21) :
    Perry (01:53:48) :
    OT, but AMSR-E has “glitched”, it would appear.
    A “U” turn from 7,527,652 down to 7,447,813 square kilometres of Arctic ice. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    If it is not a glitch in data processing, there must be very high winds blowing there. Remember for the area they count 15% of the ice so there is a lot of space for compaction.

    ASMR-E has two data passes per day, the one you refer to is the preliminary one, typically the second one which is updated around 10am EDT is significantly changed (at this time of year usually an increase).

  48. Heard on the CBC this morning:
    Some ad agency person has apparently written a book saying that climate change is real and claims that he did his research and this is the truth. Some of his claims appear to be the same old same old:
    a) Skeptics are in the pay of the energy industry.
    b) Most scientists agree that climate change is real; no debate necessary.
    I didn’t get this persons name, but I’m disappointed in the CBC for being so gullible.

  49. It appears that the biggest problem confronting science is human nature. The croud out yelling about Global Warming will just as easily yell about Global Cooling when that day comes. They will NOT be attentive to reasonable policies proposed by intelligent, thoughtful experts. They will want to impose their own excessive socialist fixes. Suppose we’re now experiencing the end of the latest intergalcial. Can you imagine what bright ideas they’ll have? Can you imagine the total chaos they’ll create? People with too much wealth and time on their hands tend to take up causes. Let us hope that if the weather is changing, if the end of the Global Warming scare is upon us, that the average low temperatures of the next 30 years are not too extreme and that humanity matures a little in the mean time. The most frightening aspect of too many people with too much time on their hands is total chaos.

  50. Has Climate Change had its “Ten Minutes of Fame”?
    Andy Warhol would allot another five minutes.

  51. Anecdotally, I have noticed that the usual Global Warming crowd have seemingly given up on the warming. They are still against coal, cars and commercialism but lately they have been citing smog, acid rain and dependence on foreign oil as their justification.

  52. People are noticing inconvenient weather facts, such as..
    On October 3 at 9:27 p.m., Trail Ridge Road, which crosses Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park, closed for the season, nearly 3 weeks earlier than the average closing date of October 23.

  53. AGW will not likely end in a big showdown, where the AGW promoters are routed and shamed out of the public square.
    Instead the people who sort of tagged along will get bored with the obviously wrong predciations and jsut sort of wonder off.
    The parasitic promoters will want it to simply die quietly, so as to avoid the tough questions.
    The hard core true believers will hang in there, joining 911 ‘truthers’, ufoolgists and those who beleive in ghosts or a 6000 year old Earth.

  54. The recent two blogs about new US weather records showing that it’s cold this October reminded me about the graph, often shown on ICECAP, of the record high temperatures for the last century, illustrating the cyclical nature of climate, and showing that the 1930’s were quite warm.
    Has someone put together a similar graph for record low temperatures, but on an inverted scale, so that the highs and lows graphs could be shown together? (Actually, since Pielke et al have demonstrated that urban development affects low temperatures with a warming bias, it might be more accurate to show record low maximums, rather than record low minimums.)

  55. Meanwhile back at the ranch, has the AMSR-E sattelite sensor failed? It seems to be showing the same signs as the other sensor before it packed up.

  56. Let´s see after Copenhaguen how much of its fame is left. As Climate Change it is not “their” goal but Social Change and Owners of the Planet Change, as long as the Copenhaguen agreement is achieved it doesn´t matter fame at all.
    The question would be instead: How long will the new world order last, 5 years as the 3rd.reich or 75 years as the communist revolution?.

  57. Maybe in an era where ever shorter attention spans want to shift to other topics the climate issue has had its “ten minutes of fame”?

    That would be fifteen minutes of fame. But this is Canada, so anything goes.

