Apr 16

The Cobourg Skeptic declares:

…the battle of climate change has been won as far as I am concerned.   Let’s look at the facts:

  • It is unlikely that the U.S. will now implement any drastic program to manage CO2 – at least not for a decade or two.  Canada will follow the U.S. “leadership” for economic reasons. Likewise, the biggest polluters, China and India are also unlikely to do anything drastic.  If countries like Australia do anything, they’ll be shooting themselves in the foot and have no effect on anything.
  • The climate is not warming at a drastically alarming rate – if at all.   There may be noticeable warming due to the action of man in a 100 years or so – but that’s plenty of time to adapt.
  • Climate may well be affected by the action of man but not nearly as badly as the alarmists would have us believe
  • All the attention means that people are now sensitized to the need to preserve our environment – that’s good.  Stopping carbon emissions mostly targets fossil fuels which means they will get preserved – that’s good too.  Programs to stop other CO2 emissions are not significant.
  • The focus on science and its benefits has been a good side effect.

However, given all this, there is no more I want to contribute on this subject so this blog will go off-line later this year (2010).  Meanwhile, this will be the last post.

Indeed, since March 21, 2010 the blog has been on ice.

My take:

I’m hopeful, but I think a declaration of victory is a bit premature.  But, it’s his blog, he can do whatever he pleases.

To use a tennis analogy (i.e. game, set, match), the skeptics have won many “games”, and indeed won the first “set” with the release of the Climategate e-mails, and won a second set with the plethora of “_____gates” that followed, but “match” will be determined on another day.

8 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


8 Responses to “Fellow man-made global warming skeptic blogger declares victory; puts blog on ice”

  1. cbullitt says:

    I too believe the victory declaration is too early. The U.S. Senate is poised to sell us down the river. The “new” AGW/GreenJobs/Unicorn-Fart Energy/Thermageddon bill will be unveiled April 26. The only thing it will call for of any substance–just like the last version–is the “assurance of the carbon Market.”
    Carbon Come is all they care about–never get between a politician and trillion$ in graft.


    • Klockarman says:


      Agree completely. I had that April 26 date in mind myself when I stated that “match” would be won on another day. Many Congressional careers became toast after passage of Obamacare, so what have they got to lose in passing a cap and trade bill (masquerading as a Clean Energy and Jobs bill). If we can get through mid-November without a Climate Bill signed into law, the issue of man-made global warming will be effectively dead for the next couple of years – politically, that is. Oh, many bloggers will still be poring over the monthly temperature anomalies, and snickering over the latest ridiculous result of the imagined catastrophe, but in the political sense global warming will cease to be a political issue for the next two to ten years if no climate bill is passed prior to November’s mid-term elections.


  2. brian lemon says:

    Actually Klock – I think I beat my neighbour to it – I hugn them up in October.
    Everything has been said and thankfully nothing much has been done.


  3. pat says:

    The pretense that the planet is currently warming is an absolute embarrassment to American science and NASA in particular. Sure it warmed for a few years. Wonderful years. Now it is obviously cooling and this will be bad.


  4. Jayson says:

    If there remains anyone who still believes in man-made global warming, think of Greenland.

    In 891 AD. Eric The Red set off from Iceland with a few followers to explore a land to the west which they had probably spotted some time before while sailing out in their longboats, and then returned three years later with about 500 fellow Vikings. At first they settled on the south-east coast, close to the tip of this new land and then, as the population grew, created a further settlement to the south-west. They called their new home ‘Greenland’.

    It has been said that this name was a ‘spin’, a publicity stunt to entice more Vikings to come to join the new settlers, but this would have been pointless if it had been impossible for them to survive. They must at least have been able to create their own dwellings, build their own fires, make their own clothes and above all, grow their own food. The settlers might have been able to trade such things as polar bear-skins and fox furs for iron and other necessities on occasional trips to Europe, but their compatriots in Denmark and Iceland would have been neither able nor willing to row their longboats out each month with groceries.

    At present, the temperatures in Greenland range from a maximum of 7C in July to -9C in January. This is too cold for grain such as wheat and even rye to grow and ripen in the short summer of such northern latitudes. Nor are sheep and cattle happy at those temperatures. Hill sheep might be able to nibble away at moss and short grass, but cattle need lush meadows and hay to fatten and live through a winter. Solid wood is needed for building, boat building and warmth, but only bushes and such weak trees as birch now grow in Greenland.

    In 1991, two caribou hunters stumbled over a log on a snowy Greenland riverbank, an unusual event because Greenland is now above the treeline. (1) Over the past century, further archaeological investigations found frozen sheep droppings, a cow barn, bones from pigs, sheep and goats and remains of rye, barley and wheat all of which indicate that the Vikings had large farmsteads with ample pastures. The Greenlanders obviously prospered, because from the number of farms in both settlements, whose 400 or so stone ruins still dot the landscape, archaeologists guess that the population may have risen to a peak of about five thousand. They also built a cathedral and churches with graves which means that the soil must have been soft enough to dig, but these graves are now well below the permafrost (2).

