View or search for all towns »


Bad Global Warming Science Hurts the Environmental Movement

Opinions supported by factual information. Rather than adjusting the stats to fit the narrative.


If want to read the unadjusted statistics, visit

Amazing how faulty science and bad models have misguided critical conservation efforts and misrepresented conservation success. Most distressing how global warming advocates have opposed appropriate conservation efforts simply because the concerned scientists did not blame climate change. Landscapes and Cycles

I'm not sure where to even start with how poor this fellow's assumptions (and suggestions) are. Just the glacial "facts" he's presenting are so poor that it's laughable. His tactic is exactly what tabacco companies used for many years - attempt to introduce the "no conscensus" argument. It's effective as a tactic, but the science doesn't support any of his views (and a 1-2% of dissenting science is just that - it's by no means "no conscensus"). 

Kudos to him for fixing some relatively isolated landscaping issues - truly, kudos - but success on that scale doesn't make him anywhere close to an expert on the bigger issues. An easy to mistake to make. He should continue that work.

Interesting post... Begins with a bit of shock followed by some denial. There are several links to supporting information in the global warming pause video. The facts the IPCC leaves out of their publication or embeds in the fine print or isn't mentioned in the news.

Most opinions are based on personal experience and listenng to the news, which consists of a vast majority of the public. There are scientific reports based upon ethically researched facts. And there is censored and adjusted data to spread a predetermined message. I could provide links to many ethically scientific articles and reports. What one chooses to believe as right or wrong is usually based upon a predetermined belief.

A form  of  communication  that  attempts  to  achieve a  response  that  furthers  the  desired  intent is also known as propaganda, manufacturing consent and now self-organizing collective intelligence. Thinkers never stop asking questions because they know that this is the best way to gain deeper insights. Unfortunately, a large part of society is not interested in asking questions. I rarley asked questions. Now I enjoy continuosly asking questions.


Clicked the link for entertainment purposes. The fact this guy's word splash of common hashtags include "anarchy" "alternative media" "police state" and "resistance" lead me to believe he isn't an evidence-based critical thinker, but someone who views the world from the perspective that everything we are told by experts and officials is a lie and goes from there. Not exactly unbiased source. 

Also - please don't ever link blogs as "evidence" for anything. Peer-review exists for a reason. 

Where you successfully entertained? Hopefully you didn't get distracted by the hashtags.

Describing someone using Open Source Intelligence, a form of weblog, as having a biased opinion could be considered a biased opinion. One might categorize a private newspaper or a private foundation as biased? What isn't? Try searching for CIA mines content from blogs

Okay, so here are 2 professors debating climate change.

Depending on your biases, the link below is good article.

Please Use Caution, this professional opinion may not be peer reviewed.

Global warming has hijacked real enviromentalism.  That's the point. To distract from real issues.  And to line Al Gores and others pockets.  It has worked perfectly. 

Sun is the driver of climate. The sun has never been a static light bulb.  It has cycles that are not understood. But that's the point.  'The sky is falling' theorists want mass hysterical ignorance.  'You're to blame, Pay more taxes for your guilt, only I can make it better; only I can save the endangered polar bear'.  Just pay Al.  Remember that?   They sure put a lot of time, money, ads, articles and effort to convince all us first worlders that polar bears are about to go extinct.  Of course so called climate scientists never do any ground research, like talk to first nations peoples that live where the bears live.  They prefer to stare at computer based climate modules in a downtown NY building.   Making predictions based on bias, deciminated by the mainstream media.  It's total non-sence. Non-science.



Nice and concise articles. thanks for the links. I'll add them to my library.

The Climategate emails answer so many questions and motives kept hidden from the public. The IPCC scientists describe the public as the ignorant masses.

Here is a link to a Climategate report with emails going back to 1996.

If there are any question in our society today, just follow the money.

"I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."


Not sure what to say about reports. All I know is I've lived in the Kootenays a long time, work outside, and it seems like the Summers are getting hotter, every year get closer to stroking out from the heat, especially Trail, and except for last year, Winters seem milder and shorter. Thats about all I can add. 

Jeff - thank you for linking to - great site! I highly recommend a look at the arguments page for any fans or foes of climate skepticism.  For all the skiers (or bikers, I guess), there are different levels of explanation for most myths: cruisy green circle, the hearty blue square, or full-on black diamond snorkel-science deep exploration.


Also, Jeff, I'm not sure what your intention was in linking to - this page essentially explains that: 1) there is little evidence to support the idea that Mars is warming (and as such that all planets, inc Earth should be experiencing warming due to the sun), and 2) other factors aside from solar variation are the main drivers of Martian climate. 

I don't think people are denying there is global warming taking place.  Most enviromentalists jump on the "You are a denier" before they take the time to listen to anyone who does not follow their doctrine.  I have written several well researched articles on the global warming theory and get feed back that's so far off what I am trying to convey that it's laughable.

Yes, the planet is going through a global warming stage, as it has done many, many times.  Part of the problem is, humans cannot grasp the realm of earth time.  The global warming group talk about 50 -75 years.  In earth time, that's a few seconds.  To evaluate earth time, consider our "1 hour" as 500 thousand years in earth time.  We actually had a mini ice age in the 1300s that lasted 75 years. At that time the Saskatchewan River froze solid.  The last global ice age was 25,000 years ago. Scientists still cannot pin point the length of time it took for the last ice age to reach its apex and what the time span was between the ice before that to when the last ice age started.  What they do know is that the temperatures changed by 25 F. as the earth cold down. 

Scientists can prove four ice ages that destroyed 90% of all living matter on this planet in the past 4.6 billion years.  There were two ice ball stages.  Between those ice ages, there had to be global warming.  We need to think in earth time rather than 25 - 50 years in human time.  

Predicting or modeling the future is a topic that could be debated forever.

Statistics can easily be grouped to suit anyone's needs. How do they calculate a trending pattern? Well that depends on the time period chosen, 10s, 100s, thousands or millions of years. Is CO2 linked directly to temperature? Maybe the rise in temperature precedes the rise in CO2. Don't ignore the effects of the largest greenhouse gas, water vapour (clouds), or the impact the massive deep sea in the climate forecast model. Far too many selective assumptions are made when analysing. The small trivial items can greatly alter the outcome. Garbage in equals garbage out. Although, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

Climate science is an extremely complex topic with many influential factors that are conveniently left out. I think the cherry picking by those in powerful positions greatly reduces the trust we have in scientists. This does more harm than good. To go from unequivocal predictions of an ice age to multiple warming apocalypses in less than 50 years sends a very strong skeptical message.

Climate change has evolved into private business that's publicly subsidized. My prediction is that we'll be either be in debt and hot, in debt and cold or in debt and warm. Notice a pattern?

Can understand how anyone worried about environmental issues can live mere miles from a spewing Lead Facility Oh and the acid plant? Ha Rosslands the last place anyone concerned with environmental health should be residing Look around next time your in Trail...  Smell that?

Sorry but should say Can’t understand how anyone worried... Been here two years obviously the Leaded air and arsenic waters getting to me. Next stage should include hating on newcomers and acting like Rosslands some sorta Epic paradise...

The 99% global labor and debt prison helps with the irony. The old adage "if you don't like the message then kill the messenger" is a very common tactic.

It's also very important to differentiate pollution from global warming. With which the 'green' ethanol and 'smart' technologies pollute enormous amounts all in the name of climate change.