1. New on the Web: ATTORNEYS-GENERAL FROM 8 STATES FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST 5 COAL-BURNING UTILITIES, CLAIMING CO2 EMISSIONS CREATE A NUISANCE. Michael Krauss and Fred Singer, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (Aug. 3), explain why the utilities should win the suit: "Junk science plus junk law add up to one super-junk case."
**************************************************************

2. THE CO2 BATTLE IN THE US

3. RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TAKES STAND ON GLOBAL WARMING
Opinion of the RAS Council-workshop on possible anthropogenic climate change and on the issue of Kyoto Protocol

4. Climate Science: SOLAR ACTIVITY AND TEMPERATURES IN RECENT DECADES: Challenging the Paradigm of Global Warming

5. THE BBC PROMOTES GLOBAL WARMING SCARES

6. MY ENCOUNTER WITH MICHAEL MEACHER ON BBC

7. CANADA DROPS ENVIRONMENT MINISTER ANDERSON FROM CABINET-TRITTIN NEXT?

8. WEATHER WARNINGS IN BRITAIN - A SPOOF
****************************************************************
*****************************************************************

2. The CO2 battle in the US

The AGs' tort suit against the utilities may at last provide us a court test on whether CO2 is a pollutant - scientifically and legally. If reason prevails, it may discourage states and other entities from enacting legislation and scotch actions of certain shareholders against corporations.
For example, a Connecticut bill to control GH gas emissions calls for reduction to 1990 levels by 2010, to 10% below by 2020, and 75 to 85% below 2001 levels by 2050. All we can say to companies in CT: Come to Virginia!.
========================
Another fight is shaping up in California, where the CARB (Cal Air Resources Board) plans to fore automakers to reduce CO2 emissions by 30%, starting with model year 2009. Northeastern states, incl. NY, are likely to follow if the plan stands up to legal challenges.. A lawsuit is widely expected on the grounds that federal fuel economy regulations supersede California's authority to regulate carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant but a greenhouse gas alleged to cause global warming.
================================
The Democratic platform makes no mention of climate issues or the Kyoto Protocol. But as the Wash Times reports in an editorial Aug 5, 2004:
Unlike her husband, who evidently did not possess the political courage to explain the costs Americans would bear under the Kyoto global-warming protocol, during her convention speech Mrs. [Teresa] Heinz Kerry pledged that in a Kerry administration "global climate change and other threats to the health of our planet will begin to be reversed." The "moral nation" that her husband would lead would "reject thoughtless and greedy choices" that the Bush-Cheney administration presumably made. Such a "moral nation" is one that "leads" through the "power of its example," lectured Mrs. Heinz Kerry, whose current wealth has been conservatively estimated to be at least $1 billion and as much as $3.2 billion, according to an analysis of public records by the Los Angeles Times.

***********************************************************************

3. Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) takes stand on global warming
An e-mail report by a participant, British scientist Piers Corbyn

The Russian Academy of Sciences organized an International Seminar on Climate Change in Moscow 5-8 July 2004 to give a balanced view -- and to counter claims by the 'Global Warmers' in particular by a British Team led by Sir David King (the UK Govt's Chief Scientific Adviser) and Sir John Houghton (former Director General of the UK Met Office).

The Russian Academy of Sciences had already taken the position that 'There is no scientific basis for the Kyoto protocol'. [See below]

The event gave the British team a great opportunity to argue their case but they completely failed to do so. Sir John was unable to answer questions and referred them all to understudies who did not give satisfactory answers. Sir David also failed to answer questions and indeed walked out at the start of the second day (after talking at great length beyond his original time) while 'answering' -- saying that he had 'no more time and had to see a minister'.

It appears the British Government Team, after failing to prevent the international science team - of which I was part - from speaking, resorted to spoiling tactics because they were unable to answer questions. They subsequently tried to portray the event as somehow 'taken over' by others/Russian officials and 'unlike anything they have ever seen'. It was indeed unlike any scientific event I have ever seen but for no reason other than the inappropriate behaviour of the British Government's Official Team.


KEY POINTS from the International Seminar

1. World Temperatures do not follow CO2 levels and indeed the warmest periods in the last 2,000 years were the Roman period and the Medieval period which were both warmer than present and had lower CO2 levels {various speakers - William Kininmonth Australian Climate Research, Piers Corbyn Weather Action London etc}.

