Guyana's Argument Applied to Canada

 

Environnmental Panic

 

https://x.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1746222929359323247?s=20

Impressive--Vivek is as good as Poilievre here.

Jordan Peterson and Bjorn Lomborg

 

A sobering assessment.

Is Climate Change Real? These Prominent Scientists Say the Science Is Not Settled.

 

"The theory of anthropogenic climate change has no reliable scientific basis."

It's not about science. It's about grabbing more power.

That's why they're targeting the truckers and the farmers: the occupations most able to resist government control.

Murder Cows

 

Dutch farmers are protesting, a protest that seems to be spreading across Europe. The Dutch government—and other European governments, in principle—are forcing farmers to cut their herds, due to the possible effect of cows on global warming. This makes many family farms uneconomical; family farming is always on a tight margin. In Europe, this can mean losing a farm that has been in the family not just for generations, but for centuries.

Given that global warming is a clear and present danger—a debatable claim—it still seems odd to press for this just now. Experts are warning we are on the verge of a general food shortage and possible famine, due to existing supply chain problems and the war in Ukraine. Why now?

It also seems unlikely that the main cause of global warming is European family farms. Are there really more cows in Europe now than a hundred, or five hundred, years ago? If so, might the projected decline in the European population solve the problem without such measures?

This is eerily reminiscent of the Canadian government’s insistence, recently, that all truckers had to be vaccinated against COVID. Even though ninety percent already were; even though they came in contact with virtually nobody in their jobs; even though we were facing severe supply chain disruptions.

Why are governments taking such radical actions that seem to be against the public interest?

It is not because of global warming, and it is not because of COVID; because different governments are appealing to different supposed emergencies. There has to be an ulterior motive. One they do not want to admit to.

Thomas Jefferson, inventor of liberal democracy, maintained that a liberal democracy, in order to survive, required independent freeholders—family farmers. If governments became oppressive, only independent freeholders had the resources to resist. Only they were not beholden to the system, surviving paycheck to paycheck. If necessary in order to organize opposition, they could survive for a time off the grid, outside the system, feeding themselves and their families. 

Add to them truckers; if one jurisdiction becomes oppressive, truckers can move with their livelihood elsewhere, even if necessary living in their truck. This continues in a way the tradition of the open west; a tradition of migration that may also historically have ensured American freedom. 

If governments are in open confrontation with these two groups, it means government wants to shut this option down. It means their intent is to terminate our ability to resist or change our government.

COP26

 

The biggest news from the conference is that Biden allegedly farted. Next biggest is that he fell asleep...

Comrade Xerxes complains that the recent COP26 climate conference got too little accomplished.

I agree that COP26 was just a circus and accomplishes nothing.

The problem is the tragedy of the commons. Because the atmosphere is a shared resource, there is incentive for each country to grab what they can before the other guy does. It takes great altruism—or naivite--to cripple one’s economy for the sake of the group, knowing as soon as you do the next country will just grab whatever is left on the table. 

No such summit is ever likely to accomplish anything, and it is no surprise that none has. Surely the leaders know it. Surely Greta Thunberg knows it. They’re all conning us.

Xerxes goes too far in lamenting that “no nation” has reduced emissions. The US, the UK, and the EU all have. The problem is, this is because manufacturing has been relocating to China and other developing countries. Great stat to cite to get re-elected, but the real net effect is a rise in global emissions, because the finished goods must now be transported long distances. And energy production is less efficient in these countries. The move is also suicidal should war ever come with China.

Any further restrictions on carbon emissions in developed countries will have the same effect: more industry moves to countries with cheaper energy, and emissions rise.

The only real way to fight greenhouse gases is with improved technology. If world leaders were serious about the problem, they would fund promising scientific research: nuclear fusion, producing fuel with algae, more efficient solar cells, and so forth. Not including subsidizing solar and wind installations or electric vehicles, so long as these are not economically viable on their own merits—because this raises energy prices, and again drives industry to more polluting regions. 

And, realistically, the problem probably can be solved this way: by developing a better energy source. We probably already have the technology to move to safe nuclear power. There is no value but graft in wasting money elsewhere.

