Climate change deniers are quickly nearing the apex of hysteria.

Mark Steyn you are pond scum, go back to sucking off Karl Rove for quarters you turd.

I find your writing quite funny and surprisingly enjoyable given my opposing views. However your writing regarding climate science and policy only furthers the nasty partisan debate.

The tragedy we face is one of an ill-informed electorate and entrenched corporate interests.

Your commentary further polarizes public discourse leading us further down the path of democratic inefficacy.

I implore you (and your readers) to dig deeper into the nuances and long history of climate science and policy. A good place to start is this site by the American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

I am a PhD candidate who studies glaciers and climate and takes great offense to those comments suggesting that peer-reviewed science is biased by the personal incomes, investments, grants etc. of individual scientists and institutions. Through my four years of undergraduate study, and seven years of graduate study (making never more than $21,000/year) I have endeavored to educate myself and conduct research so that I and others may have the best-possible information of our climate and cryosphere with the hopes that this may one day lead to sound public policy.

I am a scientist – yes, young and with only a short list of publications – but a scientist none-the-less. I have dedicated more than a decade to understanding climate science and policy and find your ill-informed commentary deeply offensive.

To Mark Steyn's readers: I urge you to be skeptical . . . yes, skeptical! To gain a well-informed picture of climate science and policy (or any topic for that matter) you must dig deep into opposing view points, garnering information from numerous experts.

To Maclean's: I urge you to question the efficacy and qualifications of Mark Steyn as a commentator on topics such as climate science and policy.

thwimp, please bone up on basic economics, please.

Any restrictions on carbon use would dramatically raise profits by lowering artificially the supply.

This is just basic stuff you just don't understand, so we're free to ignore whatever you say about anything else.

The hydrocarbon firms are solidly behind Kyoto / Copenhagen.

They have given billions and billions more to the hysterics than to those who are actually interested in science.

The market for scam `carbon trading' is worth trillions already, almost as much as the global oil industry.

This is besides the billions more to be made from other `green' industries – including but far from restricted to, firms looking for taxpayer subsidies for such stupid technologies as solar, wind and electric cars.

So please, if all you have is `oil firms are behind the resistence' to garbage climate science, feel free to shut youth mouth any time, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

they hid the datas – and yes, hid is the correct term, without qutoes – bec. it didn't fit in with their preconceived notion that the earth was warming.

and no, they didn't reveal they were using two sets of data and they even derided those who suggested that they did.

give it up Thwimp. climate `science' is garbage.

don't embarass yourself further Robert – if that's even possible.

Since you've read the entire archive it should be easy for you to cite your proofs.

Amazingly, Rob knows the meaning of `apex'. Unfortunatley, he is still in earth orbit about purdy much everything else.

You know that global warming automatons like `Thwimp' are desperate when they need to cite an Associated Press article – that they can't even find now – to back up their `arguments.'

when I read that particular article, i thought:

Was this article that you cite peer reviewed? How do we know that the statisticians `didn't know what data they were looking at'? Were all statisticians in agreement? Were other statisticians asked for their view, and then left out bec. they didn't give the `correct' answers.

Put this `evidence' where it belongs, in the garbage with the broken hockey stick, the glacial melt and all the other anti-science trash that the hysterics have repeatedly cited as `proof' of g-w.

Luv it.

Snark factor increasing around here! Good show!

Since the picture on her sight is the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May her Wiki entry, one must assume the political hacktress.

As you opinined–not unfairly from appearances–the one with a Greenie philosophical outlook and an ideological opposition to anything that actually generates power that dosen't require a hand crank or have us live in Laura Ingall's day.

Good call. You got me!

Just wondering.

Or should the heavy lifting be done by everyone else? Why is it that whenever some do-nothing liberal has a twinge of conscience or do-goodery, the rest of us must surrender our personal freedoms and liberty, and reduce our standard of living to suit?

Here's an alternative, Jamon, if you REALLY want to be precautionary: simply kill yourself today, and think of the radical reduction in future carbon footprint you'll save. And we'll all be impressed; or at least, we'll have taken you at your word.

mhb23re

"The coal industry is committed to action on climate change and the industry is contributing a
billion dollars over the next 10 years developing technology to cut carbon emissions from coal fired power stations by up to 90%." – from
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/M…

You ask why they would do this? Because "capturing" the CO2 plant food wastes another 40% fossil fuel. They get paid by the tonne.

Any input from the crowd here at MacLeans?

I'm a piker and was able to pull some good retorts in the space, of, oh, about 20 minutes of casual Net wandering.  Not looking good for the Denialist crowd even with just a simple search.

Said one commenter, at the bottom of the article, this whole allegation of "ClimateGate" is really little more than a Right Wing tabloid "feeding frenzy" for dummies, the scientifically illiterate rednecks of Jesusland, and the

Is this an unjustified "fix"? No, because some sets of tree-ring data can be compared with the direct records of local temperature for the past century. Up until the 1960s, there is a very close correlation between the density of growth rings in trees in northern latitudes and summer temperatures, but after this it starts to break down."

Seems her argument is that the emails in the first place contained nothing damning other than the very real and difficult/tedious work of REAL climate scientists, who got quite understandably frustrated with the dumbbunny denialist crowd, and some email correspondence detailing said frustration.

Many of us would sooner not have some emails revealed and aired out in broad daylight, no?

About the same line of thinking, it seems (though they no longer allow new registrations for comments) showed up on Little Green Footballs, which in turn references an article in New Scientist.

I guess when you have an axe to grind you twist things as much as you can to get it your way.

Only new legislation, or the defunding of the EPA will stop them, but with progressives and far left extremists firmly in control of our Congress, there is no chance. This amounts to a coup! I've never seen such outrage and white hot anger at the grassroots level. Americans are paying attention, finally! Standing up, and there is tsunami headed toward Washington. The traditional US media has largely ignored the scandal. The Administration and Congress dismiss and disdain all dissent. It's OK. They will be presented some change they can believe in, November 2010.

If we are to set serious guidelines to clean up our mess in the air and water, we should base decisions on sound data and not emotional hype. For example, …

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/03/argo-…

From Norway to Gambia, dubious motives will use fear of climate change, and Copenhagen in an attempt to create a new world power. American and Canadian taxpayers can’t afford it.

http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/10/un-new-world-p…

The climate is changing. Is it man made? yes and no. Shouldn't we do as much as we can to reduce CO2 gas and other things that factor in? Personally I don't care. I don't have children and I don't care if there is fresh water to drink or what the climate is like in 50 yrs. I'll be dead. I would think that people with children would have a vested interest into trying to slow down the changing earth as much as possible so that things aren't so bad for their grandchildren and great grandchildren and so on

‘yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
‘valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

… was simply to change the subject.

Good science and good scientists have been driven out by bad science and bad scientists,

We nearly ended up with another casino market trading in a commodity given an arbitrary value by an argument whose falsehood was bound to emerge eventually – a recipe for another GFC.

Vast sums have already been misspent on this fraud, and could have been better spent growing the world economy and devising alternatives to fossil-fuels,

Last but not least, none of this proves that the climate isn’t capable of altering to our considerable disadvantage, in ways that we can’t resist. Learning to live with such episodes requires healthy, growing economies, not ones which have dissipated their wealth investing in a 21st Century tulip-bulb market.

Given the pivotal position of CRU, very little of what the IPCC relies upon for its science remains untainted by CRU "DNA". Furthermore, publication of an unknown number of "contrarian" opinions ofunknown scientific quality has been frustrated. You don't have to be a mouth-breathing denier to find this an unsatisfactory foundation for public policy.