Canada takes early lead in the fossil race

Summit watchers will recall Canada’s past domination of the Fossil of the Day competition - a race for the bottom in which the poorest performers in UNFCCC climate summits are singled out for their efforts to block, obstruct, degrade or otherwise louse up the climate talks.

Canada has appeared on the podium for the first three days of the conference - claiming the honour today for advocating a “base year” of 2006 instead of 1990, the year enshrined in the protocol and one still approved by 190 of the 192 signatories. (Croatia shared the prize today for being Canada’s partner in distraction.)

The base year refers to the year in which countries agree to measure their “original” carbon dioxide emissions, from which level they agree to cut by different percentages going forward. The world agreed on 1990 in Kyoto, but Canada promptly blew its budget for decades to come by INCREASING its greenhouse gas emissions by 24 per cent in the next 15 years, rather than cutting them by six per cent per our promise in Kyoto. Now, the Canadian government wants to start fresh, while (most of) the rest of the world wants to honour the Kyoto standard.

The other exception (besides Croatia) is the United States. U.S. Head of Delegation Todd Stern told a news conference today that the U.S. also wants a later base year, and that his country is determined to stay out of the Kyoto Protocol, which it signed but never ratified.


Good Canada, Smart Canada.

Do not hand over our economy to lying parasites with their scare tactics.

Good Canada, Good Boy … Good Harper.

That’s the joke of it all. He’s gotten no one happy. The oil patch that likely paid for his successful run for CPC leadership (Harper still hasn’t released those donation numbers, despite a promise to do so) was looking for a exemption, and expecting it. Otherwise, tepid, tepid progress, if any gets made.

I sent an email to the director of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG) yesterday. No answer so far. I am still looking for someone to refute the pdf in question, page by page. John, the guy from the skeptical science blog unfortunately has his hands full otherwise.

Dear Madam/Sir,

I came across an article “Climate Change” on the website of the so-called Friends of Science, which carries the CSPG logo.

This unreviewed article is full of pseudo-science, fake expertise, contextomy, untruths, distortions of facts, and other bogus, obviously aiming to con your members and the less attentive public on the issue of climatology in support of delaying action against global warming. Chapter by chapter of this opus can be refuted by citing the literature distorted by it in context. It is just takes time.

My questions to you: does the CSPG really endorse such crackpottery? Does the CSPG care about its reputation outside of Calgary, Alberta, and Canada? Does the CSPG care about being isolated from the rest of the educated world? Do you want to be taken seriously?

And if you endorse this article, why do I, as a geologist, have to be represented by spin doctors and flat earthers that knowingly promote falsehoods and that are 20 years behind reality? I clearly say no - and stick to real, peer-reviewed articles written by real experts and published in real magazines such as Nature, Science etc. - but not to some writeup on a cult’s website.


That’s what other professional and scientific institutions have to say on climate change:

That’s what the White House had to say on the science today:

I haven’t got so many haha’s out of anything since Desmog I first heard thhe AGW tipping point arguement. I’m sure you have solidified yourself as a kooky crackpot with phrases like “cult’s website” and “Flat earthers”. Your e-mail will no doubt end up at the bottom of the e-mail trashbin as you present a solid arguement for easy dismissal. Why don’t you circulate your e-mail around work to gain support from your colleagues? Or are you wise enough to keep this kind of nonsensical rant well hidden from prying eyes?

Why dont I circulate it around at work? Thats why - pointless:

Hmm, Cam, I was thinking about your comment on my use of language, referring to the writer of this report as spin doctor and flat earther. Was it reasonable? Well, back home, such people would not be taken seriously and dismissed as “Spinner” (even in serious newspapers) which translates to “crackpot”, “loonie” etc. Same with creationists - you will not see a creationist going to court in Germany demanding creationism to be taught at school - such a case would be dismissed a priori. And if somebody dissects scientific work and re-assembles it out-of-context, and arrives at incredible conclusions based on phantasy, and then takes this as gospel, he or she is a “Spinner” - sorry. The best one is the paid ad in yesterdays Calgary Herald, in which the writer quotes the critisized pdf in order to refute proper scientific work. This is advanced madness. Sorry, Cam.

That is an impressive list of PHD’s all related to climatology.