  58. well, with McIntyre and McKittrick both being from the great white north, we know how to break them anyway.
    I dropped Liz a line over the Watermelon party advertising, here is her response:
    “I am proud of the youth active in the Young Greens. For that matter I am proud of youth engaged in any political party and in work in social movements — whether Amnesty International, Engineers without Borders, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Sierra Youth Coalition, World Vision, Otesha, the list is long.
    We clearly need more youth engagement. Young people are increasingly not voting. The youth-run group “Apathy is Boring” has been trying to increase voter turn out among youth. It is not easy.
    Reduced voter turn out is a national crisis, with only 58% of Canadians voting in 2008. And many of those not voting are under 30. Every political party should be reaching out to encourage youth participation.
    Young people have the most to lose from bad policies. The climate crisis threatens the next generation and their children directly, and potentially catastrophically. The staggering fiscal deficit threatens them as well.
    Obscenity is a subjective concept. Our culture is steeped in the F-word. John Baird used it on Toronto. (He did apologize). Trudeau may have said it, but it came out “fuddle duddle.” The Young Greens have used a version with asterisk inserted to make a point. To get more youth engaged. And what they are saying is fundamentally true. How many of us in the boomer generation can honestly dispute the fact that our generation has done an unacceptable amount of damage to this planet?
    How should youth respond? Go to the mall? Do drugs? Party til the whole mess goes away? Or get active and engaged and call for meaningful engagement in the political process?
    I am proud of them for choosing the latter.
    I am a parent and a grandparent. I do not take their slogan personally. The real obscenity is that so many in leadership are prepared to ignore the climate crisis, and ignore the compelling warnings of science that this crisis threatens our very civilization.
    As leader, I will not ask Young Greens to apologize or stand down. They are engaged. They developed the website and slogan to make a point.
    They have my full support.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth May, O.C.
    Leader
    Green Party of Canada
    1-866-868-3447”
    I felt that she deserved a reply, so:
    Is pitting the impressionable youth of today against their parents and grandparents, whose goal in life was to pay their bills and hopefully provide a better life for their kids really what you hope to accomplish?
    Have your views stopped you from buying anything that uses plastic? How many things do you own that have “Made in China” labels on them? How about anything produced that uses fossil fuels? Using air travel? How about equipping your residence with total renewable power? Growing all your own food? Using a composting toilet? Getting rid of your computer? Cell phone? Buy all your clothes 2nd hand from Frenchys? Did you use disposable diapers for your kids? Have you personally actually started to consume less? No, well I’m not really surprised and I doubt that any of your followers have taken any drastic steps that would require a massive change of lifestyle either, despite all of your rhetoric.
    You have spent your entire life coddled and nurtured by the very economic and scientific progress you seem to despise, as have the members of your youth movement. I seriously doubt if any of them or you has gone to bed cold and hungry on a regular basis, all brought to you courtesy of fossil fuels. But I, and the rest of my generation should just stand out of the way and be OK with it as you pass that twisted thought process on to the next generation. I don’t know if you and your party are closer to those that used to be in power in Germany, or the USSR. Either way, trying to place a wedge between the generations by pointing to some unreachable Utopian future is an old and rather dirty political trick, you’ve learned that lesson well.
    As for Global Warming, oops re-branded to Climate Change over the last couple of years as it stopped getting warmer, you might want to go back and start at the beginning again, as your recent publishing effort, for Dummies, contained some rather basic errors, in addition to missing some rather relevant facts. Humans are not in charge of the weather, and the climate has always changed. Just down the road from me is Drumlin Heights School, built on top of a drumlin that was deposited here during the retreat of glaciers from the last ice age. How stable do you think climate was back then? And no man-made influence required.
    Here is a little quote, but you won’t like it. http://www.capitalism.net/grtoxic.htm
    “Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even to bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one–not even the staunchest supporters of science and technology–had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them is forecast the weather–for the next one hundred years!”
    At least I raised my kids not to swallow the bait whole, to read the whole document before they sign, take what the mainstream media says with a grain of salt and to be skeptical of anyone whose argument starts with “it’s in the best interests of future generations”, as Mencken said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”.
    I can only hope that most parents have done the same and that your organization’s casual use of obscenities in the political arena does you more harm than good.
    PS. Waste of breath I know, but you probably think that we need more Rachel Carson’s and John Muir’s, and that DDT, despite the millions of lives it’s saved and could have saved in the developing world, is a horrible invention. I think Norman Borlaug did more for humanity than the entire environmental movement combined, but you probably believe his work did more harm than good.