    There is also a story in ‘Landnamabok, the Icelandic Book of Settlement, which tells of a man who swam across his local fjord to fetch a sheep for a feast in honour of his cousin, the founder of Greenland, Erick the Red. Studies of Channel swimmers show that 10C would be the lowest temperature that a man would be able to endure for such a swim, but the average August temperature of water in the fjords along the southern Greenland coast now rarely exceeds 6C. The water at that time must therefore have been at least 4C warmer and probably more than that which means that the summer temperatures (for the air) in the fjords in southern Greenland would then have been 13C-14C, (3) as compared with the present temperatures mentioned above.

    It follows that temperatures must have been higher than those of today’s during that first settlement of Greenland, which lasted from approximately 900 until the mid-1400s AD, when these settlements died out, but since the Greenlanders in 1000 AD did not burn coal or use petroleum gasoline, these temperatures could not have been due to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions.

    Yet the whole reason for the existence of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPPC) is to thrust upon the world’s population the idea that industrialisation in the West over the last 100 years and our profligate use of fossil fuels is producing a run-away heating of the planet through the emission of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, which unless checked will lead to its — and humanity’s — death. The western governments are happily looking forward to a vast increase in taxes to pay for measures to reduce ’carbon emissions’ and even the possibility of a Global Government to control everything has been mentioned (4).

    So the possibility that temperatures were higher in the past in any part of the world was a thorn in the sides of those Climatologists who are wedded to the whole idea of Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW), also known as Climate Change.

    Unfortunately for them, an English Climatologist, Hubert H Lamb, first formulated the idea of a Medieval Warming Period (MWP) in 1965 and other surveys have found that this warming did not just occur in the northwestern hemisphere but was global (5). Lamb founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971 and until the mid 1990s the MWP was undisputed fact and was shown even in the IPPC progress report of 1990. But Dr David Darning (University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy) in his recent testimony to Congress (6) said ‘…I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. It said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”’ And this the ‘warmist’ Climatologists certainly tried to do.

    In 1998 a graph was produced by geophysicist Michael Mann, known as the Hock Stick Graph’, which managed to almost air-brush out of existence the Medieval Warming Period . This was published in the eminent scientific magazine Nature and also in several places in the IPPC Report of 2001 and created a world-wide sensation. Here was proof positive the world was overheating and it was All Our Fault.

    However, investigation of the graph by historians and climatologists who doubted the existence of global warming, brought criticism centred around the statistical method used and the associated computer programme. It was eventually called the most discredited study in the history of science and quietly dropped by the IPPC from the latest 2007 IPPC report for policy makers.

    The Hockey Stick graph had also attempted to remove the Little Ice Age which was another world-wide event, lasting from roughly the early 14th century to the mid-19th century with short interspersed warm periods. It is well-known from written reports that temperatures must at times have been considerably lower than in the Medieval Warming Period since Frost Fairs were often held on the frozen Thames until 1814 and in 1658, during the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, King Karl X Gustav of Sweden led an army across the frozen Danish waters to lay siege to Copenhagen.

    It was also at this time that the Viking settlements in Greenland gradually died out. The Medieval Warming Period is usually agreed to have lasted from approximately 900 to approximately 1300 AD and from then onwards the climate cooled again. Glaciers grew, sea ice advanced and marine life migrated southwards as it did so, leaving the Greenlanders with a smaller and more difficult catch. The summers became shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder which became less available. Trade between Greenland, Iceland and Europe became more difficult and finally ceased. (3) It can only be hoped that a few Greenlanders escaped to re-settled somewhere less cold before starvation overcame them all.

    But since temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher in Greenland than they are even today, and since this was followed by a Cooling Period, and since this has happened many times before (which have not been considered here), the fact that the earth may have warmed somewhat since the mid 1850s is not unusual. Nor will it be unusual if the temperatures now start to drop.

    Above all, since man was not industrialised before the mid-1850s and so was not emitting any huge amounts of CO2, any warming which has occurred over the past 150 years (for which we should be grateful) is obviously a natural event and —



  5. fgh says:

    They wont give up, their entire New World Order is based on the CO2 scam. If they can’t have it this way, there’s always a plan two. And usually, plan two comes to mass death.


  6. Randall says:

    And Plan One does not involve mass death?

    What are you thinking ?


  7. […] skeptic blogger hangs up his spurs, declaring victory over the warmists.  Methinks the battle is not yet won, so don’t expect […]


preload preload preload