http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...openhagen.aspx

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

Q. How is the recently concluded Copenhagen climate conference like the Medieval Warm Period?

A. They both may be seen to disappear when it serves a noble purpose.

Well, I warned it was very little. But, then again, global warming is a very earnest, if not
positively sullen topic, and to mine even an atom of a joke from all of the frenzied evangelism of
self-appointed environmentalist groups, the grim coven that ran the now celebrated labs in East
Anglia, or from our modern day catastrophist Savonarola, Al Gore, is too much even for the most
deep-mining humourist.

But however doomed the effort, it is worth the strain to re-summon the spectre of the Copenhagen
festival. The prelude to the event was a blizzard, a windstorm, a tsunami of worldwide press
attention. The myriad and extremely well-orchestrated voices of climate alarmism had warned the
world of its importance. Copenhagen was make or break for the planet. It was do or die. Either
Copenhagen would prove to be a greater Kyoto, a summit that crafted binding resolutions on the
carbon-belching nations of the world, or it would be but a little while that we passed the "tipping
point," and poor Mother Gaia and her shielding atmosphere would be sent inexorably on the path to
ecological doom. Island states would be deluged, a new tropics would settle over our northern
climes, millions would be displaced or worse and rogue mankind would have missed its last best
chance to halt the sultry drift into global ruin.

The buildup to the Copenhagen conference had better writers than the Book of Revelations (and
certainly better press management). All that was missing from the drum-roll of anticipation for the
summit was a walk-on part for The Great Whore of Babylon to add a little lurid colour to its vision
of meteorological apocalypse.

And then the summit met. Forty-five thousand of the most professionally worried people on the
planet, jetted and limousined their way, with a blissful unconsciousness of the titantic carbon
propulsion it took to get them there, into Copenhagen for two weeks. They yammered. They
press-released. They fossil-awarded like mad. And they went home. Finis.

That was it.

Three days after the great gloom-bazaar, it was hard to find a sentient human being on this
threatened planet who had a word to say, or a thought to waste, on Copenhagen. If I knew the Latin
for "What happened?" (and I am for once unwilling to Google-cheat for the knowledge) this is where
I'd drop it. After all this splendid fanfare, after so glorious an overture - what happened to the
symphony?

If all of those voices of the environmental groups, the hectic NGOs, the potentates and activists,
the missionary scientists truly believed their own press releases before the conference, then its
culmination in frustration and impotence must have registered with devastating effect. But in the
days after Copenhagen, they and the world seemed to be spinning quite as calmly as before.

Well, not quite as calmly.

The toxic radiations from Climategate, that sad stream of emails leaked on the eve of the great
summit, had percolated through the media and to the wider audience at large. Those who took the
trouble to read them caught a glimpse of the sullenness, rivalry, distemper and outright mischief
that some of the scientists at the very centre of the whole global warming industry brought to
their task.

The picture presented was one of pre-commitment to a point of view, of a gloomy, angry and ruthless
determination to keep "outsiders" off their turf. Peer review, the very gold standard of science,
was shown to be a closed circle. Journals that thought the approved way were fine: Others were to
be derogated, taken off the mailing list. Science as a closed shop of the right-minded, science in
alliance with activism, was the real revelation of Climategate.

More followed Climategate, as all now know, not least the monstrous claims about the Himalyan
glaciers (purported to be ready to melt away in 2035!). This is why the Copenhagen Conference for
all its extravagant hype and buildup simply disappeared from the press and the public mind on the
instant of its conclusion. Because, via Climategate, the world caught the first real glimpse of how
politicized and manipulated this "greatest issue of our time" had been allowed to become. Saw as
well how the sacred impartiality of science, and the great authority of peer review, had been
suborned for something as political in its way as the average day's outing in Question Period.

No one's really talking about the failure of Copenhagen now because the ostensible threat to
humanity was shown to be shrouded in hype. Al Gore and his crew simply don't have now what we used
to call "the face" to deliver another grand and imperiously moralizing lecture to the world and its
carbon-consuming innocents after the travesty revealed in Climategate and the clutter of
revelations that followed it.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is host of CBC Radio's Cross
Country Checkup.

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...openhagen.aspx

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:


And you're just a goof.


Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?


Why do you consider journalists like Rex to be scientists?