  59. Martin Brumby (02:06:36) : “When there is a General Election in the UK in May, which party can I vote for, to register a protest against the really scary thing…? All the major Political Parties vie with themselves to be greener (= more stupid) than the next.”
    Vote for any minor party that takes a skeptical stance. When one of the major parties sees a wholesale defection in that direction, they’ll have to change their tune.
    UK Sceptic (02:01:26) : “Sounds like the message is getting out at last. I wonder how long it will take to percolate through those thick venal skulls of the politicians driving this BS?”
    It could be some time. They’re all hoping to win the “UC Twit of the Year” contest. Or a Nobel Prize, if there are any left over at the bottom of the Cracker Jack box.

  60. Cassandra King (08:06:30) :
    Meanwhile back at the ranch, has the AMSR-E sattelite sensor failed? It seems to be showing the same signs as the other sensor before it packed up.

    There are no signs of the AMSR-E satellite behaving in the same way as the SMMI did last year, those images showed many missing swaths etc., nothing similar is visible on the ASMR-E images. Look back over previous years and you’ll see fluctuations, pauses in growth/decrease etc., it’s to be expected.

  61. Larey (06:32:04) :
    I was talking to a co-worker this morning (16F -9C) who favors Cap and Trade legislation. I asked about his support if it turned out that carbon emissions are not causing global warming and that the climate was cooling. His reply;
    “We still need to reduce greenhouse gases, they can’t be good for the planet.”
    The AGW mindset is here to stay, even without AGW.

    Not if the inglorious FACTS are submitted for even the most stubborn to chew on. There is a huge repository of data on the effects of CO2 fertilization of plant life. It was in fact during the Devonian Period when CO2 was peaking at 1800-2200 ppm that the Earth’s first forests began to flourish.
    Ask your friend why horticulturalists and florists regularly pump CO2 into greenhouses. There is lots of research, much from the FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) studies around the US. CO2 demonizers might be shocked by this link:
    http://aspenface.mtu.edu/

  62. Hate to rain on the party, but the governments of most of the people posting here (including my own) have just spent billions and trillions bailing out their respective banks. Most of that money will be repaid, but what isn’t will have to be made up from new taxes.
    Most of those same governments still have a lot of their credibility tied up in this AGW scam, and the disasterbaters continue to cheer them on loudly.
    CO2 is the ultimate sin tax, it can be levied on just about any activity a government cares to target. So until Copenhagen is done and dusted, I’d be keeping the champagne on ice. Here’s hoping for a nice snow blizzard there to cool their ardour.

  63. Hell_Is_Like_Newark (03:52:45) :
    “If the cold wave(s) continue, this crowd will move on to another bogeyman. The power you would have over the world by having the right to regulate CO2 is too great to give up. The next focus will be on ‘ocean acidification’ as the reason to control CO2 emissions.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ‘ocean acidification’ – another example of AGW NewSpeak. Since the oceans are in no danger of changing from alkaline to acid, it should be called ‘ocean dealkalination,’ on the premise that heavily alkaline is the most ecologically optimum condition for seawater. But since few people are likely to buy into that premise, ‘acidification’ is much more effective as scare propaganda. Expect backlash however from those who realize that it is double talk to refer to ‘less alkaline’ as ‘more acidic.’

  64. Sorry, Carps, yes Booker is doing his best, has been for years, but once a week tucked away at the back of the Sunday Telegraph; haven’t you seen the unsubstantiated AGW ‘party line’, that spews from Geoffrey Lean two or three times a week in the Daily version?
    From his last two:
    “… the sea level rise expected to accompany global warming.”
    “Carbon dioxide: we’re already over the safe limit.”