The conference’s agreement to end deforestation is another bit of empty virtue-signalling. Deforestation is going to end regardless of government action. It ended decades ago in the developed world, as marginal farmland, no longer needed, went out of production. The movement of communication online has reduced the demand for pulp and paper, and this decline will probably continue.

Xerxes has a different solution to all: depopulation. I am surprised anyone any longer believes in it. 

To begin with, depopulation by government action is unethical. I think we established with the defeat of Nazism that governments cannot legitimately tinker in the reproductive rights of citizens. Forced abortion or sterilization is not okay.

Ethical government means seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Denying life itself to future generations is denying them the most self-evident good, and their most fundamental right. To deny life to some so that others can have more material comforts is patently unjust. It is a violation of Kant’s categorical imperative, that people must always be an end, not a means.

Even if that equation made ethical sense, it is fairly clear from the evidence that people’s happiness does not improve with more material goods. So it’s all downside.

It is not even clear that a larger population means less for everyone. Every new person is both a producer and a consumer. He or she will, on average, add more to the common wealth than they take out. Some of the richest countries are also the most densely populated: the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Switzerland. As the population of the world has been growing rapidly, the rate of poverty and of hunger has been declining rapidly. 

But, you may argue, we could run out of resources.

We could; but this is pretty theoretical. The price of commodities in general has also been declining. Over history, the individual human footprint keeps shrinking. The point of technology is that it allows us to do more with less.

So long as the politicians don’t mess us up.

Global Warming Is Global

 

Nigel Farage argues that the impressive reduction in carbon emissions that the US, UK, and Canada boast about is actually due to moving manufacturing to other countries, notably China. The probable result is a net rise in global carbon emissions, as we must now also burn fuel to transport the goods to more distant markets.

What we have is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Nobody is ultimately responsible for the atmosphere, and so we will never get coordinated action.

The only real solution to the problem of global warming is improved technology. I expect it will come: nuclear fusion, generating fuel with algae, carbon capture technologies.

The most useful thing the Canadian government could do, perhaps, is to offer funding for such research.

Facing the Heat

 

I have been recently asked on a Mensa discussion list to comment on climate change. Can we all get it together before we fry?

Long-time readers of this blog may know my position on this.

The concept of global warming, or climate change, is based on expert predictions of the middle to distant future, using computer models.

The important thing to understand about computer models is that they are only as good as the data and assumptions: GIGO, as computer programmers used to warn the overly-reverent.

The important thing to understand about expert predictions of the middle to distant future is that they are usually wrong. Studies show they are less reliable than random chance, than flipping a coin, or than asking the average man in the street.

There are reasons for this. In the real world, most times, things go on as they have been going on, in more or less a straight line on a graph, or with regular oscillations, without changing radically. But if an expert says this, it has no news value. Nobody will be very interested, and nobody will see much use in their expertise. If, on the other hand, they forecast a dramatic change coming soon, it attracts attention—it attracts business.

Better yet if they forecast a pending catastrophe, that can only be averted by strenuous investment in their special expertise.

So there is a built-in incentive to forecast outcomes that are worse than what is likely.

This is reinforced by the human tendency to forget any dramatic predictions that did not come true, and only remember those surprising ones that did. So experts can afford to be wrong, repeatedly. Astrology works the same way.

Back in the Sixties, the experts were telling us we were going to run out of food and clean water within twenty years. In the Eighties, we were less than a decade away from “peak oil,” and a collapse of the world economy from a lack of energy. Also in the Eighties, we were all going to die of AIDS. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? The sky has been falling for a very long time.

The really dire predictions about global warming may be true, but what are the odds?

The thing we call “climate change” or “global warming” is a set of assumptions, not just one. At least, if you reject any one of them, you are a “climate change denier.” We do not have the expertise nor access to the data to evaluate these for ourselves; we must rely on experts.

1. That the earth is getting warmer year by year.

2. That this is on balance a bad thing.

3. That human beings can realistically do something about it.

4. That the cost of doing something about it is less than the cost of letting it happen.

5. That we, as individuals or as a nation, can realistically do something about it.

6. That some technological advance will not eliminate it without government intervention.

Now let’s put aside the observation that expert predictions are usually wrong, and just give them all fifty-fifty odds. Then, for all of them to be true, the odds are 1.5 out of a hundred.