2. Solar particles decisively affect World temperatures.
There is a much better correlation between world temperatures and particles than between World temperatures and CO2 levels {Piers Corbyn, Weather Action London}.

3. There is no significant Sea level rise - in particular the Maldives are in no danger of submergence - sea level having gone down there in the last 75 years {Prof Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University}.

4. There is no climate-induced increased danger of tropical diseases, e.g. malaria, since it is not itself a tropical disease - having been prevalent in Russia and Britain at various times and is in fact encouraged by sunlit pools not climatic warmth {Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute Paris}.

5. There is no discernible link between Global warming & (dangerous) Extreme weather. Indeed, the British Govt delegation specifically said they did not claim any increase in storms due to man-made CO2. {Madhav L Khandekar, consulting meteorologist, Ontario Canada, and also William Kininmonth)}.
=================================================

A comment from Dutch economist Hans Labohm

Dutch economist Labohm describes his personal encounter with the global warming issue -- and especially the science behind the Kyoto Protocol

"During the same period, in personal discussions with scientists, one of them confided to me that man-made global warming was the greatest scientific swindle of the 20th century. Since I had already acquired the same feeling, I asked him whether I could quote him in my publications. But he declined. Apparently this issue did not lend itself to freedom of speech.

At that time it was still pretty difficult to pinpoint where things went astray. But in the course of my further investigations I came across many instances of invocation of scientific authority to 'prove' points, illogical reasoning, political pressure, refusal to take cognizance of contrarian views, derision of opponents, suppression of crucial information, falsification and manipulation of scientific data, intimidation and even expulsion of scientists who did not adhere to the man-made global warming paradigm, etc. In short, all the tricks in the book, which looked so familiar to me in the light of experience that I had gained during earlier parts of my career in a totally different field.

And indeed, on 7 and 8 July 2004, the Russians convened a new seminar on the issue on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol, the outcome of which seems to overturn the earlier impression of a Russian volte-face in the face of political pressure from the EU.

As during an earlier conference on climate change in Moscow, the economic adviser of President Putin, Andrei Illarionov played a prominent role. During a press conference after the meeting, Illarionov complained that the Russians have repeatedly asked their foreign partners who advocate the Kyoto Protocol and who insist that Russia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, to answer a number of specific questions. But they did not receive any reply for a year. Illarionov:

'Instead of getting replies to our questions, we kept on hearing that replies did not matter. What was important is that whether or not Russia trusts Britain, the European Union and the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and that have been exerting unprecedented pressure on Russia to ratify it. This is why it was so important for us to arrange a real meeting and a real discussion of real problems with the participation of foreign scientists who have different views ....'

After having complained about the behaviour of the British delegation, headed by Sir David King, who - unsuccessfully - tried to exclude certain 'undesirable' scientists from taking the floor, Illarionov went on to criticize the ideological and philosophical basis on which the Kyoto Protocol is built:

'That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.'

Labohm's conclusion:
"The man-made global warming paradigm is about to collapse. In its wake the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) process will have to change tack. In the meantime, the Kyoto Treaty seems to be moribund."
=========================================

Opinion of the RAS Council-workshop on possible anthropogenic climate change and on the issue of Kyoto Protocol
Discussed and approved at the Council-workshop on 14.05.04

Due to the fact that Russia has been called many times to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the near future, President Putin in his welcoming speech at the opening of the World Climate Change Conference (WCCC) on 29 September 2003 said the following: "The Russian Government carefully considers the issue and all the complex problems linked to this problem. Decision will be made after this work is completed. And, of course, taking into account Russia's national interests".

Under Putin's initiative, the Scientific Council-workshop under the RAS was set up and, starting with 16 January, has held 8 workshops on the issue of 'possibility of preventing anthropogenic climate change and its negative impacts, and on the issue of Kyoto Protocol'. President of RAS, Academician Yu. Osipov opened the set of workshops. On behalf of Russian authorities, Andrei Illarionov formulated questions that the workshop needed to address.