  65. mrpkw (05:33:24) :
    The reports of the death of AGW are going to be slightly exaggerated until we see what really happens at/after Copenhagen. I am hoping that there will be a very large snow storm. It’s a wonder that they aren’t holding this conference in the Brazilin rainforest for PR
    mrpkw,
    Well, what do we have now.
    1. we have a pile of evidence that the IPCC data is crooked and out of date.
    2. we have crooked surface station data, thanks to Anthony and his team.
    3. we have what I call a “killer” scientific report from Prof. Richard Lindzen.
    This report is based on factual “measurements” instead of wet finger work, wild guesses and as Moncton states, X-box climate model rubbish.
    http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
    4. Also based on data from Lindzen and Lord Moncton we now know how much CO2 we have to add to our atmosphere to raise the temperature by 0.5 degree Celsius/1 degree Fahrenheit.
    In short:
    The amount of CO2 is set at 1 TRILLION TONS.
    We also know how much “Anthropogenic CO2 is released by our World Economy.
    This amount is set at 30 BILLION TONS PER YEAR.
    This means it will take us 33 years (1 trillion divided by 33 billion) to raise the Earth’s temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit.
    1 year of Anthropogenic Emissions represents a temperature increase of 1/33 degree Fahrenheit.
    This means that it makes no sense to regulate CO2 and it also means that humanity is not responsible, let alone influence our climate in any significant way.
    End of scare, end of Copenhagen, end of ….. and now comes the fire cracker!!!!!
    5. World Government:
    With the publication of a concept Copenhagen Climate Agreement and the coincidence of Lord Moncton reading it, we have caught the UN IPCC with their hand in the cookie jar. Now it has become clear (in writing) that the Global Warming scare has nothing to do with Climate. It’s about power and World Government on a non democratic basis, In concept a communist coup (fascist or Green is also aloud), taking grip over our entire economy. Obligating the US and Europe to pay for damages caused by CO2 emissions from the past until today, overruling sovereignty and a controlling body to do inspections and enforcement of rule.
    These payments will land in the pockets of African dictators who will put it in Swiss Banks.
    Anyhow, this is such a bad plan that I believe Americans and the US Senate, already made nervous by Obama and his Mao loving Czars will go through the roof and reject the entire scam with force.
    The fact that they (UN IPCC) has put the idea of a World Government in the concept climate treaty will be the nail in the coffin of the Climate Change Doctrine.
    The youtube movie of the World Government Speech made by Lord Moncton scored 1 million hits within a few days and people were calling Congress and the Hill en mass.
    Friday Moncton will be on Fox for one hour together with Bolton who hates the UN.
    This will have a devastating effect on Copenhagen because Moncton’s approach tears the entire scam apart in a way people understand.
    My assessment is that the impact will be so big that the American People and the Senate will block any participation. This will kill Copenhagen, no treaty, end of consensus and of scam. The cold winter that is on it’s way and the shift in the state of mind of the public will bury it.
    The US at this moment is the only democracy with the power and the resources to undo this “Marxist” coup attempt. (The UN calls it the First Global Revolution, see http://green-agenda.com)
    Europe is entirely lost and will sign the agreement and what the rest of the world will decide, I don’t know.
    Anyhow, after any coup attempt of a Democratic Country, jeopardizing it’s sovereignty there will be an inquiry (Probably by Congress).
    One of the first things they will find is that the UN is no longer the neutral body representing the United Nations but a power hungry Marxist Institution involved in a World Coup.
    So, the UN IPCC does not only lack the science that justifies the shut down of our economies but on a political level they are losing their authority as an independent
    and neutral Government Body.
    This conclusion will also hit the individual politicians that support the Copenhagen Climate Treaty and they will look like conspirators of this planned coup.
    As I said before, the US People hate Communists and traitors.
    This was a bad week for the UN IPCC

  66. Over at dotearth there is a piece on this ‘350’ effort. One poster who was deeply involved was so proud of one of the projects and told us it laid out the numbers “350” with condoms!
    I laughed so hard I couldn’t even respond and went off elsewhere.
    Oh, and I don’t think the Weather Channel thinks much of the ‘350’ project. It did a piece on the International Day of Action but not once in the report did it even mention ‘350’.

  67. Don S.
    “OT possibly. The Associated Press has not given up yet.
    http://apnews.myway.com//article/20091026/D9BIUBO00.html
    Not OT, just the last third of Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame.
    Should mention that, per Borenstein, “the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.”
    Now, it may be the media is also getting into the act of cherry-picking data. I am further inclined to give some credence to Marano about Borenstein’s history at:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2546/Climate-Depot-Serving-as-the-Medias-Ombudsman-Long-sad-history-of-AP-reporter-Seth-Borensteins-woeful-global-warming-reporting.