How much money are we prepared to invest on a 1.5% chance of coming out ahead?

A Sea Route to the Orient

 

There is a bright possibility in Canada’s future, which, of course, our ruling elite is doing whatever they can to prevent.

Global warming.

The possibilities for expanded agriculture are obvious, for the second largest and second coldest nation on earth.

But here’s another opportunity: the Northwest Passage.

It was the original promise of Canada: a faster, shorter, route between Europe and Asia. Something more valuable year by year, as Asia develops. Currently, the best option is the Panama Canal. But an open passage over the top of Canada would be shorter, like the Great Circle Route favoured by the airlines, and would allow for far larger ships to pass.

Canadian port facilities built along the route could be an important economic boost—as being on the strategic Straits of Malacca bottleneck helps Singapore now.

Of course, aside from trying to stop global warming on conservative principle, the elite will object to large-scale shipping in the North because of possible spills and environmental damage.

Yet the same considerations ought then to shut down the Singapore Strait, the English Channel, or the Panama Canal. Do we worry about it there?

But what, you will say, of the livelihood of aboriginal people, if such damage occurs?

Probably no Inuit still survive by hunting on the ice floes. That is a romantic fantasy. Give them those port facilities, and they can have high-paying jobs instead of subsisting on welfare.

It could open up the Greater North to development.

Is Environmentalism Extinct?

Popularity per capita of maps featuring the colour red. Not to scale.

Folks are saying the world is going to change. Things will never go back to normal after the coronavirus. Globalism is dead. 

I think maybe environmentalism too.

To be fair, my friend Xerxes joins Pope Francis in declaring the opposite: that the pandemic somehow reinforces the environmentalist argument. It is nature taking revenge.

But that is not how it looks to me.

Reports say the canals of Venice now run clear; you can see the fish. They say the skies are clear above Beijing. You can see from satellites.

Xerxes says this shows how much our actions affect the Earth. I think the opposite. It seems to me this reveals our “environmental footprint” is lighter than we imagined. Turn things off for a few weeks, and nature seems to forget we were ever there.

I think of Shelley’s "Ozymandias."

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Was environmentalism always an expression of hubris? Supposing we humans were in control of nature, that we could calibrate the global temperature a hundred years from now right down to a degree or two, like adjusting the thermostat in our home?

Were we arrogant in supposing nature was a maiden so fragile that she needed us to do so? Weren’t we really seeing ourselves as godlike?

The coronavirus reminds us we are arguably not the dominant species on earth. We are definitely not the top of the food chain. Microbes feast on us.

Nature also looks less lovable and benevolent than it did a year ago, doesn’t it?

The coronavirus reminds us that our best-laid plans as men gang aft agley; the epidemic caught us off-guard. Ten years ago, the experts were warning of “peak oil.” Suddenly the price of oil is less than zero. During the crisis, expert advice, expert predictions, expert models for the virus death rate, the rate of hospitalization, the rate of respirator use, have been consistently wrong.

All the computer models and charts and graphs that showed what the global temperature is going to be in 2090, much further in the future and with many more possible variables, are looking quaint and naïve now. Relics of a bygone day when things seemed much simpler. Rather like the 1950s’ confidence that science had a solution for everything.

Environmentalism was always a cheap substitute for religion. It was an amoral creed with man at the centre. A wise and merciful God might even have sent the virus to destroy it, as he did the human sacrifices of Canaan, or Ninevah, or Tyre.

The Sky Is Always Falling

The well-educated will recognize the story illustrated immediately.

My columnist buddy Xerxes argues that the experts have been warning us of dire global consequences, from overpopulation, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, for centuries. Since the time of Malthus. Just the other day, a new battalion of 11,000 scientists warned of dire imminent consequences from global warming. “Planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”

He suggests it is high time to start listening.

He is right: we have been hearing this for decades, centuries. When I was finishing high school, our Biology teacher made us all buy and read Erlich’s The Population Bomb. It warned us of a catastrophic world famine coming in the 80s. Since this was our own near future, we had better be prepared for it. Time magazine was warning, at about the same time, of the impending Ice Age. My best friend’s life plan was to emigrate to New Zealand. He figured that would be the last place for the global cataclysm to reach. For we would soon all be killing each other over access to water.