The Council comprises 28 well-known experts, most of whom are members of the RAS. Presentations/reports at the workshops were made by: Academician Osipov, Academician Izrael, Illarionov, Adviser to V. Putin, Academician L'vov, corresponding member of RAS Danilov-Danilyan, Drs. Roginko, Yakovlev, Nakhutin, Professor Gruza (twice), corresponding member of RAS Mokhov, Academician Dymnikov, Academician Golitsyn, Professor Sorokhtin, Academician Demirchyan (twice), Professor Gorshkov, Academician Zavarzin, Professor Semyonov, corresponding member of RAS Makarov.

Presentations were based on the scientists' personal results of research, work of national and international scientists and institutions, IPCC analytical reports, which are the result of joint work of scientists from different countries (including Russian representatives).

The workshop considered both fundamental issues, which require long-term research, and issues on which some general understanding already exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the Council have agreed on the following:

1. Climate Change. The scientists agree with the estimation of the climate warming in the XX century (0,6??±0,2?? of the global averaged air surface temperature for the last 100 years) given in the last IPCC report (2001).

2. What causes global warming? Various hypotheses were proposed. Part of the scientists agree that the main cause of the warming is ??2 and other GHGs. There was also expressed an opinion about other/different mechanisms of the temperature changes. It was underlined that there is a high degree of uncertainty that global warming is caused by anthropogenic factor.

3. Role of CO2. Along with hydrothermal regime, CO2 is an important factor of bioproductivity.

4. Projects/scenarios of future climate change. Many scientists have a positive attitude to results of calculations done with the use of big models. At the same time, it is emphasized that there are certain uncertainties when working with the models.

5. Balance of carbon in Nature. Concerns were expressed by the fact that at present time the science has no reliable enough data on the balance of carbon in Nature. Nowadays, qualitative assessments of the role of oceans, soil and biota in the processes of the CO2 absorption and exchange with the atmosphere are not adequate.

6. Evaluation of general ecological and economic damage as a result of global warming. At present, quantitative estimations of general ecological and economic damage from global warming, which would make possible to take valid decisions on measures to prevent climate change, do not exist.

7. Cost of preventing global warming. The suggested (by the IPCC) high cost (tens of billions of dollars for 100 years) of measures aimed at stabilising concentrations of ??2 in the atmosphere at the level of 450 mln-1 is causing serious concern.

8. Levels of maximum permitted concentration. There is a lack of scientifically based knowledge of levels of "dangerous anthropogenic concentration" of GHGs (and in particular of ??2) and this is identified by the main objective of the Climate Convention; although it is possible that it may prove to be impossible to reach the decision.

9. Kyoto Protocol. Geophysical aspects. The scientists took into account Mr Bolin's (Chairman of IPCC) estimation, which says that if all countries accept the agreed commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the level of CO2 concentration (without taking into account the withdrawal of the US from the Protocol) will only be reduced by 1-1,5 mln-1 for the period of 10 years; for the same period of time general levels of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase by 20 mln-1 with general current concentration of 370 mln-1. So, the effect of the Kyoto Protocol for the period of 10 years from the point of view of slowing down levels of CO2 concentrations could make the maximum of 0.3% from today's levels of concentration (taking into account the US withdrawal from the Protocol).
According to the IPCC data, in order to stabilize CO2 concentration at the level of 550 mln-1 (which is 50% higher than today's level), CO2 emissions level will need to be reduced two times in the period of 100 years. In other words, present emissions, as written in the Annex to the Protocol, if repeated over the next 100 years, will only make up 1-2% of the amount, necessary to stabilize the reduction.
Many scientists state a complete lack of a scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol and its (Protocol's) inefficiency in achieving the final goal of the Convention as stated in Article 2.

10. Kyoto Protocol. Economic aspects. The workshop considered several results of calculations (using different scenarios) of increase of CO2 emissions linked to GDP growth in Russia (including the situation with doubling GDP over the period of 10 years). The calculations have substantial uncertainties.
According to the scenario, based on the data of the International Energy Agency (2024 Gt CO2 in 1990), with average annual GDP growth at the level of 7.2% (corresponding to doubling GDP in the period of 10 years), Russia's limit of CO2 emissions will be reached in 2009, with GDP growth at the level of 6.2% (prognosis of the Russian Government) - in 2010, with GDP growth at the level of 8% (possible accelerated development of the economy) - in 2008.
Thus, if the plans for social and economic development of the country are successfully implemented, Russia will reach the 1990 levels between 2008 and 2010.