CamMacKay is at his lying best when he claims that the PhD’s on this list are all related to climatology. I went through the first thirty and found two who can be called, by some stretch of the imagination, climatologists (one of them is … Tim Ball, the other is Clark from Ottowa) and two meteorologists (Barr and Bastardi).

The rest is a hodgepodge of biologists, chemists, physicists and, of course, geologists (who have never got over the decline in relative prestige of their discipline as compared to climatology).

CamMacKay I had sworn not to react to your inane prose any more but your picture of America as the home of reason is so preposterous that I want to share my laugh with some others.

You need a good dose of Mencken, friend. You can start with his acoount of the Scopes-trial

Freiherr, good on you. It is good to see that there are some geologists left who deplore the obstructionist and obscurantist swindle of people like my countrymen Plimer and Carter.

I am first and foremost a scientist, Arie. Thats why! Now same question to you: did I tackle the CSPG director to hard. Were the terms used self-discrminatory? Well, it was all under “if and but”…

Perhaps you are unaware that climatology is not a pure science itself but rather an applied science which relies on biology,chemistry,physics and geology. Everyone in climatology has their roots in one of these fields, but thanks for stregthening my point nonetheless.

“climatology is … an applied science”. You could make the same point about medicine. Nevertheless medicos will be quite annoyed when physicists and chemists presume to meddle in their discipline, and rightly so.

I have referred earlier to the megalomania of some geologists who believe that their discipline entitles them to judge climate science.
I will look for the list of howlers committed by a very noisy sufferer from this delusion, Ian Plimer. It is quite instructive.

Freiherr, your letter seemed to me quite all right. Whether it will be effective is another matter.

On this blog I have reserved that noun for you. You have richly deserved it.

You didn’t get my point about applied sciences nevertheless being separate disciplines requiring specific expertise.

Just out of curiosity how many universities have you personally visited?

Ok, so let’s try a thought experiment. The climatologists claim that their models do not show a medieval warm period. So it’s warmer today than in the past 1000 years. But some geologists come along and say, wait a damn minute. We dilled in a lake in Japan and found evidence of a pronounced medieval warm period that was warmer than today by 2 degrees.

So in your mind this is meddling by the geologists?

Oh, hell. This isn’t a thought experiment, THIS HAPPENED!!

Presumably you are referring to:

Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
D. P. Adhikari1 and F. Kumon1

(1) Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Shinshu University, Asahi 3-1-1, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan Tel. +81-0263-37-2479; Fax +81-0263-37-2560 e-mail: [email protected], JP

These authors are both listed as belonging to the Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science at Shinshu University, even though that faculty has also got a Department of Geology.

I was able to check on the academic background of the Nepalese Adhikari. He has an M.Sc. in geology but a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences. The first of his research interests mentioned is … climate change. So it is a bit of a stretch to just call them geologists. I dare say that, if Plimer had ever bothered to get a Ph.D. in Environmental Science, he wouldn’t have committed the howlers he is guilty of.

My point stands. They used geology to get the results that the MWP existed and was world wide. It also shows how interconnected geology is to environmental sciences. He needed his geology training to carry out the research.

Or are you claiming that geology has no importance to climate research at all?

You don’t get it.

Climatology is not a core science. It is an interdisciplinary science. That means it relies entirely on those very sciences, and specifically, geology since past climate is recorded in the geological record. Thus scientists who are experts in physics, solar physics, geology, chemistry and even biology. Climatology cannot exist without these other sciences. That means these experts in these other fields are very relevant to the issue.

In one of the emails (1255530325.txt), Kevin Trenberth said:

“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

Maybe if they discussed the issue with a physicist who specializes in thermodynamics they would be able to answer that question.

Tim Ball, Ernst Georg Beck, David Bellamy, Ian Clark, Christ de Freitas, Gerhard Gerlich (enhanced loonie alarm; hey and he comes from the same moon as I), Graig Idso, Albert Jacobs (a real Friend of Science), Zbigniew Jaworowski, Madhav L. Khandekar, Douglas Leahey (another Friend of Science; heck, the whole of Calgary is on this list of 141), Richard S. Lindzen, R. Timothy Patterson, Ian Plimer, Roy W. Spencer (he is a creationist), Ralf D. Tscheuschner (more enhanced loonie alarm)…

…the creme de la creme of climatology.