Cut to the chase: every single such prediction of pending doom precise enough to be scientifically tested, since the time of Malthus, has been proven wrong. Instead, the world is substantially wealthier, on the whole, than it was in Malthus’s time, or even Erlich’s.

So why would we believe the experts?

The problem is the problem of the boy who cried wolf.

Heard a podcast from Levitt and Dubner, the folks who wrote Freakonomics, a while ago. Highly recommended podcast. Studies they cite find that expert predictions in any field are usually wrong. They are less accurate than chance, and less accurate than if you asked the average man in the street.

The reason for this is explained in Aesop’s fable. Most times, for most things, in most ways, the future is going to be continuous with the past. Dramatic change is rare; if it were not, it would not be dramatic. But more of the same is not interesting or newsworthy. And it is hard to convince us that we need experts to tell us things are fine as they are.

So every expert has a vested interest in predicting dramatic change; ideally, a doomsday scenario, requiring their urgent help. If they do this, they get the media, they get the grants, they get the academic chair, they get fame and fortune. If they do not, they risk losing their livelihood.

You would think over time expert advice would be discredited for usually being wrong. But here’s another little psychological quirk: people tend to forget false predictions, and remember successes. Again, predictions of dramatic change that did not come true are not very newsworthy or exciting. Predictions that did, if of some dramatic change, are memorable and striking. Astrology, fortune telling, and witch doctoring have succeeded for millennia on this basis.

The moral: we need to spend less time listening to the experts, and more time reading the ancient wisdom.

For example, “Chicken Little” might also apply here.

Steve

The Resurrection of the Left

My left-wing friend Xerxes has chosen the occasion of Easter to declare his belief that our civilization is in need of a resurrection.

I find it fascinating that we both think our civilization or culture is in crisis, both left and right think so, but for completely different reasons.

What alarms me is an apparent growing lack of faith, values, morals, growing totalitarianism, and an aggressive attempt to shut down civil discourse. What frightens him is growing income inequality and global warming. Both of which strike me as non-issues.

As for income inequality, it is inevitable, if everyone is getting richer, that income inequality is going to grow. If, for example, everyone’s income goes up by 20%, the result will be greater income inequality. Income inequality is reduced, conversely, so long as everyone is getting poorer. And an economy that is not growing is almost surely shrinking. So you really have only two choices: either growing income inequality, or growing poverty.

In addition, if any new advancement is found, improving prosperity generally, those who invent, discover, or first adopt it will see their incomes shoot ahead. It will take time for this to spread to everyone. By that time, with any luck, something  else new has been invented. Accordingly, the better everyone’s life is getting, the more income inequality you will get.

And what exactly is the problem with income inequality? So long as everyone is getting enough to meet their needs, how does it harm A if B is doing better? To object is surely simply the sin of envy: I am coveting my neighbour’s goods. This is sometimes presented as the worst of all sins. It was the sin of Cain, that brought murder into the world. Some make it the sin of Eve, and of Lucifer as well; the Quran does.

As for global warming, the full proposition we are required to accept is not just that the earth is getting warmer. To avoid “denying,” you must embrace a sequence of assertions: 1. That the earth is getting warmer. 2. That this will not be corrected by any natural processes or upcoming technological improvements, without conscious large-scale human intervention. 3. That the earth getting warmer is, on balance, a bad rather than a good thing. 4. That we can meaningfully do something about it, and 5. That the costs of doing something about it are less than the costs of letting it happen.

Each of these proposition is clearly in dispute, including the first, that the earth is getting warmer. Just do a web search. Some say it is getting colder. The computer models that assert global warming have so far been consistently wrong whenever they have made a prediction specific enough to be tested. Given that we do not know whom to believe, and have no personal expertise in the area, we should rationally take them all at 50/50 odds. Each requires the previous one to be true, so this is cumulative. We end up with a 3.1275% chance of the “global warming” dogma being true and large-scale government action being justified. That’s not good odds for putting down a lot of money. And that is without factoring in whether the given solution proposed is going to be the proper one, if there is more than one option, and whether you can convince all the governments of the world to adopt it.