11. Kyoto Protocol. Ethical aspects. Some countries are being unfair in putting forward (possible) ethical accusation that the Russian Federation, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, does not make any input in tackling the issue of global warming. By significantly reducing CO2 emissions in 1990 - 1998, Russia compensated almost 40% of CO2 emissions by other countries between 1990 - 2001.
Russia extracts and exports to other countries of the world substantial volumes of natural gas (energy resource with low carbon-intensity) and these exports are not credited to Russia in terms of global CO2 reduction.
Russia's withdrawal from the Protocol (in case of its ratification) after the first period, especially, if Russia really manages to "earn" from using its mechanisms, would be an extremely unethical act from the point of view of international relations. Russia would be severely criticized (and in this case it would deserve it) at all international forums. Apart from that, financial sanctions could be used.

12. Discriminatory nature of Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto Protocol is of a discriminatory character for Russia:
- Russia's temperature regime, as the coldest country in the world, was not taken into consideration when preparing the Protocol;
- Russia was not credited with the total volume of forests as a factor of absorbing CO2 (unlike some other countries);
- when Russia sells natural gas, its price does not include Russia's transfer of CO2 quotas to countries that purchase the gas
- Kyoto project mechanisms give advantages to developing countries at the expense of Russia.
- --------------------------------------------------------

General conclusions

1. KP does not have a scientific basis.
2. KP is not effective enough to achieve the IPCC aims, for which KP was actually developed (stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system).
3. Climate warming in Russia - the coldest country in the world - has a range of serious positive effects (heating, transport, agriculture, growth of biomass, etc). Possible negative effects need to be into account as well (for permafrost areas, including such issues as loss of stability of constructions). Complex calculations/estimations of possible consequences of climate change for Russian economy and social sphere are needed.
4. With the supposed GDP doubling over the period of 10 years, it is necessary to admit that there are serious economic risks even in the first period of the Protocol. In future, Russia's economic losses will grow. Russia's withdrawal from the Protocol at later stages will be linked to serious legal and image consequences.
5. Ratification of the Protocol under conditions when there is a sustainable link between ??2 emissions and economic growth, based on the carbon fuel, means substantial legal limitation to the pace of Russian GDP growth.
6. Discussions at workshops showed the need for substantial increase in climatic research. A complex intergovernmental research programme on climate change and its impact on economic and social spheres in Russia must be implemented.
7. In the course of workshops serious environmental, economic and social problems, linked to climate change have been revealed. These problems need to be considered not only by scientific organizations, but also by legislative and executive authorities in Russia.
8. It is expedient to continue the work of the Council.
=================================
SEPP Comment: The Russian Academy is the only one so far to take a stand against Kyoto and the underlying science. By contrast, the Royal Society (UK), under its president Sir Robert May, took the lead in endorsing global warming scares and trying to persuade other national academies to join. The US National Academy of Sciences has declined the invitation.

***********************************************************************

4. Solar Activity and Temperatures in Recent Decades:
Challenging the Paradigm of Global Warming
By S. Fred Singer (8/4/04)

Summary: Several researchers have pointed to an apparent puzzle: A global warming since 1980 without a corresponding increase in solar activity. They therefore blame the warming on greenhouse effects. The simple solution may just be that the alleged global warming is NOT taking place - as already suggested by other evidence
------------------------------------------

The index of solar irradiance aligns closely with global surface temperatures till about 1980 (Pang and Yau 2002) but not thereafter. Peter Foukal, in a publication in Eos in 2003, noted that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

According to a Max Planck Society press release (Aug 2, 2004), based on Solanki (2004)
"How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?
Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming"
An earlier comment by Solanki:
"However another important finding… was that the number of sunspots has remained constant since 1980, while the Earth has continued to warm up….It means that the very rapid rise in temperatures over the past two to three decades has definitely not been caused by the sun, but rather by other causes, primarily man-made greenhouse gases...."