Why, did you say that health care in the USA is "communist",

When you live in Canada and refuse to live elsewhere?

You're a joke Gisen. An IT nerd and nothing more.

So-called "Libertarians" like you are what ****es me off.

Ideolgic weaklings with no guts.

You're not even right wing. You are a pretender.

"Eric Gisin" wrote in
:


No one's really talking about the failure of Copenhagen now because
the ostensible threat to humanity was shown to be shrouded in hype. Al
Gore and his crew simply don't have now what we used to call "the
face" to deliver another grand and imperiously moralizing lecture to
the world and its carbon-consuming innocents after the travesty
revealed in Climategate and the clutter of revelations that followed
it.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National, and is
host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.



You can BET they'll hold all conferences on global warming now at the
height of summer in the Northern hemisphere. They better how that unlike
the past five summers, there are actually some warm temperatures to
leverage.

On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...openhagen.aspx

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:


And you're just a goof.


Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

On Jan 30, 6:50*pm, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/....

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, *where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. *You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

* * * * 1. There is warming.
* * * * 2. It is primarily caused by man.
* * * * 3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)

And I also believe that warming a bit may have benefits that the
Alarmists refuse to discuss.

"Catoni" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.
But, heh, since you "believe", that makes the science irrelevant for you.

And I also believe that warming a bit may have benefits that the
Alarmists refuse to discuss.

There are benefits to smoking too.

Rob

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:06:00 -0800 (PST), Catoni
wrote:

On Jan 30, 6:50Â*pm, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, Â*where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. Â*You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

Â* Â* Â* Â* 1. There is warming.
Â* Â* Â* Â* 2. It is primarily caused by man.
Â* Â* Â* Â* 3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)

And I also believe that warming a bit may have benefits that the
Alarmists refuse to discuss.

Have you read the claim that without the 33 degrees
warming, the Earth would be inhabitable?

It is 18 below C many places at present.

On 2010-01-31, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Catoni" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

But, heh, since you "believe", that makes the science irrelevant for you.

You have it backwards. You are the believer in the latest apocalyptic
end-of-the-world scenario. Predictors of that are 0 for 10,000 so far,
and I think you onto the 10,001st.

--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun

"TUKA" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Catoni" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the Apollo
landing did not happen.
Suppose you then claim that that is not consistent with the bulk of evidence
to the contrary.
Then what would you do if I would ask you to tell how ? and that noone has ?


But, heh, since you "believe", that makes the science irrelevant for you.

You have it backwards.

Last time I checked it was still in front.

You are the believer in the latest apocalyptic
end-of-the-world scenario.

Oh ? Am I ?
I thought I just asked somebody to back up their statements with some
evidence.
That makes me a believer in apocalyptic end-of-the-word scenarios ?
Which world are you living in ?

Predictors of that are 0 for 10,000 so far,
and I think you onto the 10,001st.

You lost me.


--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun

On 2010-02-04, Rob Dekker wrote:

"TUKA" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-31, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Catoni" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-30, Rolland Orzabal wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...chive/2010/01/...

January 30, 2010, 07:00:00 | NP Editor

A little (a very little) global warming humour:

And you're just a goof.

Where's your evidence that it's a lie, where are your peer reviewed
documents?

Hey Sparky, you forgot one thing. The burden of proof lies with
you. You are a proponent of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

In order to prove that, you need to prove:

1. There is warming.
2. It is primarily caused by man.
3. That the warming caused by man will be catastrophic.

Good luck. It ain't been done yet.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I believe that, yes, since about 1850 we've warmed almost 1 degree C.


Good start, this is consistent with scientific findings.

I believe that the warming is natural. (After all we came out of the
Little Ice Age somewhere around 1850)


This is not consistent with scientific findings.

Oh yeah? Then tell us how. No one has.

Red herring noted.

Red herring? What would that be? Calling you out on your unqualified
dismissal?


Suppose I tell you that the moon is made of cheese, and that the
Apollo landing did not happen. Suppose you then claim that that is not
consistent with the bulk of evidence to the contrary.

As I would.

Then what would
you do if I would ask you to tell how ?

And I would be able to point to videos, testimony from witnesses,
ballistic data, telescope observations, radio reception, etc.
All easily-confirmed and not-easily-refutable evidence.

and that noone has ?

Now you point to what your evidence is, bud. You can't do it.

--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher Von Braun