Read the comments.

Well, you should be.  Just not the bogus global warming crap Hansen, Gore, and others have been hysterically heralding for years.  Global warming is survivable.  Global cooling could kill millions - and cause species extinctions.

According to Wilson, the result is a strong, rapid pulse of global cooling, “On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C.”

A 2 C drop would be twice as large as all the warming the earth has experienced since the start of the industrial era, and would be significant enough to impact global agriculture output.

Earlier this year, astronomers from around the world noted solar activity was suspiciously low; some began predicting global cooling at that time. Since then, activity has remained far below average, with it now being over two months since a single sunspot has appeared on the surface of the sun.

The best part of the article?

In May, a team of German climatologists published research stating that, due to “natural effects”, global warming would halt for up to 15 years.

See how that works - when there is a warming trend, it’s all man-made and catastrophic.  When there’s cooling, which is far, far, far more dangerous - it’s just “natural effects”, nothing to be worried about at all.

And what the hell is this guy thinking?  Maybe he hasn’t heard about the awesomeness of Al Gore, being that he’s in Russia.

“On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century,” said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century - when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland - could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.

He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because “climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries.”

“The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

“The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol,” Abdusamatov said. (emphasis mine-expat)

Blasphemy!

Via Small Dead Animals

Speaking of the Royal Tyrrell Museum, perhaps we could take up a collection for the CDN$10 admission fee and let Al Gore roam the halls for a bit (apologies for the flash - the obliterated word is Ocean)

Oh, yeah - there were other things to see there, too:

The dead vote in Louisiana all of the time.  Especially in New Orleans.  After living there for 10 years, I came to know that “throw me something, mister” is not just something you yell at Mardi Gras - it is the official motto of Louisiana.  New Orleans was the shining example of a welfare driven city - with votes going to the person who promised the populace the most “free stuff”.

I don’t think, however, that most Louisianans would be thrilled to find out that an alleged Islamic front group was in charge of their voter registration efforts.

Of course, there are other famous Mardi Gras yells as well:

Senate climate bill almost “certainly doomed”.

Find out when you should DIE!

My results - I should have died at 1.3 years of age to spare the planet from my rapacious ways.

Via the divine SondraK.

It can’t be repeated often enough:  the predictions made by “climate change models” do not correlate with the observational evidence.

Policy consequences

If this line of reasoning is correct – and we think it is – then the influence of greenhouse gases on climate is not important. Natural factors cannot be controlled; natural climate changes are unstoppable. All sorts of consequences follow from this simple conclusion.

· The control of CO2 emissions from fuel burning is pointless, expensive, and even counterproductive.

· No matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, the control of CO2 emissions is also hugely expensive. Ditto for sequestration of CO2, And double ditto for the UN-Kyoto Protocol to limit GH gas emissions.

· The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, is often counterproductive. Both of these fuels have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. They provide little if any reduction in CO2 emission and, depending on their manufacture, little reduction in oil imports.

· Wind power and solar power are uneconomic and require huge subsidies. If one wants to have energy sources that do not emit CO2, then nuclear energy is readily available.

· Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation is uneconomic. Natural gas is better used as a home heating fuel and, in compressed form, as a substitute for oil in transportation.

· Extraterrestrial electric power generation, for example by a Solar Power Satellite system, becomes less attractive.

· None of this argues against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices – irrespective of what one may think about climate change and global warming.

Read the whole thing.

I’ve said it many times - the observational data on climate do not even vaguely match the predictions of current climate models.  It’s just nice to have that confirmed.  Again.

As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable at present. This critique arises from the argument that we need to wait several decades before we may know how reliable the predictions will be. However, elements of falsifiability already exist, given that many of the climatic model outputs contain time series for past periods. In particular, the models of the IPCC Third Assessment Report have projected future climate starting from 1990; thus, there is an 18-year period for which comparison of model outputs and reality is possible.

You have to read the article to find out how falsifiable climate models are.  It’ll be worth it.  Really. Want a little taste of conclusions?  Try this one out:

Climactic models generally fail to reporduce the long-term changes on temperature and precipitation.

This further confirmation of my beliefs concerning AGW found via Kate at Small Dead Animals.

Not so overwhelming after all?

{T}he Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Read the comments - the attackers of the study complain that most of the scientists aren’t climatologists (that wasn’t an issue when Gore was quoting economists and social scientists), that it’s politically motivated (how could that commentor write that without laughing out loud), and that it’s not peer reviewed (suggesting that the comment has exactly zero idea what peer review is, or what it is supposed to do).

The momentum will continue to build.  The hysteria over AGW will (hopefully) be replaced by reasoned debate amongst scientists.  And Al Gore will have to move on to his next scam to keep the Tennessee estate financed and the utility bills paid.

Gets slippery-er.

This is the first time that the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming. There has been concern within the business community that such action could have far-reaching impact and could be used to regulate carbon dioxide.

As always, there are declarative statements by environmental activists that aren’t backed up by any objective evidence:

“The science is absolutely clear that polar bear needs protection under the Endangered Species Act,” said Andrew Wetzler, director of the endangered species program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Oh, really?  Rachel Carson would, undoubtedly, be proud of what she has wrought.