The Sky is Falling and We Are All Doomed

Deserts of the World

This is one of the phrases I had to teach today—in an English class:

“As the earth gets warmer through global warming, and climate change makes life harder for plants, animals, and people to live, we need to find ways to make our world a better place.”

It is hard not to gag. Yet I am forced to teach this, no doubt like millions of other teachers of every conceivable subject all over the globe.

Let’s assume that the climate is indeed changing, and that the globe is getting warmer. Let’s assume this is primarily because of what mankind is doing. Fine. Those are both debatable, but fine. Even so, how clear is it that this will make life harder for plants, animals, or people? Surely at least the case must be made. We ought not to be teaching kids to take everything on faith, and not to think about it.

Fundamentally, the argument is that global warming is being caused by more carbon dioxide in the air. Right? Carbon dioxide is essential food for plants. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should make life easier for plants.

Animals, then, live on plants. More plants should make life easier for animals.

Humans live on plants and animals. More plants and animals should make life easier for humans.

Plants also live on warmth. The warmest part of the earth is the tropics. The tropics are also the lushest part of the earth, where there is the greatest abundance of plant and animal life and plants and animals grow fastest. There is no part of the world that is too warm for plant life. The warmer it gets, the more plant life. The coldest part is at the poles, and this is the part of the earth most barren of plant and animal life. Cold enough, and there is no plant or animal life, as at the South Pole.

Accordingly, if the colder parts of the planet get warmer, we should have more plant and animal life, not less. At the same time, if the tropics get warmer, we will again probably get more plant and animal life. There seems no risk of getting too warm.

Aha! You will say; what about the deserts?

The earth’s deserts are not at the equator; not at what should naturally be the warmest places on earth. Deserts are not caused by excessive heat, but by a lack of precipitation, by a lack of moisture. They also become desperately hot, true, but this is caused secondarily, by the lack of precipitation, cloud cover, and vegetation.

Now consider: with global warming, we are all warned, the ice caps are supposed to melt, and the sea level to rise. There will be a lot more water for the evaporation cycle, the process of evaporation should be faster, and so there should be more rainfall on balance everywhere. Hence, fewer and smaller deserts.

Hence, more plant life. Water is also food for plants. And more animal life, as the animals live off the plants. And more human life.

I’m sure it will all be terrible, and the world will end as we know it. It is just hard to see how.

Global Warming for a Greener Future

Heat is not the problem.

To accept the general concern about global warming, aka climate change, you need to believe five things: 1. that the Earth is getting warmer, 2. that humans are causing it, 3. that it is a bad thing, 4. that we can stop it, and 5. that it makes economic sense to stop it. Bjorn Lomborg, for example, is a “denier” for accepting all but point 5. 

But an obvious weakness is point 3. After all, the “Medieval warm period” seems to have been a time of relative prosperity. 

Basically, CO2 is food for plants. It is a powerful fertilizer. Therefore, the rising CO2 concentrations that supposedly cause global warming are also certainly boosting crop yields and greening the planet. This may be considered separate from the global warming issue; but any plan to reduce CO2 emissions is also, automatically, going to reduce plant growth (and hence animal habitat) worldwide. Isn't this what we were claiming to avoid?

In general, heat from the sun is also a powerful fertilizer. There is a reason why it is called the “greenhouse effect.” A longer growing season in the temperate zones also means more vegetation and more food.

Is there a tradeoff, conversely, in the tropics? No—even at the equator, it is not “too hot” for agriculture. Flora and fauna are simply much more abundant, and crops come in year-round.

Ah, you are thinking deserts, perhaps? Look on a map. Deserts do not occur at the equator. They are not caused by excessive heat from the sun. They are caused by a lack of moisture, caused in turn by prevailing wind patterns. 

So, would global warming increase the size of deserts? Warming, per se, will not, so we have to guess at collateral effects. I ain't no climate scientist, but it seems to me the effect of CO2 promoting plant growth will work to reduce, not expand desert areas. And increased heat should lead to increased evaporation, therefore increased cloud cover, and increased precipitation. Result: less desert worldwide.

However, the bad news is that recent data seem to refute climate change point 1—the Earth has not gotten warmer since the 1990s.

The Global Warming Movement Showing Its Frustration?