I hope Ban Ki Moon provides these ladies and gentlemen with free subscriptions to climatology journals…

When you have no real arguement try, try to discredit the person. Typical Alarmist way of avoiding the lack of evidence and failed history of global warming alarmism. All of those people are well respected in their fields and obviously have problems with the lack of evidence and predictability of global warming alarmism.

If you click you heels together three times and chant “flat earthers” maybe you will wake up back home where apparently emotionally charged rhetoric prevails over logic and reason.

Congratulations, Cam, you are a real spin doctor. My evidence?

1. emotionally charged rhetoric prevails over logic and reason
2. Typical Alarmist way of avoiding the lack of evidence and failed history of global warming alarmism.

Why are you accusing the old Monckhausen of discrediting?

My only advice to you is when you address a letter to a profesional body, keep the extreme rhetoric to yourself.Who knows you might actually need them someday, they do govern your conduct, enforce professional discipline and in the end decide if you get to keep your letters or not.

I’m sure you can word your letters in a more businesslike and professional manner. Unlike the radicals on this blog, in the real world professional etiquette matters. Best o luck buddy, fun sparring with ya.

I give you credit. You are right in as it is better to take the high road and avoid labels such as “crackpot” and “flat earthers” , simply to distinguish oneself from the deniers. So, if you do the same, we are all on the same denominator.

OK, Monckton is the exception to the rule.

LOL. As if you checked. Tim Ball? Respected? Then why did he have to lie about his credentials so much (and lose lawsuit he launched to intimate someone into silence about it), and lie about not receive oil company funding?

I don’t recognize everyone on the list. I wonder how many are their without their permission? That’s an old trick we’ve seen used over and over again.

Pure bluster there Cam.

Is one of the most repected climatologists (if anyone in that field can still be respected after climategate)
The lawsuit was rigged he was funding it himself and the other guy had deep desmog pockets behind them, it would have lasted years and ball would have gone broke so they settled. The credentials thing is pure BS, sometimes when he appears on a foreign network they get his credentials wrong, big deal.

Take a look at this name:
Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada

When Al Gore and the IPCC started talking about dead polar bears, Taylor the worlds most pre-eminent expert in the field said wait a minute guys, polar bears are thriving and are at record numbers and aren’t suffering from the supposed climate change at all! Then he was barred from providing evidence to the IPCC. More deception and lies out of the Climate gang. Too bad PR spin and deception aren’t evidence, if they we’re AGW would have been widely accepted by now.

The Taylor polar bear story is a beloved talking point among denialists and the ever helpful CamMacKay thought he could spice his whoppers about Tim Ball with this fable about another ‘mistreated’ scientist. The story seems to have originated with Christopher Booker, a guy with whom you have to count your fingers after having been so unwise to shake his hand. I quote from Deltoid:

“Another story about skeptics being suppressed has been concocted by Christopher Booker:

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the [Polar Bear Study Group], but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.

It is hard to imagine more unreliable sourcing than a Christopher “white asbestos is harmless” Booker second-hand report of an email, but I thought I should check the story to be on the safe side, so I asked Derocher about Booker’s article:

“Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed the to the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement. Dr. Taylor years ago was involved in drafting the rules that govern our Group - we are restricted to 20 members of which 15 are appointed by the 5 nations with polar bears in their range and 5 members are appointed by the Chair. I appointed 5 people that are active in polar bear issues on an ongoing basis.

It was an unfortunate article and it was grossly misleading. For example, I never was a student of Dr. Taylor’s and for him to suggest so is more than a little surprising to me. I have know Dr. Taylor for over 25 years but I can assure you that at no point did he ever supervise me in any capacity.

I am unsure what the intent of Dr. Taylor’s comments were but I can assure you that the PBSG has broad representation. Given the 20 members and my appointing of only 5, it is largely up to the 5 nations to construct the Group that I Chair. The Chair position rotates by nation - my term is up and it will be up to the next Chair to appoint 5 members because my term will end and my membership in the PBSG will end. I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field.

I hope this clarifies the situation some. This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor’s views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.”

So Taylor is no longer a member of the PBSG because he retired from his job working for the Nunavut government. Don’t expect to see a correction from Booker.”

or CamMacKay for that matter.