Ilya Usoskin commented 7/28/04
The solar activity has not increased during the last 50 years, that's true. It was greatly increased before 1940s but this follows not from Be-10 records but from direct solar observations.
Usoskin on 7/29/04
"The solar activity was rising up steeply in the beginning of 20th century, roughly from 1900 to 1940. Since that it stays at this unprecedented high level without further increase (or even slightly decreasing if one takes into account the present 23rd solar cycle). Therefore, there is no contradiction: the Sun is unusually active since 1940 on the millennium time scale but the activity level did not grow since 1940
The fact that the present sun is unusually active is known from telescopic sunspot observations since 1610 AD, i.e. roughly for 400 years and is not related to cosmogenic isotope data. Using the Be-10 data and our physical reconstruction, we have shown that this statement (on the unusually active present sun) can be made since 850 AD, i.e. for the 1150 years period."

Conclusion: We have a different interpretation of the alleged disparity between solar observations and surface temperature data of the past 25 years. The simplest explanation of why there is a claimed warming --- without an increase in solar brightness -may be that the observations are wrong and that THERE IS NO REAL WARMING in the past 25 years. Indeed, this is suggested by all other evidence from satellites and balloons (Douglass et al 2004). See also Seidel et al 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:

Douglass, David H.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 31, No. 13, L13208. 10.1029/2004GL020103 09 July 2004

Douglass, David H.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred; Knappenberger, Paul C.; Michaels, Patrick J. Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 31, L13207. 10.1029/2004GL020212 09 July 2004

Foukal, P. 2003. Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and climate? EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 84: 205, 208.

Pang, K.D. and Yau, K.K.2002. Ancient observations link changes in sun's brightness and earth's climate. Eos 83, 481-89-90

Seidel, Dian J., J.K. Angell, J. Christy, M. Free, S.A. Klein, J.R. Lanzante, C. Mears, D. Parker, M. Schabel, R. Spencer, A. Sterin, P. Thorne, and F. Wentz, 2004. Uncertainty in signals of large-scale climate variations in radiosonde and satellite upper-air temperature datasets. Journal of Climate Vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 22252240, June 2004, online
<http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/djs0401.pdf>

Seidel, Dian J., and John R. Lanzante, 2004. An assessment of three alternatives to linear trends for characterizing global atmospheric temperature changes. J. Geophys. Res. Atm., 109, D14108, doi:10.1029/2003JD004414, July 29, 2004

Solanki, Sami K., and Natalie A. Krivova, 2003. Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970? J. Geophys. Res., 108 (A5), 1200, doi:10.1029/2002JA009753, May 21, 2003; Krivova Natalie A., and Sami K. Solanki, 2004. Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850. Advances in Space Research Vol. 34, No 2, pp. 361-364, 2004)

Usoskin, I. G., et al. Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s. Physical Review Letters, 21 November 2003, Vol 91, No 21
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf

Ilya G. Usoskin [Sodankyla¨ Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland]
Sami K. Solanki and Manfred Schussler [Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany]
Kalevi Mursula and Katja Alanko [Department of Physical Sciences, University of Oulu, FIN-90014 Oulu, Finland]

*********************************************************************

5. .The BBC Promotes Global Warming Scares

A series of three programmes kicked off with Sir David King and Sir Crispin Tickell doing an ace scare-mongering exercise on man-made GW and claiming that man can do something about climate change. All backed by scientists in far flung-places, Arctic, Alaska, China, Maldives, etc. The programme didn't allow a shred of doubt about the whole scenario.

Here is the BBC blurb:
Is global warming a bigger threat than terrorism?
Climate change poses a bigger threat to the planet than terrorism - so says the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King.
Droughts, forest-fires, heat waves, floods and storms have all hit the headlines in recent years.
The World Health Organisation's Europe Global Change and Health Programme has estimated that more than 25,000 people died in last year's European heat wave.
Most mainstream scientists believe that human activity - notably emissions of greenhouse gases - has contributed to a detectable increase in the average surface temperature of the planet.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair says addressing climate change is his key priority during the UK's chairing of the G8.
The Pentagon says climate change should be "elevated beyond a scientific debate to a national security concern."
How serious is the threat of climate change? Whose job is it to tackle it - governments, companies or individuals? Do you believe your actions can make a difference - and do you care enough to try?
**********************************************************************

6. My Encounter with Michael Meacher on BBC

"Former Labour Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Dr S. Fred Singer, president of the US-based Science and Environment Policy Project, answered your questions in a special interactive programme on the BBC on July 30 - the final installment in a series."