  68. Kath, you’re disappointed in the CBC for being gullible?
    That’s like being disappointed in the communists for supporting socialism… it’s like being disappointed in your cat for being a carnivore, it’s also like being disappointed in an oil company for drilling holes in the ground.
    For far too long, canada has been chipped away and damaged by the left. From what I can see, a good chunk of that came from draft dodgers in the 60s, but hey, that’s just personal experience. The CBC has been completely infiltrated since at least Trudeau’s day.
    It will never get better.

  69. Mitchel44: the most effective way to breed apathy into young people is to get them to invest themselves emotionally in an issue that later proves to be false. I suspect Obama has just done that in the States, and has created another generation of non-voters (I already see an attitude of ‘been-there-done-that-it doesn’t work-screw it’). Congratulate Liz for helping produce another generation of people who are becoming apathetic as a result of being played for suckers by AGW.
    I know a ‘we have to save the polar bear’ soccer mom who now realizes that the bears are not at risk. She’s so embarrassed she doesn’t want to talk about it or anything else related to climate.

  70. I spoke too soon – or perhaps I was right about the kids being too quiet:
    Turn Vegan to save the planet (Stern)
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265639-601,00.html
    Rising oceans threaten billions in Aussie properties
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/2bn-threat-from-rising-oceans-20091026-hgqv.html?autostart=1
    Perhaps building the Gold Coast is irresponsible
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265342-11949,00.html
    It must be time to regulate where we can build in accordance the Canute-like advance of the oceans…
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265701-11949,00.html

  71. We should be careful not to take too much comfort in the low turnout at the 350 demonstrations.
    In most countries discussed in the reports the 350ppm campaign is aligned with the current direction of government policy. Historically, demonstrations tend to be large when there is a groundswell frontally AGAINST a government action – like their waging of war.
    Demonstration sizes also swell when there is a perception that the views of (potential) participants are not being heard. The saturation propaganda for the invasion of Iraq compares well with the saturation propaganda for AGW. Consider how the vilification of those sceptical of the AGW panic as ‘deniers,’ (akin to Holocaust deniers) is accepted without a breath of protest from any but its victims.
    No, we should be looking for the size of the groundswell against AGW – not in support of it.
    In assessing street demonstration, it also helps to consider whether the (potential) protester will directly benefit from the success of their opposition – e.g., the benefit for young men in opposing conscription to war in Vietnam. In most of the 350ppm protest countries, the governments are proposing a new taxation and the prospect of higher energy costs.
    Again, if we are looking for signs of a the groundswell against AGW – not in support.
    But the politics of Alarmism is unlikely to turn in this way – with street protests. It will follow the pattern of millenarian movements of the ages past, where there is a crisis of confidence among the adherents, a sense of being cheated by the leaders, and then a collapse.
    If it turns on the science then it will be in the most basic way. If the current decade-long pause in warming continues while the demands on the people (taxes, lifestyle changes etc) increase, then this pattern is more likely, and likely soon.
    If such a collapse does happen soon it will be monumental, and it will give tremendous momentum to the US right. But it will be a great set-back to the credibility to the scientifically-grounded environmentalism that requires international co-operation (eg rainforest preservation in 3rd world countries) – which is already loosing now in the AGW obsession with carbon pollution.

  72. People may have cooled on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but Governments are drooling over the tax revenue and political power that taxing CO2 and Fossil fuels will generate….. I think Government and their corporate complexes have become so powerful, that they no longer need the okay of the people they are supposed to serve anymore…. It is going to be an interesting couple of years to see who wins…..
    Historians in the future are gonna have a field day with this period of idiocy….. But that is assuming we, the people, win. For the victor writes the history.

  73. There is a lot of confusion in this matter. First, “climate change” doesn’t equal “global warming”. Some parts of this planet will become colder. Second, pollution causes warming as much as it causes “dimming” – it helps the formation of clouds. The situation need profound studying by scientists and not agitation spurred by any populist movement.

