This is truly depressing, Alan. Not entirely surprising, but depressing nonetheless.

It will be interesting to see what other non-pop-culture worthy areas of science loss funding or whether this is truly their only bugbear.

It's fantastic news -- the budgets for "fighting" "climate change" under the previous regime was all about feel-good tripe, with no intention of delivering any benefit to Canadians or the world, quanitifiable or not.

You've been sold a bill of goods with Kyoto, IPCC (et al) that had nothing to do about climate and science but all to do with politics and religion. We're all sinners! Repent and find salvation in handing the economy over to our well meaning superiors in government and science.

More seriously, few links here, if you want to follow them. The last link (the PDF) is a good starting point.

I may pretty much agree with you, David...but I may not. There are three distinct questions:<ul><li>does global warming exist?</li><li>did human activity create/contribute?</li><li>can specific human response change it?</li></ul>If you are, as you appear to be, saying the specific responsive policies at the question #3 level are politics and religion and therefore failures, that is possibly reasonable. But many neo-cons (tinged by their owner creationist religious partners) balk at #1 (which is nutty as it denies available evidence) or #2 (which may be nutty depending on the response to the evidence). If you are there, I am concerned for you and can recommend specific IKEA furniture acquisitions which may assist.

I suppose these

Oh no. The Flea has fallen down.

I suppose these sixty scientists are off the climate change reservation. And it may turn out they are mistaken (though I doubt it). But to my mind claiming there is a "scientific consensus" where there isn't is the "nutty" - and non-scientific - position.

The answer to all of these questions are ... complicated. Longer answer later, maybe. Trying not to f-up the hand.

#3 the answer is -- pretty well no, under any even marginally realistic scenario. Longer answer: we are _way_ overdue for an ice age, so we may be more trying to find a way to keep the climate warmer than cooler.

If I was a climate/weather junkie and wanted to improve the lot of the human race, I would be looking for ways to stop desertification in Africa/Asia and trying to find ways to reduce air polution in NA/Europe. Unfortunately, these don't have sex appeal.

From the Flea's linked article above:<blockquote class="smalltext">Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote. "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.</blockquote>I reserve my claim of obvious nuttiness to denying the evidence of the melting Arctic, the #1 question. There is little doubt that there is temperature and CO2 level increases. But these yet may be natural fluxuations so if by "global warming" we only mean "global warming caused by the internal combustion engine and its friends" that is a #2 level question which may be nutty or not.

Actually, there's a fair bit of doubt whether there's been a long term trend for temperature increase.

I would agree with David that there are likely better bangs for bucks than posters and another consulting contract for Rick (he's so funny <i>and</i> clever) Mercer. Don't push the hand, David. There is nothing worse to witness than a hypomaniac with compromised communications capacity.

More (ignoring your last comment about the hand). There's a fairly desperate need in Canada for better _weather_ products: improved radar imaging, more reporting stations, improved forecast products, new forecast products. This stuff makes a huge difference for industry risk analysis and life saving.

A lot of this get be a net win-win, as much of the new stuff should be in the artic and other hard to reach locations, where if GW/AGW is real, the effects are most likely to be delieritous (however you spell that).

That is reasonable as I am one who is not convinced the anti-GW science is very sound science. It is mere refutation of the sort that is attractive to bloggers and defence lawyers but which does not present a viable alternate hypothesis, as you know a hallmark for me of weak thinking (as I have debated with you before), to explain apparently apparent facts. No viable alternate explanation, I do not listen nor should I.

Follow the money.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

I assume both sides have pockets filled by wealthy elderly of Connecticut in most arguments.

But both sides do not have an ideological lock on academic hirings and promotions.

oo, burn. good one.

Of course they do - haven't you heard of the Universities of Chicago and Calgary not to mention the Fraser Institute and various others with Heritage in the name? Each has their own networks of self-aggrandizement and promotion.

It is quite a relief to read that Mr. Harper thinks better of it that David, defending his plan to <a href="Mr. Harper's assertion yesterday that his government doesn't have plans to cut spending on Environment Canada programs designed to fight global warming by 80 per cent">not cut most Environment Canada programs</a>, just the pointless ones. That's a relief for sure.

I assume this means if I check the climatologists of the University of Chicago and the University of Calgary I will find evidence of these fairy gold endowments. I can't say how much climate research the Fraser Institute has underway.

Assume more obviuosly, breath more freely and then recollect the role of the meddling economists in all things. They do not understand science so science - hey, presto - is refuted.

That's almost zen-poetic Al, let me reformat

Assume more obviuosly
Breath more freely ... and then
Recollect the role of the meddling
Economists in all things
They do not understand science
So science - hey!
Presto is refuted

(this is a non-content oriented comment, just thought it looked funny in my RSS feed)

I knew you understood me, baby.

If I had my post back, I would have made meddling upper case, added a blank line before the last and corrected the spelling of obviously. *ahem*:

<p>
<i>
Assume more obviously
Breath more freely

... and then ...

Recollect the role of The Meddling
Economists in all things
They do not understand science
So science - hey!

Presto is refuted
</i>

Ah, that's been bothering me all afternoon.