Some of my British friends were rather upset by the program and felt I got too little time. I thought it was a unique opportunity to inform the public that the scientific evidence does not support global warming and that there is as yet NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

However, I was disappointed by Mr. Meacher's wild claims -- some of which are neatly contradicted in the current issue of The Economist. I also received some revealing information about Meacher (see below) that might explain why he was dropped (fired?) from the British government. I conclude he is neither serious nor credible -- on any issue -- and regret that the BBC chose to pair me with him. About the best one can do is to clean up after him.

Link to the recording of the programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3929425.stm

===========
From the Guardian (UK) Sept 6, 2003

Mr. Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green lobby, also claims in an article in today's Guardian that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings.

He also criticises the British government, claiming it is motivated, as is the US, by a desire for oil.

The US government last night expressed abhorrence at Mr Meacher's views. An embassy spokesman in London said: "Mr Meacher's fantastic allegations - especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.
***************************************************************************

7. Canada Drops Environment Minister Anderson from Cabinet

Peter O'Neil
CanWest News Service
National Post, July 30, 2004

Former environment minister David Anderson said yesterday he was dumped from cabinet because Prime Minister Paul Martin, despite campaigning to appeal to left-of-centre voters during the election, capitulated to right-wing pressure.
One of Mr. Anderson's sharpest critics yesterday dismissed such claims.
"The National Post and the Financial Post have certainly published many columns and commentaries on Mr. Anderson's global warming crusade, but to imagine that our newspaper also somehow joined a backroom cabal to apply pressure on Mr. Martin to dump Mr. Anderson is sheer fantasy," said Terence Corcoran, the Financial Post's editor-in-chief. "From my experience, Mr. Martin has paid not the slightest attention to anything I've written on any subject before. Why would he suddenly bow to my critiques of Mr. Anderson?"
A July 13 editorial in the Post's Comment pages said: "We'd like to see David Anderson dropped altogether from Cabinet. Perhaps no other minister is more abrasive, less tolerant of dissent and more the captive of his radical bureaucrats."
=========================================================
A Canadian comment (Allen MacRae on Anderson)
I have come to the reluctant conclusion that Kyoto is supported by scoundrels and imbeciles The former are well-informed of the fraudulent IPCC science position and yet promote it, while the latter are taken in by these falsehoods when there is ample public evidence to the contrary. With his latest wild claims, David Anderson seems to fit well into both groups.
=================================================
SEPP Comment: First Meacher in UK, then Christy Whitman in Washington, now David Anderson in Ottawa. Will Jurgen Trittin be next? Will chancellor Schroeder have the courage to do what is necessary to save the German economy from this madman?
*********************************************************************

8. Weather Warnings in Britain - A spoof

From EnviroSpin Watch, 26 July 2004
http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_greenspin_archive.html#109078274182540505

Severe Weather Warning: A deep depression will move quickly over BBC Television Centre in London, leading to dramatic weather on BBC News Programmes from Wednesday through to Friday. Particularly at risk from Hurricane 'Hype' will be BBC News 24, BBC World Television, and the BBC 1 Breakfast Show. Also expect doom-laden cumulonimbus clouds at lunchtimes, leading to fearful flooding down many BBC channels. There could also be KING-sized outbreaks of thunder and lightning, not to mention a rising tide of calamitous comment, especially around MEACHERingham.

The week will start fitfully, with scattered storms and a cold wind blowing in from Tory Central Office and Kent, flattening wind turbines from Romney Marsh to Ross. Outbursts of hot air will then coalesce to produce a dynamic cyclonic gloom, which will occlude all other responses. Temperatures are expected to rise in studios throughout the UK.

The week should also witness the migration to the UK of the now nearly extinct stormbird (Carbonicus dioxidus var. aypeeseesee), which is noted for its repeated shrill cry of: "Kyyyyotooo! Kyyyyotooo!" The UK is one of the last refugia for this doomed bird of ill omen, which may have just become extinct on the Russian steppes.

Luckily, the human impact will be limited to a few remaining journalists, some of whom will sadly drown themselves in the deluge, while everybody else, including most politicians, will ha