  74. I wonder how many hundreds (if not thousands) of tonnes of Co2 the delegates to Copenhagen generated in flying there in their official or private jets? Not to mention all the hot (Co2 laden) air that will be expelled at this talkfest…
    Here in little ‘ol New Zealand the government is beavering away at an Emissions Trading Scheme, to mitigate our impact on Global Warming. Most of the country doesn’t want it – it will increase the price of everything, and where will all the money end up? No surprises there…
    Funny that all the talking heads are screaming about reducing carbon footprints, emissions, et al, but none are talking up stopping deforestation, or for that matter, promoting reforestation. I wonder if there’s a correlation between the increase in atmospheric Co2 and the rate of deforestation? Anyone done any good research on that?
    It just seems such common sense that to deal with the increase in Co2 levels, one needs something to absorb Co2, and the most efficient way is to plant trees, and start reforestation projects on a massive scale. Why don’t governments put some of the money received from ETS schemes towards that? Suppose common sense is not that common anymore!

  75. “Bulldust (01:34:49) :
    I don’t trust ‘em … it’s like when the kids get too quiet… they must be up to something. I had expected a lot more CC exposure running into the Copenhagen love in, but it is eerily quiet. Maybe they think they have done enough already to coast it home?”
    and a few similar comments: I’m still hearing plenty of doom and gloom announcements, but they are bouncing like dead cats. People aren’t particularly listening anymore. Its a problem with dire pronouncements: they wear a bit thin after a while when nothing keeps on happening.
    Its been a second very cool October here in Sydney, where October is normally the most reliably warm/hot and fine weather month of the year (which is why our 2000 Olympics were held in October). Its also been a cold October in the northern hemisphere despite a warm start. Under such circumstances, its hard to keep the global-warming rage fired up.
    I think one issue on the minds of the Copenhagen Conference organisers is that it’ll occur in the midst of some really bad (ie cold weather), and that could be a real deathnell to the Global Warming Scare Movement. I wonder if they’ll disinvite Al to try to avoid the Gore Effect!

  76. “The AGW mindset is here to stay, even without AGW.”
    How about this for a new mindset: CO2 is the basis of all life in the world. The more CO2 the more vigorous plants grow. In the past (ie. before that tiny sliver of time we call the quarternary), CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Further back, in the mesozoic, CO2 levels averaged 5 times the current values. The planet was warm, and teeming with plant and animal life. CO2 means more vegetation. CO2 is GREEN. Lack of CO2 and ice are anti-life, anti-green. Let us celebrate the planet’s life with more CO2.
    This is not so ridiculous as it sounds, since every statement is true. All that is open to debate is whether it is “green” or not. It is certainly possible, to imagine turning the clock back, and postulating a global movement that celebrated CO2 as green. It was just an accident of history that it did not turn out that way. Just like it was an accident of history that the Wiemar republic did not execute Hitler for treason, or the Czar did not execute Lenin. In effect, we create our own realities and with have to live with the consequences.

  77. How about this Elizabeth May
    “My parents generation F*&ked up the economy (Massive debt and no one to pay for their increased health care costs as they age).”
    Who is going to help rectify this problem. Not her Marxist party, that is for sure.

  78. Is Climate Change’s 10 minutes of fame over?

    Not if the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has anything to say about it.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574485341504345488.html
    “…just as God is indivisible, so too is our global environment… There can be no double vision, no dualistic worldview…”
    The allusion to the Manichaean dualists is the age-old, Church-unifying, two-sided evocation: contempt for the heretic / fear of being accused.
    If Bartholomew does, indeed, speak as “the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians”, it would appear that Hansen’s evangelizing continues to bear fruit, and there there will be more global scaremongering in the months leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in December.

  79. “As I said before, the US People hate Communists and traitors.”
    Perhaps “hate” is too strong a word for the communists. They have not matured enough to understand Aristotelian society. But politicians who sell out to interests that would cripple our citizens, and interests that are demonstrably misanthropic – will be hated. For good reason.

  80. It is now being reported in The Australian that the Liberal (relatively right wing – opposition) party in Australia is reacting to a perceived reduced support for an ETS from the voting public:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26279367-11949,00.html
    Bear in mind that the ruling Labor Party and Liberals are currently locking horns and negoiating changes to the ETS bill (CPRS in Australia) as we speak. It seems that the voter support may be dissoving from under the ETS proposal at the eleventh hour.

Comments are closed.