Incredibly, this "mini-movie" was created by a _supporter and advocate_ of the 10:10 campaign and the campaign against "global warming." Not only is this how he really thinks, but he does not imagine anyone else could find it troublesome.

This, I submit, is how the modern left as a whole really thinks, in general, about people who are, unluckily, not themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM

Of a Climate of the Mind

It is odd that views on global warming are so consistent with political leanings: left-wingers always believe in it and want something done; right-wingers usually doubt it and want to wait and see. It should not be so; it should be based on the science. But most of us are not climate scientists; yet we must all make the judgement, since huge sums of public money are involved.

So here's my take, as someone who is emphatically not a "climate scientist." Leave aside science: here's my simple math. The value of protocols like Kyoto or Copenhagen depends on a string of unproven assumptions being true. 1) First, the world must indeed be warming. 2) This warming must indeed be unprecedented in speed and scale. 3) Its overall effects must be harmful, not helpful or neutral. 4) It must be possible for humans to do something to prevent it (whether or not they have caused it). 5) The cost of doing something to prevent it must be less than the cost of the event if it occurs. And 6) the particular solutions agreed upon in such a conference must be the most effective means to prevent it, or reasonably close to the most effective.

None of us who are not scientists have any real data to address any of these claims. So, in the absence of evidence, what are the odds that proposition 1 is true? There are three possibilities, a warming earth, a cooling earth, or an earth staying at about the same temperature. So our odds are 33.3%. Cut that in half to represent the odds of thesis 2, which seems to be a yes/no proposition. We're at 16.65%. There are three options again for the third thesis: we're at 5.5%. Halve that again for proposition 4: 2.775%. Again for proposition 5: 1.3875%. Option 6 seems to be less than a real 50/50 proposition, given the known unscientific nature of politics, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt: the overall likelihood of money spent for Kyoto or Copenhagen being money well spent stands at 0.69376%. Put another way, there is a 99.30624% chance we are wasting our money.

I don't like them odds. They'd be worth pitching in for if the prize were big enough and the price of entry cheap enough; like lightning insurance or a ticket on the lottery. But not much more.

But this is precisely the calculation that all of us who are not climate scientists should be making. Even if there were a consensus among climate scientists—and this is not at all clear—those of us who are not climate scientists could not trust it, since asserting the reality of global warming is clearly in any climate scientist's self-interest.

Indeed, that being the case, we should probably chip a bit more off those odds. Make it 0.34688%.

On top of that, I have one further caveat. Consider, if you will, that we are in effect talking here about the weather. That's all climate really is, so far as I can see: long-range weather prediction. Now, any one of us knows from our own common experience that we are not very good at this. We can do reasonably well in forecasting a day ahead, a lot less well for a week ahead, and are notably unreliable once we get much beyond that threshold. The Old Farmer's Almanac does as well as anybody at a year's distance.

So how likely are we to be accurate in any forecast of climate a hundred years hence?

“Chaos theory” was invented by Edward Lorenz in 1961 specifically to explain our inability to predict future weather patterns.

Here's Wikipedia on Chaos theory:

"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, _rendering long-term prediction impossible in general_."

Emphasis mine.

"... [Lorenz] wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time.

To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. ... The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so a value like 0.506127 was printed as 0.506. ... Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.[35] Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period (at most)."

Just to double-check Wikipedia's veracity, here's "Whatis.com" on the same subject:

"Poincare proved mathematically that, even if the initial measurements could be made a million times more precise, that the uncertainty of prediction for outcomes did not shrink along with the inaccuracy of measurement, but remained huge. Unless initial measurements could be absolutely defined - an impossibility - predictability for complex - chaotic - systems performed scarcely better than if the predictions had been randomly selected from possible outcomes."

So “climate science” is perfectly positioned as a distant canvas on which we can project anything we want or can imagine: including mankind's eternal fantasy of the world coming to an end in some great catastrophe of water or fire. “Here be monsters.”

And now, we also have the intriguing evidence of “Climategate”...

The whole affair strikes me as almost laughable. It probably belongs in a newly-revised edition of “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.”

Global Warming Update

Some good comment on global warming from the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Sky Is Falling! No, Really! This Time It's For Real. No Kidding.

This could be useful: an attempt at a complete list of the things caused by global warming.