Glad to see that your back, I guess you we’re lying when you said that you would never comment on any of my posts as the impecable, airtight logic was too much for you. I certainly missed your elongated and unconnected comments. In any event I agree with most of your key points
- Taylor is an expert on Polar bears, widely respected and regarded as the worlds foremost arctic researcher in this field.
- Yes the IPCC did censor his input because as someone who has studied the arctic for his whole life he can’t find any evidence of any warming out of the ordinary.

For a group who has made the death of polar bears due to global warming their unofficial mascot, it is bizare that they would not seek input from the worlds leading expert in this area. It is unfortunate that they decided to censor mr. taylor as they would have discovered that their is no cause for alarm, polar bear numbers are at record levels and are not in any danger whatsoever now or in the future.

I suppose it is easier for those in the global warming religion to ignore real world scientific facts and plow forward blindly. Since the polar bear is not in any danger, will they find a new christ like martyr? I doubt it, look at this latest comercial they have released.

More groupthink and ignorance from the IPCC and the GW religion.

Actually, Ball’s false claims about his credentials and experience were made at and They were in the CV he supplied. He restated some of the same false claims about himself to a letter to Paul Martin. There are other places too. He is the source of the untruths.

He has not published anything in peer review in his entire career dealing with global warming due to greenhouse effect, pro or con. Nothing concerning the physics of the global climate system. He is barely published in his entire career, most publications dealing with his thesis. He is not published in recognized climatology publications.

He has been rarely cited in the ISI Science Citation Index.

He has no awards of consequence.

There’s more, but I’ll deal with this issue elsewhere on another day.

When you lie that much about your credentials and experience, you have are doing so to gain credibility you have not earned.

Tim Ball is hack.

Notice how I wasn’t deflected by your topic change to polar bears?

I don’t know where you call home, judging from you letter a safe bet might be the moon. However here on planet earth, letters like yours make for a quick trip to the looney bin. Do you really believe that Apegga is filled with advocates of a flat earth? Is the friends of science really a cult? These kind of outlandish statements simply cause yourself to be outed really quickly as an extremist who is easily dismissed. Especially when these organizations are filled with many smart educated people who make very salient points regarding problems with global warming alarmism.

Wherever your from I’m sure extremism and namecalling is all the rage, however I can assure you that in north america, logic and reason are the only real tools for advancement of any cause or idea. Go forth with venomous and ludicrous statements and you can expect most people to put a safe distance between you and themselves. How many people do you think would have read your letter and been swayed? My guess is none.

Thanks for the good laugh though, it really made my day. :)

Have your read CSPGs (rather than APEGGA) standpoint on AGW? I really appreciate a good argument, and I give skeptics credit when they are honest in their argumentation. But I have yet to meet one. We are talking people who are knowingly spreading deceptions and falsehoods - and who possibly even believe them. People who operate on different rules than the rest of us - and blame this rest of us if we dont stick to the offical rules.

I am certain that this guy with the newspaper add believes his statement that we are drifting towards a (socialist) global world government - a Moncktonism which is simply absurd. “Friends of Science” sounds odd; these guys have absolutely nothing to do with science other than nitpicking and cherrypicking science apart - they are an industry advocacy group and a right-wing political group. And if the CSPG, which represents a professional group adopts such odd and dishonest, and yes, extreme standpoints, it has to handle this kind of criticism. Now inhowfar is this extreme?

Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister.

And the best proof for the FoS oddness are their shrill cooling radio adds.

2 contradictions in that first paragraph.

you enjoy arguing with honest skeptics but there aren’t any.

they know they’re spreading deceptions but they believe them

They lie until they don’t know how to tell the truth or how to recognize it. They tend to assume everybody else is as dishonest as they are.

One of the Canadian youth confronting Canada’s chief negotiator Michael Martin:

“…“I got up and told him about my day yesterday with the African youth, that I was in tears apologizing to them,” she told him, finding herself getting teary. “I told him he must reopen Canada’s policies here, that they are unfair and there are no excuses…”

I guess our government is hell bent on Owning the Podium, and not just the olympic podium!

It’s pretty disgraceful how little the Conservatives have done. And how they spin it to seem as though they have done something, and when that doesn’t work spin it to say we can’t do anything until the American’s do something. And then get in the way of those who want to do something.

There is so much low hanging energy reduction fruit and they want to waste investments on CCS.

I’m afraid we’ll deservedly, and embarrassingly, Own this Podium.